How US is fuelling hatred + sustaining terrorism

I'm no fan of the Obama regime. However, in the Islamic-majority Mid-East, the insurgent/terrorist/whatever players there do not wear uniforms and obey the rules of war. It is much safer to send in drones. It saves the lives of our troops.

To stop unwanted attacks on civilians by drones, air strikes, direct fire etc., the people of the Mid-East must adopt the Western Code of Honor.

Terrorists should not live in or near civilian homes. They should always place their bases as far from population centers as possible.

Terrorist should not occupy cities like Fullujah and then complain about collateral damage.

All terrorists not wearing military uniforms and not acting as standardized military forces should expect the same fate as captured partisans during WW2.

Anything less is unacceptable. Any people or government that does not support this Western Code are part of the problem and deserve their fate. Their hatred of justice and fairplay is the problem they themselves need work on.

 

The Western code of honour (Lol) presumably doesn't include the bombing of wedding parties, Fallujah or Halabja? As it ever occured to you that the US and it's allies are terrorists by virtue of the fact that they invaded Iraq? The Iraqi's and others who resist the actions of illegal invaders cannot, by defintion, be terrorists.

 

You aren't getting the point, TMR. The term "islamofascism" is already out there and that's why I'm using it:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/islamofascism

Personally, I'd prefer something like Ideological Islamism as being more accurate, but I'm not in charge of nomenclature for the English language.

Please list the studies in question that looked at the effect on the targeted organizations. I am asserting that the studies in question only looked at the civilian reaction to such strikes and based their conclusions solely on that criteria. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a link to such evidence; if you simply reiterate your first statement (or should that be parrot it?), you prove nothing.

 

Setting aside your ridiculous hyperbole about sabres being WMDs, it's an inconvenient fact that Islamists have been invading, killing and terrorizing non-Muslims and their lands since the dawn of Islam.

I wonder if there were Eurodhimmi idiots around to blame Charles Martel for the Muslim invasion of France and fault him for angering Muslims when he confronted and halted their aggression at Poitiers?

 

How Eurodhimmi invertebrates want Americans to be just like them.

 

Why would anyone buy into your revisionist psychobabble trout?

Has it ever occurred to you that our countries and their allies responded to Baathist Iraq's myriad violations of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreement? Does someone need to explain to you the implications and consequences of violating a ceasefire agreement?

Setting aside the fact that the invasion was legal, yes, the terrorists who opposed it and committed acts of terrorism would, by definition, be terrorists.

 

Many years ago I came across this little book :



You should try persuading yr political leaders to read it and see how it can be adapted to US foreign policies. (wink)

 

I do get it. I understand that the term Islamo-fascism is out there but it's use is normally restricted to those with a pre-conceived political agenda. This is because it's a term that is an ideologically-loaded one. That doesn't negate the fact that it's a nonsensical term as equally absurd as any attempt to attribute terrorism to any other religious grouping would be.

Muslims are no more terrorists or fascists per se as, say, Christians or Jews are. Islamofascism implies that they are. Certainly, there are small groupings of religious fanatics out there whose violent actions are motivated by Salafism, religious Zionism or extreme Christian-based evangelicalism. However, the fascism component is only prefixed to Islam in the generic sense.

We don't do it for any other grouping except for Muslims because there are ideological and political underpinnings to this. Only a propagandist would attempt to deny it.

 

Guns are already working fine. Thanks anyway though.

 

The justification for the invasion was predicated on a pack of lies. The invasion was illegal. End of.

The

 

The justification for the invasion was predicated on Baathist Iraq's numerous violations of the Gulf War I ceasefire agreement (amongst other things). The invasion was legal. End of story.

 

That is a "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

IMO, anonymous users on the internet are a bad way to measure who the "Sensible People" are.

 

I've noticed that it is opposed by people with a pre-conceived political and/or ideological agenda, as well.

Of course, there are people who believe that Islam itself is fascist, and they have their arguments, but for the most part the term was coined and is used as a euphemism for Islamist fascism and groups like the Khomeinists in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and takfirists in general. Quite frankly, the term fits, which is why Muslims like Khalid Duran have no problem using the term.

 

Its absurd to blame the historical fate of the entirety of mankind on the actions of a bunch of mad religiously- motivated Islamists. If you decide to involve yourself in an adult discussion be sure to get back to me..

- - - Updated - - -

Its absurd to blame the historical fate of the entirety of mankind on the actions of a bunch of mad religiously- motivated Islamists. If you decide to involve yourself in an adult discussion be sure to get back to me..

 

Duh - the one that is quoted in your post.

 

I'm not sure what you're babbling about since I didn't blame the historical fate of the entirety of mankind on the actions of a bunch of mad religiously- motivated Islamists.

Obviously, you're not connecting the dots when it comes to the ideology, agenda and actions of Islamists past and present. If you read the discourses of the present ones, they explain this quite clearly (ex., Sayyid Qutb's Milestones).

 

Are you defending the actions of Suddam Hussain? I imagine that you also supported him using poison gas attacks on Ethnic Kurds, torture (I mean real torture) on his own citizens and POW's, attacking neighboring countries like Kuwait for their resouces, and sending Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Given Hussain's record and the threat of WMD's, President Bush had more reason and more legal right to attack the Hussain dictatorship than Suddam had for doing all of the above.

Anyone who does not fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention are terrorists or partisans. They should always be allowed to be put to death upon sufficent evidence.

In Fallujah, four American Private Security Contractors were killed, mutilated and hung up on a bridge. The "good" people of Fallujah should have never allowed anyone in that city to act like the primative savages they mostly are. I did think the US commanders made a mistake by sending in ground troops to take Fallujah in 2004. I would have sent in B-52 Arc-light strikes and leveled the place after the terrorists ran the population off and took over the city.

I think you are far too prejudiced to look at both sides of an argument, but reading the book, "House to House" might change your views on the Fallujah fight.

 

You see I disagree with the use of the fascist epithet. Whatever else these kinds of crazy salafist ideologies represent they are certainly not fascist. Attributing the actions of Islamist terrorists to fascism undermines the latters seriousness. Personally, I'm reluctant to attribute the term fascism to anything other than Hitler fascism.

 

What guns ?

 

You see I disagree with the use of the fascist epithet. Whatever else these kinds of crazy salafist ideologies represent they are certainly not fascist. Attributing the actions of Islamist terrorists to fascism undermines the latters seriousness. Personally, I'm reluctant to attribute the term fascism to anything other than Hitler fascism.

 

Are you being evasive/ducking my question ?

 

True, but lets not ignore Il Duce + the origins of Fascism :

" Italian Fascism promotes a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in corporative associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy. Italian Fascism promoted such economics as a "Third Alternative" to capitalism and Marxism that Italian Fascism regarded as "obsolete doctrines".

Italian Fascists claim that their economic system resolves and ends class conflict by creating class collaboration.

Fascism - like Marxism - + Zion-ism etc . once sounded acceptable + fine in theory but later proved to be bloody awful in practice .

.....


.....

 

Exactly right. It was also state terrorism. When the Saddam was bombing the Kurds, Reagan vetoed a senate resolution condemning it. Then the neocons feigned outrage over the bombing as justification for attacking Iraq. Neocons are utter vermin.

 

No I'm not defending the actions of Saddam. On the contrary I, unlike the hypocritical stance of the governments of the West, hated this tyrant. The chemical weapons he used on the Kurds were supplied to him by the West. Rumsfeld confirmed the deal with a firm handshake in 1984. You might recall the famous photograph. I actually demonstrated outside the Iraqi embassy in London in 1984 against Saddam while your government and my government were actively supporting him against the Iranians. While I was actively protesting against him, you were presumably still in your nappies.

The WMDs did not exist. Our invasion was predicated on a pack of lies.

The people of Fallujah were doing their best to defend themselves against illegal invaders. It's what all self respecting people do and have always done throughout history.