Who really is to blame for todays Isalmic terrorists. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who really is to blame for todays Isalmic terrorists. (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:04:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Lasty, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of person on the losing side of a debate.

I guess that is why it is always the FIRST REFUGE taken by the gop cultists.

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:06:52 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Lasty, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of person on the losing side of a debate.

I guess that is why it is always the FIRST REFUGE taken by the gop cultists.

Are you calling me a GOP cultist? I fail to see anywhere party affiliation was mentioned either by me or by Va_Dinger.

And thanks for proving my point Imbroglio.

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:09:01 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Lasty, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of person on the losing side of a debate.

I guess that is why it is always the FIRST REFUGE taken by the gop cultists.

Are you calling me a GOP cultist? I fail to see anywhere party affiliation was mentioned either by me or by Va_Dinger.

And thanks for proving my point Imbroglio.

No, I am not calling you anything. Just making an observation, much like you did.

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:15:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

No, I am not calling you anything. Just making an observation, much like you did.

So you made this observation during the progression of this thread?? I don't even see where your comment is germane to the discussion.

Or did you mistakenly post that on the wrong thread?

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:25:31 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I find it totally strange that you have choosen to disagree on the roots of Al-Qaeda.

Well, it appears you have a problem with those who disagree with you. You might want to grow up a little.

Yes, their were Islamic terrorists groups before Al-Qaeda. My point is that most of the curent leaders of Al-Qaeda umbrella organizations got their start and training in the Afghan war or in the training camps left over from the war. Are you going to disprove this fact?

Absolutely. Two off the top of my head are Ayman Al-Zawahri and Mohammed Atef, both members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad before they went to join Al-Queda. The EIJ was the organization implicated in the murder of Anwar Sadat (which, to the best of my recollection was no where near Afghanistan).

Need more?

Or just make vague statements? None of this is earth shaking new information. You clearly show your ignorance on the subject in that you are not aware of it.

And please, statements that deny the facts only makes you look foolish. I would suggest that you actually research your postion before you try to come off as an expert.

I have produced names and dates for my arguements, you have provided nothing but your opinion. Yet you complain about my 'ignorance.'

No one is arguing about the existance of Al-Queda or how Al-Queda's organizational prominence came about during the Afghan war. What I am contending is that modern islamo-terrorism didn't start there.

Lasty, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of person on the losing side of a debate.

Funny, I remember a few off handed comments by you. Maybe you should look in a mirror about the growing up comment. Or were they just "hominem" remarks from the losing side of a debate?

I still do not see what you are disagreeing with me about. Did I say every member of Al-Qaeda got his start in Afghanistan? No, I did not. Certainly the vast mjority of them did and received their training there also. Yes, several older terrorist groups have merged with Al-Qaeda. Egyptian Jihad being just one, but certianly it seems to have the most influence over day to day operations. I do now see were you are mistaken or taking me the wrong way. Most experts agree that Al-Qaeda was the start of modern Islamic Terrorism becuase of one point. Islamic terror groups before them had only single country goals behind their attacks and rarely worked with other groups. Al-Qaeda changed all that. Now they work as one loose group with at the very least regional goals. That is why I use the phrase "Modern Islamic Terrorism", that you seem to hate so much.

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:27:27 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

No, I am not calling you anything. Just making an observation, much like you did.

So you made this observation during the progression of this thread?? I don't even see where your comment is germane to the discussion.

Or did you mistakenly post that on the wrong thread?

I am in the correct thread.

My comment is very much germane to this discussion as it is:

a) In reference to va's observation of a certain group's denials and,
b) In reference to your "ad hominem" statement.

If you feel my post was an attack upon you, it was never meant to be and I apologize for upsetting you.

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:32:10 AM EDT

[#7]

hagaar and her son, ishmael..the good book says the decendants of ishamel will be "like beasts"...sounds familiar?

Posted: 5/13/2004 10:59:25 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

No, I am not calling you anything. Just making an observation, much like you did.

So you made this observation during the progression of this thread?? I don't even see where your comment is germane to the discussion.

Or did you mistakenly post that on the wrong thread?

I am in the correct thread.

My comment is very much germane to this discussion as it is:

a) In reference to va's observation of a certain group's denials and,
b) In reference to your "ad hominem" statement.

If you feel my post was an attack upon you, it was never meant to be and I apologize for upsetting you.

Hey, no sweat. Didn't think you were attacking me. Just wanted to know where the comment came from. I guess I was just focused in my particular discussion.

Carry on.

Posted: 5/13/2004 11:21:49 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Funny, I remember a few off handed comments by you. Maybe you should look in a mirror about the growing up comment. Or were they just "hominem" remarks from the losing side of a debate? I still do not see what you are disagreeing with me about. Did I say every member of Al-Qaeda got his start in Afghanistan? No, I did not. Certainly the vast mjority of them did and received their training there also. Yes, several older terrorist groups have merged with Al-Qaeda. Egyptian Jihad being just one, but certianly it seems to have the most influence over day to day operations. I do now see were you are mistaken or taking me the wrong way. Most experts agree that Al-Qaeda was the start of modern Islamic Terrorism becuase of one point. Islamic terror groups before them had only single country goals behind their attacks and rarely worked with other groups. Al-Qaeda changed all that. Now they work as one loose group with at the very least regional goals. That is why I use the phrase "Modern Islamic Terrorism", that you seem to hate so much.

Wow, this is bordering on the bizarre. Please show me where I made 'a few offhanded comments'. I think I've been pretty generous.

Let's try to recap the argument.

The question posed by this thread is "Who Really Is To Blame For Today's Islamic Terrorists"

1) You indicated (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you feel that the US is to blame because of it's 'support' of the mujhadeen during the Afghan war. These muhadeen became the leaders of Al-Queda. Al-Queda is what you consider "Modern Islamic Terrorism."

Is this correct?I'm not quite sure who "most experts" are and why they agree so much. That's a pretty broad statement.

2) I stated that "Modern Islamic Terrorism" started way before the Afghan war and that the major players in Al-Queda were already terrorists. Even if there were no Afghan war, or US funding, we'd still see "Modern Islamic Terrorism. Only their excuse would be different.

I'm not quite sure where all your hostility comes from.

"Islamic terror groups before them had only single country goals behind their attacks and rarely worked with other groups. "

This statement is not true. The PLO worked with the likes of the Red Brigade, the Baader Meihnoff Gang, and the Irish Republican Army, in addition among others who's issues were very disparate.

Sweeping statements like "most experts agree", "had only", "rarely" are not good when presenting an arguement. An old Poly-Sci teacher used to tell me that they were used as filler when someone's position was weak. I think that can be true, don't you?

Posted: 5/13/2004 11:32:50 AM EDT

[#10]

"Who really is to blame for todays Isalmic(sic) terrorists."

Imbroglio. No...really...it was all his idea...

Posted: 5/13/2004 11:39:09 AM EDT

[#11]

Past Presidents that ignored or were afraid to go after groups of pukes that threatened the United States openly.
Remember when Clinton sent in only a few missles into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden after he blew up embassies in Africa. Well obviously the missles did not find the mark and we had 9-11 because of it in my opinion. That is a perfect example as to why any group preaching death to America needs to be hunted down and wiped out before they get the chance to strike us first.
Pacifists will never get it through there head until they are directly effected by a terrorist attack some day. Instead they say "Wasn't me, so why such a fuss"? Makes me want to puke.
The economy right now is directly the result of waiting till the enemy is too close to act.Semper Fi

Posted: 5/13/2004 12:06:34 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you need to go research the history of Al-Qaeda or modern Islamic terrorism for that matter. You seem to know nothing on the subject.

No, I think you need to research it again, this time from a source without an ideological bias, because your initial statement was incorrect.

Thats funny . Why would I need to research agian? If you bothered to actually read anything on this subject you would quickly see the statement was totally correct. If you would like to prove me wrong, feel free.

I already did prove you wrong.

By just stating you disagreed? Please feel free to back up your claim that modern terrorism does not have deep ties to the mujahideen movement of the Russian Afghan war.. I'd love to see your proof. Your statements so far have shown me nothing.

No, I proved you wrong by stating the facts: that the US was not responsible for the establishment of Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda would have existed had the CIA never gotten involved in Afghanistan. The CIA did not create Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda was NOT a direct evolution of the mujahadeen.
Modern terrorism's roots are in Palestine.

Posted: 5/13/2004 12:20:19 PM EDT

[#13]

GREG THE BUNNY!!!

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:22:16 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Say what you will about the peanut farmer, but he got us out of the MAD doctrine and started us on the path to victory in the cold war. For that, I hold him in high esteem.

PD-59

CW

It was Reagan who won the Cold War:

www.reason.com/0311/cr.gg.the.shtml

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:27:11 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
.
This is BS. Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents in recent history, Ronald Regan was the other. Both are extremely intelligent. Geo. Bush (Jr or Sr) would'nt make a pimple on either of their asses.
.
.

Too young to remember double digit inflation, federal mandated wage freeze, 16% home interest loans, hiring and deserting Americans to fight in Angola, and Iran with our paying gold for hostages, huh?

No one will argue Jimmy was a good man but as a President whoa!

Tj

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:29:29 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Actually, any country that aided the Afghanistan Mujahideen also helped to fuel Islamic fundamentalists movement. Al-Qaeda originally started out by raising funds and recruiting/training volunteers for the war against the Russians. Something like 30,000 volunteers flowed through the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These camps also preached a very hard lined view of Islam. Al-Qaeda kept good records of who they trained and who donated money. Dam near every active Islamic terrorist group seems to have some connection to the Russian war in Afghanistan. When the Russians pulled out these volunteers returned to their home countries and boom we have a world wide Islamic terrorist network. Combat vetrans filled with years of hard lined Islamic preaching, and fresh from a victory over a superpower. This network setup to recruit, fund, and train volunteers for the Russian war is now causing the world so much grief. In America, I guess you would have to blame President Reagan and the CIA. We pumped Billions of dollars into aiding the mujahideen by funneling money and other support through Pakistans version of the CIA, called the ISI.

Not all Afgan Mujahideen became Islamic fundamentalists.

Al-Qaeda was not created during the Afgan war, but later (although it's creation did arise from the Afgan war).

US aid to Afganistan was sent to native fighters--not the Arabs who went on to create al-Qaeda. Of course, to some extent that aid is fungable, so some of it may have eventually flowed to Arab extermists. But there is no evidence that bin Ladne's Arab fighters recieved US aid.

In any case, supporting the Afgan resistance was both morally correct and a good Cold War gambit.

Oh, and by the way, the support for the Afgan freedom fighters began under Carter. One of the few Carter forign policy actions of which I approve.

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:30:40 PM EDT

[#17]

Has anyone read "All the Shah's Men"?

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:31:55 PM EDT

[#18]

Carter's decision to quite supporting the Shah predated the US embassy fiasco, and is the reason Islamic fundamentalism achieved its first victory. It also lead to disasters such as the Iran Iraq War, and the loss of US bases in Iran.

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:47:03 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The Jews?

Boy there's one complex story behind this one from the western powers knowing about the holocaust and not taking refugees to the guilt after the war and allowing them to establish a homeland in what was then Palistine under British rule.

Many books have been written on this subject but I'm afraid laying blame is bit more complicated.

IMHO, this is a sequence of events which roots were embedded in European bigotry from hundreds of years past. Amasing how the Europeans take the high ground on this topic now.

Hitler once said that even after his death the people of Europe would thank him for his ridding the continent of the Jewish menace. I wonder how much truth is in that.

Tj

Posted: 5/13/2004 1:50:23 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
.
This is BS. Jimmy Carter was one of the best presidents in recent history, Ronald Regan was the other. Both are extremely intelligent. Geo. Bush (Jr or Sr) would'nt make a pimple on either of their asses.
.
.

When you graduate elementary school you'll learn more about history so you won't make such statements in public.

Posted: 5/13/2004 2:00:14 PM EDT

[#21]

I suppose some here would have supported the Soviet Union in their efforts in Afghanistan?

You Monday morning quarterbacks need to settle down and break out a crystal ball rather than a history book. Making judgments about decisions made by the 'best and brightest' 30 years later is funnier than shit and a waste of time. Unless you’re a complete isolationist or anarchist you have to understand our involvement within the Middle-East, Europe, and South-East Asian wars of recent times.

Posted: 5/13/2004 2:13:23 PM EDT

[#22]

Back on topic the thing that created today's Isalmic terrorist is simple and it's the same thing that's been creating terrorists for two thousand years:

Religious intolerance. (duhh)

If you can't see this you just might be retarded as it's as clear today as it's always been for those thousands of years.

The same religious intolerance seem here from time-to-time and at such nice Internet places as Stormfront by the "88" whackos. It runs from all sides towards each other and the Christians are just as guilty as the Muslims (only not so recently). Us and them people, us and them, it's as simple as that.

Now it's come face-to-face with us mainly due to a lack of past reaction to attacks in the near and recent past. Thank GOD our current commander in chief has the balls to take off the gloves and start round one of the open war against those that would see us dead because we are Christians, Jews, Buddhist or anything else but radical Muslim. We are currently beating the tar out of anyone over there that dares stand their ground long enough for us to turn and face them in battle. We must beat them hard and long - hard enough and long enough that their children and their children's children remember the lessons taught with American blood on their soil.

If you ain't got the pair to stand it then get the hell out of the way of us with the pair to do the nasty to the nasties. If we don't get this done it will be worse when our children have to face it. I have given my life's energy to fighting for this country and will gladly give completely in anyway that this country requires me ... even to the death.

And only one more point. For those who have forgotten have a look at this link.

members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

Master Chief (Surface Warfare/Aviation Warfare) Paul, USN active 23 years, 2 months, 27 days and still going.

Posted: 5/13/2004 2:55:39 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
This man

www.newsmax.com/weasels/images/carter.gif

brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/09/000011.html

Bastage!!!

For you youngings I'll give you 1 guess as too what party he belonged to.

Sgtar15

I've often wondered what credentials Sqtar15 possessed that would make him "Mayor" material... Now I know. Spot on. If we had done something... anything... in 1979 the enemy would have been deterred. At the same time had Reagan leveled Beirut we could have saved face, but Carter definitely was first and Reagan later redeemed himself.

Posted: 5/13/2004 3:02:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Islam vs Christianity is one of the most recurring themes for war. They used to fight with sticks and stones, then swords and bows, now it's guns and whatever those miserable shitbricks can rummage up.

Two different worlds that will NEVER coexist peacefully. I blame Islam.

Posted: 5/13/2004 4:01:45 PM EDT

[#25]

the Saudi's would be a good place to start

their clerics have been advocating this shit for over a decade

Posted: 5/13/2004 4:10:37 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
This man

www.newsmax.com/weasels/images/carter.gif

brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/09/000011.html

By Brian Carnell

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

Jimmy Carter wrote an article bemoaning the current state of affairs for the Washington Post recently. Jim Roepcke posted a link to it on his site and I responded with some very unkind words about Carter which elicted some other responses.

Anyway, Daniel Pipes wrote a column last week which really captured my feelings about Carter -- namely that the current situation which Carter is so upset about is largely one of his own making. It was Carter, after all, who set the precedent of a completely weak and inadequate response to Islamic extremist actions against Americans.

Pipes writes,

In retrospect, the mistake began when Iranians assaulted the U.S. embassy in Tehran and met with no resistance.
Interestingly, a Marine sergeant present at the embassy that fateful day in November 1979 agrees with this assessment. As the militant Islamic mob invaded the embassy, Rodney V. Sickmann followed orders and protected neither himself nor the embassy. As a result, he was taken hostage and lived to tell the tale. (He now works for Anheuser-Busch.)

In retrospect, he believes that passivity was a mistake. The Marines should have done their assigned duty, even if it cost their lives. "Had we opened fire on them, maybe we would only have lasted an hour." But had they done that, they "could have changed history."

Standing their ground would have sent a powerful signal that the United States of America cannot be attacked with impunity. In contrast, the embassy's surrender sent the opposite signal - that it's open season on Americans. "If you look back, it started in 1979; it's just escalated," Sickmann correctly concludes.

And once the Iranians had the embassy, Carter waited for months before launching that ill-fated rescue mission. The embassy was seized on November 4, 1979, but the hostage rescue attempt was not launched until April 25, 1980.

And what did Carter have to offer the nation? Idiotic speeches about the "crisis of the American spirit" and lame nonsense that the nation just needed more "faith."

Of course what the United States really needed was a president whose main qualification was something other than the fact that he wasn't Gerald Ford.

Bastage!!!

For you youngings I'll give you 1 guess as too what party he belonged to.

Sgtar15

Get a clue.

Posted: 5/13/2004 5:27:20 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, any country that aided the Afghanistan Mujahideen also helped to fuel Islamic fundamentalists movement. Al-Qaeda originally started out by raising funds and recruiting/training volunteers for the war against the Russians. Something like 30,000 volunteers flowed through the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These camps also preached a very hard lined view of Islam. Al-Qaeda kept good records of who they trained and who donated money. Dam near every active Islamic terrorist group seems to have some connection to the Russian war in Afghanistan. When the Russians pulled out these volunteers returned to their home countries and boom we have a world wide Islamic terrorist network. Combat vetrans filled with years of hard lined Islamic preaching, and fresh from a victory over a superpower. This network setup to recruit, fund, and train volunteers for the Russian war is now causing the world so much grief. In America, I guess you would have to blame President Reagan and the CIA. We pumped Billions of dollars into aiding the mujahideen by funneling money and other support through Pakistans version of the CIA, called the ISI.

Not all Afgan Mujahideen became Islamic fundamentalists.

Al-Qaeda was not created during the Afgan war, but later (although it's creation did arise from the Afgan war).

US aid to Afganistan was sent to native fighters--not the Arabs who went on to create al-Qaeda. Of course, to some extent that aid is fungable, so some of it may have eventually flowed to Arab extermists. But there is no evidence that bin Ladne's Arab fighters recieved US aid.

In any case, supporting the Afgan resistance was both morally correct and a good Cold War gambit.

Oh, and by the way, the support for the Afgan freedom fighters began under Carter. One of the few Carter forign policy actions of which I approve.

Not all the major players in the Afghan War went on to become Al-Qaeda's founders. bin Laden leads A.Q & Mullah Omar became leader of the Taliban.

ibn-Ul Khattab and Abu Walid went north to Tajikistan, then later on Chechnya to continue fighting the Russians.

Ahmed Shah Masood & Rashid Dostum became figureheads for the Northern Alliance.

Quite a few more than them who scattered. The rest were also up to no good as far as I know. (Minus Masood & Dostum.)

Posted: 5/13/2004 7:41:51 PM EDT

[#28]

Adam and Eve

Posted: 5/13/2004 8:01:42 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Say what you will about the peanut farmer, but he got us out of the MAD doctrine and started us on the path to victory in the cold war. For that, I hold him in high esteem.

PD-59

CW

It was Reagan who won the Cold War:

www.reason.com/0311/cr.gg.the.shtml

Horseshit. Reagan kept the pressure up until the Sovs collapsed, but the 4 major programs that spelled the end of the cold war were started by Carter (Trident DII, MILSTAR, GPS and F-117). SDI was a joke and still is, but it was a good enough political football to help convince the Russkies that we were serious about kicking their asses and winning an all-out conflict. The "we are going to win a nuclear war" ball was started rolling by the peanut farmer. Reagan kept it rolling and was there when it knocked all the pins down.

CW

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who really is to blame for todays Isalmic terrorists. (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us