Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

I Do NOT Support The Troops/Military

TX_Debator
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:47:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am so sick and tired of people saying "support the troops". First off, it sounds like a demand to me. Second, why should I? They haven't done anything helpful since World War II. Now, they are just in the middle east, killing random Arabic peoples for oil. A TRUE American, doesn't support unnecessary violence against an innocent populous. And this whole "terrorist thing", shut up about it. 99.9% of the Middle East and Northern Africa are not terrorists, you are more likely to be killed by a peanut than a terrorist (look it up). Ever even wonder WHY the middle east doesn't like us a lot? It's because we keep killing them for oil. If they started killing OUR people, everyone would flip their skillets. But if it's another country, who cares, right? Hah, no. And my tax dollars are supporting these war mongrels. WE are the real terrorists, not them. WE are killing more of them, then they did us. That's just not acceptable. So the next time you "support the troops", think twice.
-TX_Debator
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 3:46:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:47:31 PM, TX_Debator wrote:
I am so sick and tired of people saying "support the troops". First off, it sounds like a demand to me. Second, why should I? They haven't done anything helpful since World War II. Now, they are just in the middle east, killing random Arabic peoples for oil. A TRUE American, doesn't support unnecessary violence against an innocent populous. And this whole "terrorist thing", shut up about it. 99.9% of the Middle East and Northern Africa are not terrorists, you are more likely to be killed by a peanut than a terrorist (look it up). Ever even wonder WHY the middle east doesn't like us a lot? It's because we keep killing them for oil. If they started killing OUR people, everyone would flip their skillets. But if it's another country, who cares, right? Hah, no. And my tax dollars are supporting these war mongrels. WE are the real terrorists, not them. WE are killing more of them, then they did us. That's just not acceptable. So the next time you "support the troops", think twice.

Like it or not, the United States does require some level of military in order to continue to exist. Iceland, which is probably the only nation in the world to not have a military, is protected by the militaries of other nations.
That being said, the reason that Americans "kill more of them than they do us" is because our military has been extremely effective in keeping our nation safe, largely by killing "them" before "they" can kill us.
Our enemies include the Islamic State, who would most definitely attack the United States at some point in the near future if left alone. Al-Qaeda's forerunners, the Mujahideen, were given much aid by the United States to defend themselves against the Soviet invaders, but they attacked us anyway, and the September 11 Attacks weren't the first time.
When you consider US military involvement in communist nations during the Cold War, perhaps such Communist takeovers would not pose an immediate threat to the United States, but frankly, the U.S. Army kept the world from falling to authoritarian communist regimes, setting aside the question of whether or not these regimes were actually communist.

I will admit that American military involvement throughout the world has done a lot of bad, but it has also done a lot of good.
And even if you don't agree with the policies of our army, at least you should respect that our soldiers fight for the sake of our security. They risk dying every day they spend in places like Afghanistan, but they do it anyway. At least respect them for that. Thank you.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:47:31 PM, TX_Debator wrote:
I am so sick and tired of people saying "support the troops". First off, it sounds like a demand to me. Second, why should I? They haven't done anything helpful since World War II. Now, they are just in the middle east, killing random Arabic peoples for oil. A TRUE American, doesn't support unnecessary violence against an innocent populous. And this whole "terrorist thing", shut up about it. 99.9% of the Middle East and Northern Africa are not terrorists, you are more likely to be killed by a peanut than a terrorist (look it up). Ever even wonder WHY the middle east doesn't like us a lot? It's because we keep killing them for oil. If they started killing OUR people, everyone would flip their skillets. But if it's another country, who cares, right? Hah, no. And my tax dollars are supporting these war mongrels. WE are the real terrorists, not them. WE are killing more of them, then they did us. That's just not acceptable. So the next time you "support the troops", think twice.

Hear, hear!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:04:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

What is your education on the subject?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:14:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.

Image? I'm simply stating the facts. I see that you've no refutation to add.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 6:52:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:47:31 PM, TX_Debator wrote:
I am so sick and tired of people saying "support the troops". First off, it sounds like a demand to me. Second, why should I? They haven't done anything helpful since World War II. Now, they are just in the middle east, killing random Arabic peoples for oil. A TRUE American, doesn't support unnecessary violence against an innocent populous. And this whole "terrorist thing", shut up about it. 99.9% of the Middle East and Northern Africa are not terrorists, you are more likely to be killed by a peanut than a terrorist (look it up). Ever even wonder WHY the middle east doesn't like us a lot? It's because we keep killing them for oil. If they started killing OUR people, everyone would flip their skillets. But if it's another country, who cares, right? Hah, no. And my tax dollars are supporting these war mongrels. WE are the real terrorists, not them. WE are killing more of them, then they did us. That's just not acceptable. So the next time you "support the troops", think twice.

The muslims hate the USA because the USA supports Israel. The consider Israel to be Satan, and the USA to be the great Satan. The Hamas charter is sworn to destroy Israel. The Quran teaches that all Jews are to be killed. Islam is a relgion of world domination, and if you will not bow to them, they will cut off your head. There are other evil forces in the game vying for world domination. Have you ever heard of Communist China and Communist Russia? Are you aware that they are enemies toward each other, and both are enemies of the USA, and both are determined to dominate the world? They are making alliances with Muslim nations....China with Saudi Arabia, Russia with Iran and Syria. All three of these evil forces want the resources of the USA for their own as they vye for stronger position trying to dominate the world. If you think we can sit here and turn our back on Israel and let the Chinese and Russia fight it out with their muslim allies as they try to take the middle east oil reserves to support their military regimes......all three are miltary regimes, oppressive of their citizens who are forbidden from talking against their leaders the way you are talking here agasint your country. If you were a citizen in an Arab or Communist country talking against your leaders the way you are talking against your freely elected leaders here, you would be either in a dungeoun-like prison,working in a concentration camp under hard labor in a place like Siberia, or simply executed with your best hope being a swift end to your misery under their oppression.

If you think the USA can sit here and do nothing about the forces of evil that are vying for world domination through stepping-stone systematic war preparation and enactment tactics, you might as well get yourself an ostrich farm and when you find the holes they have used to bury their heads in the sand, you can bury your head in one of those holes when Muslims or communists come to take your little farm away.
That is a very pretty little farm you have there. What makes you think you can keep it?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:14:38 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.

Image? I'm simply stating the facts. I see that you've no refutation to add.

Let's see, formerly Christian and currently secular/capitalist nations have conquered and practiced colonialism and neocolonialism in countries all over the globe; yes, it's Western powers that are quite arguably the dangerous aggressors preventing the founding of peace on earth, and yet your worldview is entirely fixated on the bogeyman du jour, Islam. This is quite telling indeed (as is your little lopsided history lesson, designed as it is to legitimate your anti-Muslimism and to completely gloss over the fact that Islam's violent expansionism occurred in an age when military conquest in the name of God was tragically the norm, i.e. when Christian Europe was also quite theologically jingoistic and warlike).
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:43:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:06:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:14:38 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.

Image? I'm simply stating the facts. I see that you've no refutation to add.

Let's see, formerly Christian and currently secular/capitalist nations have conquered and practiced colonialism and neocolonialism in countries all over the globe; yes, it's Western powers that are quite arguably the dangerous aggressors preventing the founding of peace on earth, and yet your worldview is entirely fixated on the bogeyman du jour, Islam. This is quite telling indeed (as is your little lopsided history lesson, designed as it is to legitimate your anti-Muslimism and to completely gloss over the fact that Islam's violent expansionism occurred in an age when military conquest in the name of God was tragically the norm, i.e. when Christian Europe was also quite theologically jingoistic and warlike).

Indeed. The main flaw with that is the fact this thread isn't a look into historic European colonialism and neo-colonialism. Rather it is an assessment on current U.S military action in the Middle East--with that comes obvious reference to terrorism. Which also happens to be taking place in present time, unlike European colonialism.

Once again, it's not exclusively Western aggression that is preventing peace. In reality, this can attributed to a number of things that do not relate to Western involvement. Note that this is not a presentation of my "world view", but rather specific addressing to the topic at hand and an example of (current) events.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 3:16:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 9:43:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:06:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:14:38 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.

Image? I'm simply stating the facts. I see that you've no refutation to add.

Let's see, formerly Christian and currently secular/capitalist nations have conquered and practiced colonialism and neocolonialism in countries all over the globe; yes, it's Western powers that are quite arguably the dangerous aggressors preventing the founding of peace on earth, and yet your worldview is entirely fixated on the bogeyman du jour, Islam. This is quite telling indeed (as is your little lopsided history lesson, designed as it is to legitimate your anti-Muslimism and to completely gloss over the fact that Islam's violent expansionism occurred in an age when military conquest in the name of God was tragically the norm, i.e. when Christian Europe was also quite theologically jingoistic and warlike).

Indeed. The main flaw with that is the fact this thread isn't a look into historic European colonialism and neo-colonialism. Rather it is an assessment on current U.S military action in the Middle East--with that comes obvious reference to terrorism. Which also happens to be taking place in present time, unlike European colonialism.

Once again, it's not exclusively Western aggression that is preventing peace. In reality, this can attributed to a number of things that do not relate to Western involvement. Note that this is not a presentation of my "world view", but rather specific addressing to the topic at hand and an example of (current) events.

Yes, of course you're not keen on confronting the lameness of having a double standard, as it were, that favors the West and allows you to slam Islam. Yes, this isn't surprising at all.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 5:12:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 3:16:19 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 9:43:00 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:06:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 5:14:38 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:27:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/23/2014 1:39:58 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:22:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:51:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The "support the troops" ideology derives from the common conception that an army and its soldiers are fighting for their country--and in general terms--the safety of the people in it. In certain circumstances this conception is proven to be correct, specifically when the country is under threat.

As for Middle Eastern terrorism, its existence isn't exactly attributed to U.S military involvement alone. Islamic extremism has existed for centuries and has its origins within the doctrine of Islam itself.

Nope, the faith of Muslims, contra what the Islamophobes would have us believe, is not inherently prone to take extreme and fanatical forms. And in point of fact, Islamism is most certainly driven by politics, by Western hegemony, and by the hegemonic behavior of the state of Israel. FYI, modern Sunni fundamentalism originated with the Wahabi movement, which was indeed politically fueled (it was in large measure a response to Ottoman and Western imperialism). And of course modern Shiite fundamentalism was born in Iran as a reaction against American neocolonialism and the U.S.' repressive client dictator, the Shah. Yes, the view that modern Muslim fundamentalism is a purely religious phenomenon that manifests Islam's alleged innate tendency to promote religious zealotry is simply naive and a belief that nicely absolves the West from any responsibility for any religio-political insanity in the Middle East. Yes, the behavior of the West has clearly helped enormously to generate and sustain the fundamentalist, "radical" religious zeitgeist in the Muslim world and if we're ever going to deal with the problem of "terrorism" in good faith we need to begin acknowledging this and to stop avoiding accountability.

Not exactly. The Qur'an and the Hadith themselves show that Muhammed orchestrated over 100 raids on different tribes during his expansion of Islam. In fact, this is precisely how Islam developed as a religion in the Middle East. Towns and cities (such as Medina) were conquered and the residents waged war upon by Muhammed and his military. The most brutal slaughter appears in the Hadith when it describes how Muhammed attacked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurazya. It itself outlines that all the men (700-900) were killed and beheaded. It then states that the women and children were taken as captives.

Other such examples are Muhammed's attacks on non-believers and Pagans. Such things, certainly by modern standards, would constitute as "terrorism". The Qur'an teaches intolerance of anyone not assigned to the Islamic faith, and strongly promotes violence against non-Muslims.

Islamic terrorism may have taken different forms in the 20th and 21st century but it was active long before that. Admittedly the West has enabled its growth, but it's not the direct cause.

As for Israel, it would be illogical to conclude that exclusively one state is responsible for all of the Islamism that takes place across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Somalian Boko Haram is "Islamist". Islamism also exists in places such as Malaysia and China. Even looking looking further to Israel in countries like Syria, al-Nusra is mainly attributed to the Syrian government.

Well, I can see that you're quite invested in your bogeyman image of Islam.

Image? I'm simply stating the facts. I see that you've no refutation to add.

Let's see, formerly Christian and currently secular/capitalist nations have conquered and practiced colonialism and neocolonialism in countries all over the globe; yes, it's Western powers that are quite arguably the dangerous aggressors preventing the founding of peace on earth, and yet your worldview is entirely fixated on the bogeyman du jour, Islam. This is quite telling indeed (as is your little lopsided history lesson, designed as it is to legitimate your anti-Muslimism and to completely gloss over the fact that Islam's violent expansionism occurred in an age when military conquest in the name of God was tragically the norm, i.e. when Christian Europe was also quite theologically jingoistic and warlike).

Indeed. The main flaw with that is the fact this thread isn't a look into historic European colonialism and neo-colonialism. Rather it is an assessment on current U.S military action in the Middle East--with that comes obvious reference to terrorism. Which also happens to be taking place in present time, unlike European colonialism.

Once again, it's not exclusively Western aggression that is preventing peace. In reality, this can attributed to a number of things that do not relate to Western involvement. Note that this is not a presentation of my "world view", but rather specific addressing to the topic at hand and an example of (current) events.

Yes, of course you're not keen on confronting the lameness of having a double standard, as it were, that favors the West and allows you to slam Islam. Yes, this isn't surprising at all.

Double-standard? In actual fact I do not "favour" the West. Regardless of how you perceive my posts--in every one I have stated fact and not my personal opinion. Additionally I have not "slammed" Islam, that would constitute a severe criticism. I've simply suggested that modern day Islamic terrorism does have (some) of its origins within the Qur'an. Then I supported my assertion with citing examples from the Hadith, which offers descriptions of how Muhammed expanded the religion of Islam and the warfare he participated in.

Your dislike of the West shouldn't prevent you from looking objectively at other facts. European Colonialism and Western failures do still not make extremism "right".
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'