The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Islamic terrorism the new Soviet Union, how empires invent enemies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
QuantumAchilles has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 99621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




From Agamemnon taking advantage of the fact that Helen his brother's wife had been kidnapped by Paris the son of Priam, to wage war upon Troy to the Romans deeming themselves superior to other cultures to justify their outrageous imperialism, from the USA using the threat of the Soviet Union as a pretext to invest more and more amounts of money into its military development to the current war on terror. From the 2996 deaths from 9/11 used to cause 500,000 deaths in Iraq to the propaganda that fuels hatred for Isis. I want to argue that George Orwell's vision of "made up" enemies created by the state to give society a common enemy has not only been a historical feature of various empires and civilisations, but that it is a recurrent theme since the end of world war 2 for the USA. I will be arguing that islamic terrorism is the new Soviet Union and by this, I mean that islamic terrorism is the pretext used by the USA to invade those countries that represent a threat to its noxious interests.


Agamemnon wanted to sack Troy for its wealth anyway but needed a cassus belli, which Paris, ever the goofball, had just provided. The Romans actually had a superior culture and had an empire that set the foundation for you to exercise your free speech, so you have just right off the bat made yourself look like an idiot, nice job.

Did you know that "strike off their heads" in the Qu'ran actually means "give them a nice haircut"? It doesn't, but apparently Islam is so peaceful that it has to be a made-up enemy, and not the cancer upon Europe that it is being right now. No, this isn't a man talking, this is a bad fanfiction of God talking. In Islam, you are mandated to kill unbelievers and those who leave Islam.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot take you seriously. You use the US funneling money into the military as something that's doubleplus ungood, presumably because it's a few more cents out of your welfare check. I, for one, would rather have a military capable of stomping every other power in the world combined, just in case, and also because we can afford it, than a massive welfare system. Oh, also, it's a deterrent against EVERYONE, not some ragtag band of small-time terrorists in some place nobody cares about.

Here's the thing. If you're going to accuse America of fascism, you had better go through with it, you pansy. Don't just stop at a unifying cause consisting of outsiders. Islam is a cancer that must absolutely be excised from the world lest it consume it, just like communism. Capitalism spreads because it's good, all other ideologies are spread by force. Food for thought.

On another note, the Soviet Union was a massive military power, exerting control over roughly half the globe, and pushing into Europe. They were the dominant force in the Eastern Hemisphere, and were a nuclear power. A nuclear power. They could nuke us at any given time, and we could do the same to them, and their inability to wage war on anyone and claim their goods and services to loot without immediate and overwhelming annihilation was the cause of their collapse, because socialism works until you run out of other people's money. Also, they could actually see reason and actually have formal diplomats, unlike the Islamic State, which actually does represent Islam quite well.

Here's the thing. If an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in a crowded building and one of your friends or family is in that building, would your opinion on the matter change? From what I've seen from the spineless liberal waste you outright state yourself to be, you would, because it now affects you personally. I bet you voted Clinton, you wimp.

Okay, USA has noxious interests including, but not limited to:
Stopping a terrorist group that... Actually, I could go out and buy a 1-9 year-old for a little over 150 bucks. Is this the mark of a group you want to be given free rein over YOUR hometown? And if not, is this a group you want to run roughshod over innocent people? You are very clearly in favor of letting them do their own thing? I hope you like getting beheaded if they ever get their hands on you, because they hate anyone not them, but especially Israel, America, and Europe, in that order.

We seem to think we need to reach out to other countries to help each other out and keep a region stable so peeps aren't shanking or capping each other in the street. This is called foreign relations and every country in the world practices it, so unless you are calling every single established nation in the world evil, you have no leg to stand on here.

Oh, we are so toxic and noxious. We're so evil you guys. We're fighting terrorists who dabble in the slave trade as well as actually try to keep the world a stable place in the process of making it nicer, and this kid has the audacity to call US evil. I, for one, want to see you thrown to the aforementioned terrorists and the footage of what happens next made into a propaganda video. Maybe when you realize that these people want to KILL US you'll realize we're perfectly justified in fighting what amounts to a defensive war entirely in their territory, which is worthless desert, and not our cities, where actual damage can be caused by some Islamic heaven-seeker blowing himself up or shooting some crowd.

America's military buildup is completely justified in terms of international relations. We are flexing our muscle and crushing those who dare to stand against us into dust. We have Russia fighting a proxy war for us against that group of edgy illiterates in black rags, who also engage in the slave trade, peddle drugs, and generally pull atrocities on a daily basis. ISIS is really, really hostile to me, because I'm Christian, but also really, really stupid, because they don't have Barack McGreatGuyButBadPresident in charge of America anymore. They now have someone with balls who will absolutely take action opposing them, and they will die. They will die by the thousands. By 2021, ISIS will have ceased to exist, every mosque in the region will be a smoldering husk, and the terrified faces of the general public will see proper places of worship erected in their stead.

Oh, and if I have my way, they'll get reverse!Sharia enforced on them, and when the complaints of human rights violations start flying in, that will be the final damning indictment of Islam. All in all, a victory for Western civilization, which you will hate. You will hate every second of it. Start polishing your lectures so you can spread your toxicity towards bright-eyed young university students, because they're the only people naive enough to listen to your bile. You are the noxious one here, by marginalizing actual monsters and making them appear to be a justification for fascism.

Are you maybe thinking I made up the whole sex slave thing? Enjoy:

If the URL alone doesn't raise eyebrows, they mean that 1-9 year-olds are the most desirable. Does this sound like something that kind of needs serious slappage? Does this sound like something that maybe we should seriously consider eradicating? Islam is more noxious than America could ever hope to be, were we in a noxious mood, but please, continue your anti-American sentiment.

I'll be waiting, jar in hand, to collect your tears.

To recap, you have no argument, you seem to think that we have a nebulous cassus belli instead of a very real one, and that we are somehow evil for wanting to keep the peace. You know what? I'll let Steven Crowder do the explaining for me on this one.
Debate Round No. 1


You just repeated what I said about Agamemnon, so what's the big idea? Onto your next "point" you say the Romans had a superior culture? Well sorry to disappoint you but the Romans stole the mythological believes of the Greek that's why Virgil begins the Aenid with the fall of troy, to trace the origins of Rome back to Troy, naming a GREEK hero Aeneas from troy as the founder of Rome. Not to mention, their philosophy, science and astronomy were all copied from the Greeks which means that they had almost no cultural developments themselves. If by Superior you mean a culture that constructed Coliseums to use prisoners as entertainment, causing the death of 400,000 people, a culture that was dominated by crazy emperors who caused wars upon sheer ambition like Caligula, then sure the idiot is me. The civilisations that set the foundations for "free speech" was Greece and not Rome. Besides, your ignorance on the Roman political system simply amuses me. You see little one, you speak of freedom in a society that was divided into two classes, the Patricius (in latin) and the Prole, had several slaves and went into countless civil wars that were waged at the cost of losing thousands of innocent lives (some 40000 romans died during the civil war that followed after Julius Cesar was stabbed 23 times by the senate) because of the ambition of those who wanted rome to be a republic and of those who wanted to have an emperor. If that's your definition of an advanced society then boy you are an idiot or you are completely ignorant of history.
I'm not saying Islam is a peaceful religion. Its true that their fanaticism justifies some horrible acts against liberty but that doesn't mean that they are not used in the international arena to justify all kinds of wars. For example, Saddam Hussein was involved with the Baath and this "insurgent" group was in turned involved with the CIA. Saddam came to power with the approval of the USA and for 40 long years all the human right violations he committed went completely unnoticed. It was when he became a threat to the USA that he was immediately recognised as a dictator, an enemy of democracy.
The position I want to defend is that the USA and its allies, have taken advantage of various terrorist attacks that have occurred in recent times, such as 9/11, the 2005 london bombings and the tragedy that took place in Nice, France, to ignite hatred, racism and fanatical nationalism against the middle east, in order to justify a military response that is distorted by politicians who make it seem as a justifiable intervention in the name of democracy, when in reality, these genocidal invasions and indiscriminate air-strikes, are nothing but savage manifestations of western terrorism which leaves far more victims than all the previously mentioned Islamic attacks combined. For example, the Obama administration in 2016 dropped 26171 bombs, 12192 in Syria alone, if you calculate the number of casualties from these air bombings which affect civilians and not ISIS fighters at it is often framed by the media (proof of this is the fact that the Syrian minister openly blamed french air-forces for causing the death of 100 civilians near the city of Manbij or the 26000 civilian deaths that resulted from the war in Afghanistan) it becomes clear, that the number of victims that have perished beneath the crows of "democracy", beneath the bombs of "civilised" countries that fight for freedom by killing innocent people, is far greater than the number of victims from the various attacks attributed to ISIS and even those that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for. The 9/11 casualties were numbered at around 2996 people, the number of people killed during the Iraq war is 112,667"123,284 according to the Iraq body count project. If you add up the number of deaths caused by the Afghanistan war, by the Iraq war, by the Libyan conflict, they easily surpass the number of deaths so far caused in Europe and the USA by Isis and Al-Qaeda.
This means that the logic of the USA is to combat terrorism, a frightening form of religiously justified war that is brought directly upon the innocent with an even larger scale of destruction and bloodshed. If ISIS kills thirty innocent people, Nato kills five hundred. Furthermore, it is interesting that the USA has responded so fiercely with dictators such as Sadam hussein, Gadaffi and others but it kept silent during the dictatorships of Pinochet, of Videla and Batista in south america. When a right-wing government that is faithful to Western interests commits atrocities such as torture and mass-murder, the USA and its allies allow it to do so, as long as it fights communism, promotes neo-liberal slavery and makes sure that foreign companies and multinationals drain it's country's resources.
The consequences of invading middle-eastern countries, far beyond the removal of certain figures of power that were gripped by the media to create general hatred and a strong ignorance that makes certain people favour these so called "interventions" is the creation of torture-prisons such as Abu ghraib, the destruction of social infrastructure, the devaluation of economy and the sorrow of a nation ripped apart by bombs and bullets. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died victims of this war against terror.
Here are a few basic questions:
1) How come, the USA funded the Taliban to fight off the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan? Its been proven that the USA aliened itself with EXTREME islam during the cold war, because on one side, the soviet Union attempted to spread communism in Latin america which the USA managed to stop by funding dictators such as Pinochet to take down Allende and other democratically elected presidents and on the other side of the world, the USA were already using islam as a tool to fence off the influence of Russia.
2) Why does the United states attack Arabian dictators such as Gadaffi and Hussein but did nothing to stop Latin American dictators?
3) How come, the USA funded the taliban to fight off the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, "by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism " in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation."

During the 1970R42;s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980R42;s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of "the database" in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America"s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization"s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein"s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni"s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni"s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.


I legitimately can't tell if this is serious or not. From what you're saying, you actually seem to care about people that are fighting a proxy war. Make no mistake: Those people do not matter on any level. They are unfortunate expenditures of munitions that should have been aimed at those foolish enough to oppose our will.

Under the circumstances, I'm going to have to do nothing but laugh at you over your superpower hate. You have no moral justification, so you just toxically spew hate for business as usual. Here's the thing. The more vassals we have, the better off we are, and we're not too picky as to how they're run, provided they're ours.

If you think bin Laden and Co. being supplied with American arms is bad, well, allow me to retort.
"War makes for strange bedfellows." and "The lesser of two evils." are two concepts you would do well to understand should you ever go into politics. Not everyone can be as upstanding as the good ol' USA, which means we need those people in the dirt to do some dirty work for us. Hey, the Soviets did it in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Allow me to put this in perspective. You did not grow up in the Soviet era, where a brutal, repressive, and well-armed regime posed a credible threat to the free world. You have grown up in a First World nation with access to excellent medical facilities and decent food. When's the last time your parents told you "No", for example?

What if I told you that this was the plan all along? Every Muslim killed by their brother Muslims in that region is one less Muslim screaming "ALLAHU AKBAR!" and thinking they're so awesome when they kill some unarmed people in the name of their bad fanfiction of God.

You are outright ignoring the barbarian cultures of literally everyone else in favor of your degenerate narrative of the Big Bad USA coming to rule the world. Have you ever considered the possibility that if everyone else just fell into line and let us rule, the world would be so much better? The United States is the single best empire builder in the world, and we outright OWN the Western Hemisphere.

In short, your arguments seem to revolve around "Boohoohoo, Western Civilization killed people, Western civilization is evil, Boohoohoo, living in a First World country with freedom of speech and the ability to express myself freely is so oppressive! Boohoohoo, the people responsible for keeping me safe are killing foreigners who are harboring people who want to cut my head off and film it, and I am outraged! Boohoohoo, people are not exactly nice to each other at times and I'm only going to dredge up Caligula and Ceasar and completely forget people like Shaka, Attila, and Dschingis Khan existed. Boohoohoo!"

Seriously, we know of the great psychos of Western Civilization because we could record them, compared to the people who had no written language.

But, seeing as you seem to think America is just toxic because it has to deal with unsavory types, there's no helping you. The world is not black and white.

And, to answer your questions, in order.
1) The USA funded the mujadeen to fight a proxy war with the USSR, setting nasty against nasty, but to make their nasties do damage, they outfitted it. Pinochet and Co. would do as they were told by the USA, and keep the Communist threat away from OUR sphere of influence. Again, this was completely justified seeing as the USSR was lusting after our wide tracts of land.
2) Foreign policy. The USA wants to have a pro-America situation in the Middle East, and Saddam and Gadaffi started to act against American interests. Good-bye. Again, the US wants well-behaved client states so we can get stuff cheaper.
3) See 1.

ISIS is now mostly a Russian problem anyway, so it's now RUSSIA that would be pulling the atrocities. America is only there in a supporting role. Oh, also, the US also supplied a more legitimate government in Syria... whose forces retreated leaving a pile of armored vehicles for ISIS to just pick up the keys for, so that American military hardware you tout as proof of America's evil is just as likely to have been stolen.

Come back when you have proof that America is actually a genocidal tyranny dedicated to ruthlessly crushing its citizens needing a foreign body as an excuse, because we have plenty of people who hate NATO.

Now, about the whole Roman lootage of them Greeks, have you ever considered that Rome saw something good and took it for itself? Gladiatorial games still happen in non-Western parts of the world, so that line can be dismissed, I've heard good things about Trajan (he cared about the little guy), and so I can safely say you are an idiot, under the conditions you yourself have provided.

I love how you accuse me of idiocy or ignorance even as you completely ignore the warrior cultures of Africa where genocides are routine even today. Also, I love how you're juxtaposing the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago with society today, with all its fine things made possible through its efforts. Here, let me help you with those goalposts, your intellect appears to be struggling to move them.

At the end of the day, I'm stuck debating a liberal seditious pansy who seems to think that Western civilization is soooo toxic despite him being in serious danger of being put to death were he to speak out against the status quo literally anywhere else. He should be on his hands and knees thanking our guys for stopping the real monsters even as he rants and raves and waves his arms and completely disregards the genocides perpetrated by non-Westerners routinely because those don't fit into his narrative of America being the Great Satan.

If America saying "America first" is noxious, then America is absolutely noxious and fits right in, because every nation in existence that wants to succeed is looking out for themselves first. We just happen to hold the moral high ground because we're awesome and are living proof that there's nothing people won't do to get out of paying taxes, which are the true great evil of the world.

Debate Round No. 2


I see you made no mention whatsoever of the Romans which I presume means you finally understood how great military power does not equate to actual greatness either that or you didn't read what I said about slavery, gladiators and the war between the senate and those who wanted to name themselves dictators. Now onto your next "argument" you say: "Those people do not matter on any level. They are unfortunate expenditures of munitions that should have been aimed at those foolish enough to oppose our will" This is by far the most sickening thing I have ever come across in this website. You are basically saying that innocent civilians who die when bombs are dropped indiscriminately don't matter? That is the same disgusting attitude that Hitler had towards the Jewish, that Pol Pot had against his own people, that the Spanish conquistadors had towards the Aztecs, that the red necks had towards slaves. That sir, is fascism at its peak! How would you feel if your entire family died during an Islamic attack on your home city? Well imagine how the Palestinians feel when the Israelis (trained by the USA) rape, torture their families and then steal their land? Imagine how the families of the nearly 500,000 people who died in Iraq felt? Innocent children were burned alive in Napalm, thousands of people perished due to the french attack on Syria after the incident in Nice, thousands of people are dying in Yemen and yet you say they don't matter? I also notice you say " for opposing our will" but unless you are a member of NATO or a sick CIA psychopath, your will is irrelevant in the dynamics of empires.
Your ideology is absolutely repugnant. It is precisely "people" (I hesitate on calling you a person since you value the life of others like worthless scum) like you that Napoleon was able to invade Russia on the racist pretext that there are superior cultures to others and that the greater good of a particular society justifies the suffering of the rest. It is precisely because of manipulable scum like you that the USA invaded Korea, it is because of "people" like you who believe that their nation has the right to kill hundreds of thousands of people to defend "democracy" that the world is in such a rotten state.
A bit of a history lesson for your:

1) The USA funded the taliban during the Cold war

2) Al-Qaeda means "database" Does that ring a bell you fascist crack-pot? Well, A former contractor for a UK-based public relations firm says that the Pentagon paid more than half a billion dollars for the production and dissemination of fake Al-Qaeda videos that portrayed the insurgent group in a negative light. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the PR firm, Bell Pottinger, worked alongside top US military officials at Camp Victory in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. The agency was tasked with crafting TV segments in the style of unbiased Arabic news reports, videos of Al-Qaeda bombings that appeared to be filmed by insurgents, and anti-insurgent commercials " and those who watched the videos could be tracked by US forces.The report of Bell Pottinger"s involvement in the video hearkens back to more than 10 years ago, when the Washington-based PR firm Lincoln Group was revealed to have produced print news stories and placed them in Iraqi newspapers. According to the Los Angeles Times, who obtained the 2005 documents, the stories were intended to tout the US-led efforts in Iraq and denounce insurgent groups. Not convinced? Here's some more:

3) Sunni-jihad-istan joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous "Surge." Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money- that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia. No CIA. No Surge. No money. Just the wasteland that is Anbar, and a Baghdad government intent on consolidating power at Sulayman"s expense. His Eminence, with his children in need of Bugatti supercars, flats in London, multiple Vertu mobiles, and an entourage of slaves, did what any good dad would: he created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC. The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq. His allies: the Ba"ath and ISIS.
In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, "former" Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist. Makes sense. CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress. How? Because the CIA was directly involved with this terrorist group.

4) Here's some more proof: "Omar Khyam, an accused leader among seven men charged in 2004 with stockpiling half a ton of explosives in an Al Qaeda-linked bombing plot, took the stand Tuesday long enough to refuse to continue his testimony. The judge temporarily adjourned the trial, which began in March," reports the Los Angeles Times. "On Monday, Khyam stunned his own lawyer when he declared that his relatives in Pakistan had been intimidated in recent days by agents of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which has a shadowy history of contacts with Islamic extremist networks."
It seems that your highly idealised CIA has had an awful lot of fishy affiliations with Al-Qaeda wouldn't you say?
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow"s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar " the MAK " which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan"s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA"s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow"s occupation.
The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan " found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to "read" than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the "reliable" partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow. To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said.
Indeed, the U.S. started backing Al Qaeda"s forefathers even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan
George Orwell in 1984, predicted a totalitarian government that no longer had to worry about facing direct enemies in an all-out war as was often the case in the past. Because of neo-liberalism, countries can be "invaded" economically as was the case with Cuba without the need of a direct military operation. And because there is no military power strong enough to oppose the USA or to threaten it beyond the territories on which civil wars are being fought, beyond the middle east, the USA has resorted to inventing a new enemy when the only power that could pose a threat finally fell in 1989. Terrorism is the new soviet Union. If you think differently, explain then the following inconsistencies in the haunt for Osama Bin laden: In 1996 the CIA set up a special unit called Alec Station with the aim of targeting Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. It was headed by Michael Scheuer who found the Saudis less than cooperative. "When we set up the unit in 1996 we asked the Saudis for some basic material on bin Laden, like his birth certificate, his financial records " obvious stuff," recalled Mr Scheuer many years later. "We got nothing."
The CIA unit pursuing bin Laden kept on requesting this mundane but necessary information about their target from the Saudis for the next three years but got no reply. "Finally in 1999, we get a message from the [CIA] station chief in Riyadh, a Mr John Brennan," Mr Scheuer said in an interview published in Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins by my brother Andrew Cockburn. "He said we should stop sending these requests as it was "upsetting the Saudis"."
The story is important because John Brennan has been director of the CIA since he replaced David Petraeus in 2013 and last week he was once again avoiding any upset to the Saudis by telling the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television station that the 28 pages in the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia that have never been released contain "no evidence to indicate that the Saudi government as an institution -- or as senior Saudi officials individually -- had supported the 9/11 attacks."
This here by itself shows how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were all based on a lie. Sadam didn't even have nuclear weapons. Having a common enemy for society in this case terrorist groups funded by the USA itself, gives the government an excuse to arbitrarily monitor society, to make profit out of war and to spread its dominion over the world.


Why do I even bother...

You've already proven to me you can only mindlessly spew quotes that agree with you on the surface, so whatever I say you'll just whine about and call me a [insert a zero-effort insult that involves my political leaning and how it doesn't agree with your meaningless drivel, and for that you must also attach an epithet, regardless of the veracity of what I'm saying here].

Do you even read the sources you're referencing, then not citing? Actually looking them up and reading them reveals them to be more in line with my pro-America stance, you revolutionary LARPer.

Also, again, you focus on the fact that we're fighting a war against people who fight without a uniform and hide in a crowd of like-minded people cleverly disguised as innocents, until they come here and think they're superstars and will go to heaven for killing defenseless people.

Also, I take it beheadings and gulags simply don't exist in your laughable anti-America narrative. When Islamic terrorists are pulling genocides, maybe, just maybe, what they're doing to, well, not us, but they want to do it to us, should be concerning.

Actually, you know what, I'd be closer to Josef Stalin than anything else. You can take your National Socialism and stuff it.

Number Three sticks out. Obama abandoning American interests was a pretty common theme in his attempt at dragging America down. Do you even know what you're talking about? You clearly do not if what you're saying is to be taken at face value.

Number Four is hilarious. OF COURSE the Saudis were behind 9/11. They had no reason not to be. Wahhabism came from Saudia Arabia, and is quite strong there. The requests for bin Laden's info were denied because the Saudis didn't want that stuff to come to light, because America can dish some pretty harsh reprisals.

Also, is "fascist crack pot" the best (unsubstantiated) insult you can fling? My detailing of your failures is justified and explained. Your laughable attempt at ad hominem is just you being a toxic blight on humanity, resulting to juvenile insults in a serious debate. Stop it. Please. I want to take you and your anti-America whining seriously so I can actually write a serious rebuttal. This is just pathetic.

Anyway, liberal whining aside, the terrorists came to US. You don't see Americans publically beheading Muslims screaming "death to Islam!" in the streets. If they hadn't been dumb enough to anger America, things would be a lot better for all involved, but no, they had to manufacture a refugee "crisis" to slip their guys into Europe so as to ruin our perfectly good society via terrorism. The Soviet Union was aggressively expansionistic, as seen in the decades following WWII. In short, you have no idea what the world is like outside your First World privilege. Stop it.

Also, here, have a serious retort to Pro, in order.
1) The USA funded the Taliban during the Cold War like it supplied the Soviets in WWII. There was something worse running around and those guys were the best bet. Right now, we're actually supplying the Kurds, so the cycle continues, but on a smaller scale each time.
2) "The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that the PR firm, Bell Pottinger, worked alongside top US military officials at Camp Victory in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. The agency was tasked with crafting TV segments in the style of unbiased Arabic news reports, videos of Al-Qaeda bombings that appeared to be filmed by insurgents, and anti-insurgent commercials " and those who watched the videos could be tracked by US forces." Do you know what this means? It's INFORMATION WARFARE, and it is perfectly fair. I mean, you're making it out to be propaganda aimed at the American populace, when in reality "The CDs were encoded to open the videos on RealPlayer software that connects to the Internet when it runs. It would issue an IP address that could then be tracked by US intelligence." That's right, it was actually a means of hunting terrorists.
3) Again, Obama abandoned American allies, which is what caused this whole uproar. Incidentally, under Obama, America entered a state of decline that Trump's pulling us out of.
4 part i) The terror suspect is scared of his HOME GOVERNMENT, not the CIA as Pro would have you believe.
4 part ii) Again, the Saudis had interests in not releasing that information because they have a vested interest in not being crushed under our martial tread, and the reveal that they supplied bin Laden would mean that they would be still be smoking crater right now, so hard would they have been smacked.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about, please refrain from saying anything until such a time as you can retrieve your cranium from your rectum. Talking out of there muffles what you're trying to say. Oh, also, nice directly quoting an article without citing your source. Why am I citing the sources (that actually agree with me) and providing context, while you're just copy-pasting and not providing references? There's a term for that and it's "plagiarism". You also think we should just take what you say at face value and not actually read the articles? Too bad. I actually fact-check, and you have just, well, made yourself look like an idiot. Please stop dragging me down into this pathetic lack of effort you call a debate. I want to actually indulge in a little intellectual exercise from time to time.

(I am absolutely racist against people who don't pledge allegiance to the same flag I do. It's something to do with being a civic nationalist on my part.)
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.