Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The Blowback Myth

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 4:02:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 11:04:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just to say, this guy didn't disprove "blowback theory" in any meaningful way. There's the fact that many of the pro-American/CIA-backed coups and wars of the Cold War occurred decades before, and subsequent generations have either taken over, or that era's generations have moderated (Daniel Ortega, for instance, though don't mistake "moderated" for "pro-American" or "sane"), or find themselves in democratic countries where internal politics becomes more important than saber-rattling and declaring war on the world's largest military and economic power.

Many of the reasons for Muslim extremism - American and Western interference in Muslim countries, Western economic and political support/tolerance (however much we have to hold our noses) for regimes like the Sauds and formerly for al-Assad and so on, and the sore spot called Israel - are ongoing and in fact becoming bigger and bigger issues.

If the US started invaded Latin American countries this year, you'd sure as hell see blowblack. But blowback from decades past, when people were poor and now they're richer? That's silly.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 4:03:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow....."it is only the Muslims who are blowing back."

And then compares it to Vietnam and South American spook operations.

It's like "WHITE PERSONZ TRIEZ HISTORY!"

Blowback to foreign incursion has been pretty ubiquitous throughout history. The thing is, when you topple a dictator whose main goal is only to rule a domestic country, why in the F*CK would you expect their retaliation to take place on US soil? Why would you expect retaliation if we wipe out, as opposed to simply irritate, the enemy? When we overthrow a latin american government using death squads, there aren't many people left to violently relatiate. All that's left are people who hate America silently.

When you attack mobile terrorist cells meant to strike throughout the world as opposed to in certain tactical areas (i.e. Vietnam, Latin American countries where we overthrew a dictatorship, Iran, etc) then of course the mobile cell will be better at responding with an international attack.

Why would you expect the Vietcong to fly planes into the WTC when they were able to chase us out of Vietnam with local tactics?

Do you think terrorists congeal from sand and pages of the Quran? They are shaped for many reasons, but the NUMBER 1 biggest predictor of, say, a suicide bomber, is having HIS home country invaded by a foreign force of a conflicting religion (even a better predictor than relative rates of muslim religiosity or previous Al Qaeda presence).

Suicide bombs were being used on the US since the 80s, but only to achieve small domestic goals. For instance, "blowback" successfully pushed Reagan out of Libya after suicide bombs took down our base.

Osama et. al. were focusing on overthrowing local Muslims governments to create an Ottoman-esque caliphate before turning to America and other governments to create a world caliphate. America's actions in the middle east turned Al Qaeda's sights on America. We changed their calendar up by placing troops in the holy land.

How can it possibly surprise you that blowback from an international terrorist organization comes in form of an international terrorist attack?

If we enslaved 90% of an African country, would you say there will be no "blowback" since violent revenge attacks will probably be restricted to the African territory?