Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
What you call 'modern history' is nothing more than history which was what commanderkai was talking about. 'Ancient history'. You were stating that we started it because before the terrorist attacks we were involved in a couple of muslim countries. What he is talking about is that if you go a step further into ancient times than they started it.
Since you were the only trying to use history to make your point, you can't just say only modern history counts just to valid your point. Secondly if my history is correct, Iraq was originally invaded by the U.S. because of Iraq agression with one of there neighbour countries. It was Iraq's agression that lead to there invasion. Just because it wasn't of a western country doesn't mean that we started anything. Iraq ignored the warnings and did what they did.
No. Modern history is quite correct. Take a look at the history of the middle-east to see the extent of western (mostly British) interference. They even drew up the borders for petes sake with little input from the regional people and when we were off killing 10s of millions of each other in world wars they weren't the problem were they?
BTW, if you even try and support the US's invasion of Iraq based on Iraqs aggression then be prepared to accept that the US is ripe for invasion by any number of countries where they have openly or covertly supported terrorist groups against them.
In addition if gulf 1 was a legit response due to the invasion of kuwait then gulf 2 was an illegal war and that the US should now be invaded under the same rules.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm This busts any attempt to paint the current iraq war was anything but illegal. The only reason the US is getting away with it is because they are too large for all but a few nations and its actually in those nations best interest that the US dig itself deeper and deeper into debt in a pointless war.
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
England? The crusades was a multi-nation effort involving all Catholic Nations. Like the Muslim version Jihad or like modern day NATO. Multi-nation effort. Has nothing to do with just england. Again you can't start something by labeling history as your backing and stop when somebody takes that history lesson further and say it doesn't count. Look at Israel's beef with Muslim Countries. That goes back into Ancient times and has never been forgotten by either side.
Wrongo mate. I mentioned England because they are but one country
uninvaded by muslims who in fact are guilty of invading them. I won't even bother mentioning the fact that christianity was spread by the sword long before islam was even a religion.
In addition, it was the romans who drove the jews out of Palestine not the muslims. In fact up until they started leaving the enlightened European nations because of persecution there was only a small (~2-3%) jewish population living there in peace. Actually before the last 60 or so years many muslims nations had jewish populations living in peace as well as christian groups.
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
People had no problem supporting the war on 'terror' after the terrorist attacks. We went to war because we were attacked and we were determined to take out every one of those terrorists and make sure they can't require or operate anymore which lead to a later goal to stabalize the country so terrorists can't use it as a recruiting grounds anymore.
Propaganda and propaganda that completely ignores the fact that the US had no intention of invading Afghanistan (despite knowing what they were) both pre and post 9/11 as long as they got a head on a platter for PR purposes, that head being OBL.
It ignores the fact that prior to the US invading Iraq they were no Al queda terrorists working out of the region or in cahoots with saddam and that he was the least religiously fundemental leader in the region which is entirely why he was backed by the US even after he took power in a less then bloodless manner.
The US didn't care a fig about the lives of the people in either region and in fact weren't in the least concerned with dealing with terrorists because thats entirely what they did when they trained guys like OBL and Taliban creator Omar. In fact they played up the whole warriors of god angle because they wanted to give the USSR its own vietnam. They funded, trained, recruited, and supported the very terrorists who would turn around and bite them on the ass.
Don't talk about how the US is justified in its actions when more then any other country in the world is responsible for its current woes.
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
What's all this other rubbish? Terrorists use religion to recruit muslims to do there bidding. Muslims use religion for personal peace of mind. Also when 9/11 happened, nobody thought it was muslims. The idea that muslims were going on a world wide killing spree hadn't crossed anybody's mind unti'll after that day when it was clear that all the hi-jackers were muslim terrorists and that there were many other incidents in many other countries.
Yeah, thats why there wasn't a distinct anti-muslim sentiment prevailing in society at the time. Its certianly not how bush was able to lie, cheat, and trick the US into supporting 2 invasions either.
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
Also after 9/11 everybody was shocked about what happened so a lot of people backed bush's pack of lies. It's probally why he got re-elected. Nobody considers this a war against Islam. That's just stupid and retarded. This is a war on terror and that is the direct term used by everybody. We are at war with terrorists and those terrorists that attacked us were from muslim nations.
So violence against the US was how the US leader was able to convince its people to support an invasion against 2 countries that had nothing to do with attacking them yet you can't see how the violence being used by the US is exactly how the other guys are convincing their guys in a reciprocal way?
Think about it. We wave the flag and use patriotism to silence the war dissenters while they use religion and faith.
The fact is that some people on this forum alone
consider it a war against the religion and believe that
muslims must be forced to adopt peaceful attitudes by force of arms. Its easy to see how and why they both think and say we are at war with their religion.
Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:
If we were at war with islam or all muslims, we wouldn't be spending billions of dollars for more smarter weapons and other gadgets to avoide civilian casuality. Neither would we be wasting time training them a army and police force and re-stabalizing there government and helping them re-build there country and even paying there citizens to help us do it like re-building water purification systems, etc.
Neither would we risk our own soldiers lives to clear all the mines and IED's the taliban have places that many citizens can trigger the next time they drive.
Yes we would. We would very much do this. It enables us to control their society and steer it towards what we want. Subject their children to our teachings through various influences, something our own society recognizes as the idea of exposing out children to islamic teachings in almost any way draws cries of outrage.
Our side is dependent on political support. We most certainly would and are doing all this at face value in order to achieve that support from the people.
BTW, I'm not making the argument that we are at war with islam. I'm explaining
how they can thing that and why they would think that.
CKA Elite 
