• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dozens held after Islamists attack Algerian gas field!!!![W:280]

Of course it "could be said". It could also be said that World War 1 was simply the result of nations fulfilling their treaty obligations.

The point is that you have not made your claim. Best wait a while before you pretend to have an understanding of the situation.

Of course I'm not all that surprised that there are those who would immediately take the side of the Islamists against the French.
 
Exactly. But what can be done to discourage Islamic hatred against Israel and other western countries?

World freedom and development.
 
World freedom and development.

Easier said than done.

During the Cold War everyone knew, or could have known, about the mass killings and infinite atrocities carried out by the Communists and yet the Leftists were still anti American, anti Democracy and marched for the Communists and rallied against their own leaders.

And now we see the same pattern here. If you point out the Islamist murders of innocent people, the hatreds, the lack of basic human rights, they will insist that you are the 'hater'. These are people who are a throwback to the herd mentality of the Fascists, Nazis, Communists and all who have gone before them.

There is certainly something dark and evil that lurks near the surface of a great many human beings.
 
The point is that you have not made your claim. Best wait a while before you pretend to have an understanding of the situation.

Of course I'm not all that surprised that there are those who would immediately take the side of the Islamists against the French.

Best not pretend you have an understanding of the situation, if that's what you think the sides are.
 
It is edifying to see in here the usual suspects all lined up in the expected positions.
 
"In the long term, France has interests in securing resources in the Sahel - particularly oil and uranium, which the French energy company Areva has been extracting for decades in neighboring Niger," said Sold.

The interests behind France's intervention in Mali | World | DW.DE | 16.01.2013

It's quite obvious why France is involved in Mali. I don't see how you could dispute this.

Tad naive to think its just about oil and uranium. It's about trade of all goods and services to and from Mali (and the surrounding region), which requires a functional government, secure borders and a secure population. Certainly the Islamists stand in opposition to that and they don't in any way represent the Malian population. So even assuming purely resource driven interests on the part of the French, why exactly would one sympathise with the minority Islamists (with their own foreign backers) operating their kangaroo courts and summary amputations plus their hostage taking colleagues abroad over the French?
 
Tad naive to think its just about oil and uranium. It's about trade of all goods and services to and from Mali (and the surrounding region), which requires a functional government, secure borders and a secure population. Certainly the Islamists stand in opposition to that and they don't in any way represent the Malian population. So even assuming purely resource driven interests on the part of the French, why exactly would one sympathise with the minority Islamists (with their own foreign backers) operating their kangaroo courts and summary amputations plus their hostage taking colleagues abroad over the French?

One doesn't have to be a Islamist sympathizer to question the wisdom of bombing a poor nation, especially a former colony. The Taliban sucked, but bombing Afghanistan made things worse for the people in that country.
 
One doesn't have to be a Islamist sympathizer to question the wisdom of bombing a poor nation,

Better to bomb rich nations?

especially a former colony.

What's the difference whether it was a former colony or not?
The Taliban sucked,

Indeed! have you heard what they have done to women and little girls?

but bombing Afghanistan made things worse for the people in that country.

How so? which bombing are you referring to?

But in any case this thread concerns what's going on in Mali.
 
Dozens held after Islamists attack Algerian gas field!!!!!!!!

One doesn't have to be a Islamist sympathizer to question the wisdom of bombing a poor nation, especially a former colony. The Taliban sucked, but bombing Afghanistan made things worse for the people in that country.

An odd comparison. Did the Taliban invite NATO in to fight Al Qaeda?
 
Why all the concern? Our president told us that, 'Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat...' back in October.
 
Exactly. But what can be done to discourage Islamic hatred against Israel and other western countries?

1. Stop pretending like history never happened and acting as if "they only hate us for our freedom" and/or plan to conquer the world. We (USA and Europe) have given much of the Muslim world good reasons to hate us through our interference in internal affairs, violence and support of brutal dictators.


2.Engage and influence in a friendly way, but criticize when it comes to human rights violations. Look at how much relations between the USA and China and Viet Nam improved when we stopped bombing them and/or undermining their government. The behavior of those countries also improved when they were no longer isolated from the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Better to bomb rich nations?

No, but we haven't done that lately.

What's the difference whether it was a former colony or not?

Former colonies usually don't appreciate having their former oppressors coming back to interfere with their

How so? which bombing are you referring to?

But in any case this thread concerns what's going on in Mali.

The point is that bombing and occupation is not a good strategy, especially when dealing with guerrilla fighters. In fact, we haven't won a war that way since WWII.
 
Dozens held after Islamists attack Algerian gas field!!!!!!!!

Let's get real. These places are third world. They are in states of perpetual violence. We aren't going to make anything better. The best bet for the U.S. is to protect our citizens only. No military involvement. Honestly. Who cares about these places? We can't help them all, and we really can't help one. All we can do is sit back and wait for the people to get sick of sharia Islam and let them kill of the lunatics. It worked in Europe around the Protestant reformation. Maybe we can just let them get sorted on their own, and maybe keep the Nuts out of our countries. Europe and China are the primary Mid East oil exporters. Let them deal with it.
 
1. Stop pretending like history never happened and acting as if "they only hate us for our freedom" and/or plan to conquer the world. We (USA and Europe) have given much of the Muslim world good reasons to hate us through our interference in internal affairs, violence and support of brutal dictators.

2.Engage and influence in a friendly way, but criticize when it comes to human rights violations. Look at how much relations between the USA and China and Viet Nam improved when we stopped bombing them and/or undermining their government. The behavior of those countries also improved when they were no longer isolated from the rest of the world.

What did the other 76 or so countries do to deserve to be attacked and conquered by Islamic Jihadists?

Rep. Ron Paul, for example, is notorious for discounting the role of Islam itself as the main reason for Islamic aggression.

You seem to subscribe to the faulty notion that Jihadists can be successfully reasoned with. My impression is that this only occurs when the gains secured by the Muslims are carelessly valued by the Westerner.
 
What did the other 76 or so countries do to deserve to be attacked and conquered by Islamic Jihadists?

I didn't use the word deserve. I acknowledge that many of the civil wars/aggressions are motivated by an attempt to impose Islamist rule, but that is not the case with the attacks on the USA and Europe.


Rep. Ron Paul, for example, is notorious for discounting the role of Islam itself as the main reason for Islamic aggression.

I think he is correct on that matter.

You seem to subscribe to the faulty notion that Jihadists can be successfully reasoned with. My impression is that this only occurs when the gains secured by the Muslims are carelessly valued by the Westerner.

Reasoning with any fanatic is very difficult to impossible, but that is why it is important not to lump all Muslims together, there are moderate Muslims. Also, with time the fanatics will lose their grip on power as a new generation comes up and sees the disadvantages of their regime. I suspect Iran would be more moderate by now if the people weren't united by feeling constantly threatened by the west, which encourages more support for the current regime.

Also, I don't oppose the use of force by nations facing violence from Jihadists, I oppose outside participation by the west.

I don't understand your intent with the last sentence.
 
Turkey has a population that is mostly Muslim yet most of its citizens support having a secular government. This is also true in several other Muslim majority nations.

From my understanding Turkey is largely an outlier when considering attitudes in the islamic world

<<<Muslims in Nigeria and in nearly all of the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their countries’ politics.

In Indonesia, about nine-in-ten Muslims (91%) either say that their religion plays a large role in politics and that this is a good thing or that Islam plays a small role and that this is a bad thing. Similarly, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt (85%), Nigeria (82%) and Jordan (76%) consider Islamic influence over political life to be a positive thing for their country, as do 69% of Muslims in Pakistan and 58% in Lebanon.

Only in Turkey are opinions about the role of Islam in political life more mixed. About four-in-ten (38%) Turkish Muslims say Islam plays a large role and embrace its influence in their country’s politics or say it is bad that Islam plays only a small role; about three-in-ten (31%) say Islam’s influence is negative.>>>

Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project
 
What is the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim?

Why not just come out and say that the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by Muslims?

Everyone knows the truth about the "religion of peace" anyway.

Because you know doesn't mean you are allowed to say!
 
Some of these hostages have now been killed.
 
To be fair, not every Muslim is an extremist jihadi just like not every Christian is Eric Rudolph.

Eric Rudolph was not a Christian.

In a letter to his parents from prison, Rudolph has written, "Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible

Eric Rudolph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do wish people would get their facts straight.
 
What is the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim?

Why not just come out and say that the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by Muslims?

Everyone knows the truth about the "religion of peace" anyway.

Probably for the same reason we don't say "The christians are at it again" when the Westboro Baptist fanatics are protesting soldier's funerals.

Fringe radicalists aren't representative of 1.8 billion muslims.
 
You are ignoring the impact of decades of American and European interference in middle eastern affairs which includes deposing democratically elected leaders, assassinations, bribery, and political and financial support of brutal dictators that got rich by impoverishing their countries. One reason the Islamists have flourished in recent years is that many of the USA supported dictators were more tolerant of religious organizations, even those with extremist views, than they were of any form of political dissent. Add to the mix our unwarranted bombings, invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the extra-judicial incarcerations, torture and murders and it is little wonder why those who hate the west may be gaining influence.

Do people from other countries deal directly with you about anything? International affairs are government to government. If the governments in the middle east didn't want us there we wouldn't be there. Those governments are trying to preserve some semblance of economic security for those who want to work and live like human beings. That is why we are there. Because the governments have asked us to help them.
 
Last edited:
Probably for the same reason we don't say "The christians are at it again" when the Westboro Baptist fanatics are protesting soldier's funerals.

Fringe radicalists aren't representative of 1.8 billion muslims.

What hostages has WBC taken? Who have they killed? Pissing you off is not moral equivalency with islamic violenc and murder. And FYI: our SCOTUS has held in favor of WBC. Look it up.
 
What hostages has WBC taken? Who have they killed? Pissing you off is not moral equivalency with islamic violenc and murder. And FYI: our SCOTUS has held in favor of WBC. Look it up.

Calm down there, home slice. I don't recall saying they've taken hostages, killed anybody, or said that the supreme court has ruled against them. So why you're talking to me about it is absolutely baffling.

I just recall saying there are radicals in every religion, and they're not representative of the entire religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom