War on Terror is Wrong - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2005, 03:17 PM   #151
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


The same things though, post D-Day, were being said about France and our occupation there. Same with Germany. I can't even guess at the amount of civillians that died as the result of the invasion of Germany; but I would say that they are better off now.

I don't believe you can compare Vietnam and Iraq. Sure, there is a tenuous link; but not really much of one. In Vietnam there were battles there that cost thousands of lives at one time, only to have the enemy melt away after being defeated and then return again. We really were in Vietnam facing a true army; and it was one that was being supported by another major super power.

But none of that applies here. There isn't an opposing army. There aren't any literal battles. And there is no super-power support for the other side. The war the terrorists are fighting isn't a guerilla war. There won't be a Tet Offensive in Iraqi because AQ doesn't have those types of resources.
You say that in Vietnam the enemy would be defeated but then would return later. This is exactly what's happening in Iraq. Once the US takes over a city, another one of our cities is lost. My friend in Iraq constantly travelled between Fallujah and Najaf because they couldn't hold either city. The enemy was defetaed, but then returned.

guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ~ noun ~ A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Roadside bombs. Car bombs. Suicide bombers. Snipers on top of buildings. All happening in territory which has been occupied by the US. I couldn't think of a better example of a war that has been ALL guerilla warfare. This war has the potential to be quite similar to Vietnam. We could have thousands of American deaths, only to find that terrorists are running the country in the end.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:18 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Just like BVS & Moon, no whining allowed. You open that door, I'll get down and dirty with you. But if you're willing to not be an ass from the get-go I'll play nice too.
Uh, excuse me, but I think I've been pretty nice to you so far, the sole exception being my snapping towards the end of my last post. I haven't been smug, I haven't been rude. Nobody here is denying the anti-war crowd can be smug. We're just saying that the pro-war crowd isn't always free from that, too, is all.

And besides that, if you think we're being so smug and rude, why stoop to our level? Why not be the better person?

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:44 PM   #153
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


You say that in Vietnam the enemy would be defeated but then would return later. This is exactly what's happening in Iraq. Once the US takes over a city, another one of our cities is lost. My friend in Iraq constantly travelled between Fallujah and Najaf because they couldn't hold either city. The enemy was defetaed, but then returned.

guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ~ noun ~ A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Roadside bombs. Car bombs. Suicide bombers. Snipers on top of buildings. All happening in territory which has been occupied by the US. I couldn't think of a better example of a war that has been ALL guerilla warfare. This war has the potential to be quite similar to Vietnam. We could have thousands of American deaths, only to find that terrorists are running the country in the end.
Firstly they lack the popular support to lead a popular revolution and their tactics that deliberately target civilians to destabalise have much more in common with paramillitary deathsquads than genuine guerrila fighters.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 04:27 PM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
Yes, it was safe to walk down a street in Baghdad prior to 2003. A man could go to the market to go buy some vegetables without fear of being blown up.

Your comparison to D-Day is very valid. Often times people have had to die in order for progress to be made (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII etc.) The only problem is that, like in Vietnam, people died in vain. I believe this is the same. As long as the US is there, terrorists will try to kill Americans and cause havoc in the nation, thus making us stay there for longer. Thus leading us in a positive feedback loop where more and more deaths pile up.
Yes, if the man was in the good graces of the regime, he might be able to go about his business without having worry about himself or his families. But that was not the case for everyone that lived in Baghdad at the time, and while they man could go to the market without problems, others were being exectuted and raped in Saddam's torture rooms and chambers.

Most people in Baghdad then were in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, knowing that could mean imprisonment, execution, or rape by the government. The Security services, there were 12 of them, would always be watching people. Some of the security services would in fact be spying on the other security services. Thousands of citizens of Baghdad were murdered by Saddam while he was in power, and the whole city lived in fear of what Saddam and his security/military might do to them. This culture of fear was something that Saddam had designed, for it prevented any sort of serious uprising from the people.


The US and coalition forces that died in Vietnam died for a noble cause. The only problem was that the United States abandon Vietnam after it pulled its troops out. Had the United States continued to supply South Vietnam with military supplies and aid them with military support when necessary, South Vietnam would still be an independent country today and millions of lives would have been saved. In 1972, one year before the United States completely pulled out, the South Vietnamese military with US airpower, successfully defeated the largest North Vietnamese offensive that had ever been launched to that point. The United States only had advisors on the ground at this point, and the United States limited role at this point confirms that had this limited role continued for a few more years, South Vietnam would have been able to successfully defend its self from the North.


If the United States leaves Iraq, the terrorist ability to cause more terror and destruction would grow wildly. The terrorist are killing far more Iraqi civilians and military personal than American troops. The terrorist are primarily Saddam loyalist who want to return Saddam's Bath Party and Regime to power. They want to control the entire country again like they have for the past 3 to 4 decades. The Kurds, Shia and some Sunni's want democracy and a better way of life, the terrorist though do not want this and want to establish Sunni control over the entire country again.

Pulling out US troops will only enable the Saddam loyalist to kill and terrorize more people. It will allow them to destroy the Iraqi military before it is built and to destroy all the succesfull moves towards democracy made by the new government and the people of Iraq.

The majority of Iraqi's support having the coalition in the country to defend them and support the new government and drafting of the new constitution. 8 million of them went to the polls to vote in the elections back in January to support the process that the coalition has designed for the country to get back on its feet.

The terrorist will not stop, regardless of whether there are US troops on the ground in Iraq or not. If Iraq is to become a democracy and have a prosperous country, the coalition troops must stay in the country for years to 1. develop and train the Iraqi army so the country can defend itself from the terrorist. 2. Help the new government develop politically, intervening to negotiate when arguements occur among Iraq's three main ethnic groups. 3. Continue the process of economic development of the country in all area's because success here will have a positive effect on the political process and will help to defeat the terrorist. 4. The coalition must remain in the country to provide the security and protection the the Iraqi's are unable currently to provide for themselves.

You only hear about the road side bombs that kill people. For everyone that does kill someone, there are hundreds of roadside bombs that are found and dismantled by well trained US and coalition troops every day. With out their services, the death toll in Iraq would be far worse.

Remember what Bosnia looked like in the mid 1990s, ethnic cleansing and over 250,000 murdered. Pull out before the mission is accomplished and that is the best environment the Iraqi's will be able to have, but its most likely that the situation would be far worse than anything that happened in Bosnia.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 04:37 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


You say that in Vietnam the enemy would be defeated but then would return later. This is exactly what's happening in Iraq. Once the US takes over a city, another one of our cities is lost. My friend in Iraq constantly travelled between Fallujah and Najaf because they couldn't hold either city. The enemy was defetaed, but then returned.

guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ~ noun ~ A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Roadside bombs. Car bombs. Suicide bombers. Snipers on top of buildings. All happening in territory which has been occupied by the US. I couldn't think of a better example of a war that has been ALL guerilla warfare. This war has the potential to be quite similar to Vietnam. We could have thousands of American deaths, only to find that terrorists are running the country in the end.
The United States and South Vietnames forces defeated the guerilla insurgency in the Vietnam war. By 1971/1972 nearly all of the war being carried on by the Communist against South Vietnam was being done by regular North Vietnamese military units coming from the North and invading the south. The "Vietcong" by then had largely ceased to exist. Two years after the United States pulled out of South Vietnam, the North Vietnames military launched a massive offensive from their territory with all the weapons and tactics of conventional warefare. Tanks, Artillery, infantry units, etc. When the North Vietnamese finally entered Saigon, it was North Vietnamese tanks that ended the last resistence by the South Vietnames, not a small band of guerilla's with mask and black uniforms. The reality is that after the United States left, the North Vietnamese conquered South Vietnam in the same way that Hitler conquered France in the second World War!

Oh and for your information, Najaf is under the control of the Iraqi's, it is no longer a haven for insurgents. The last serious resistence there was defeated in the Summer of 2004. My best friend participated in the retaking of Fallugah in November 2004. It took a few days and they killed thousands of insurgents. Certainly, every now and then, a terrorist may pop up in these particular cities to launch an attack, but they do not control these cities any more so than the IRA controls Belfast and Derry.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 07:41 PM   #156
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I'm not saying al-Qaeda, Saddam or any other lunatic is correct in their views about Israel. What I am saying is that the existence of the Israeli state, or specific policies of the Israeli government have often been cited as specific grievances by groups such as al-Qaeda. You seemed to suggest Israel isn't an influence on those groups, which I think is wrong.
That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is the world we live in now post 9/11 has little if nothing to do with Israel. And when Israel is brought in it is simply propaganda, just like when Saddam used it during Desert Storm.

The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC didn't do it because of Israel. The attacks on Madrid and London weren't because of Israel. The embassy attacks in deeper Africa, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, the barracks in Saudi Arabia. None of those acts attributed to AQ were stated as because of our relationship with Israel.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 07:58 PM   #157
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


You say that in Vietnam the enemy would be defeated but then would return later. This is exactly what's happening in Iraq. Once the US takes over a city, another one of our cities is lost. My friend in Iraq constantly travelled between Fallujah and Najaf because they couldn't hold either city. The enemy was defetaed, but then returned.


We hold both Najaf and Fallujah and have for quite some time.


Quote:
guer·ril·la or gue·ril·la ~ noun ~ A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.
A terrorist cell and a paramilitary unit are far different things. A guerilla's target is military. A terrorist's target is civillian. By far, most targets in Iraq have been civillian. There's no guerilla war in Iraq.

Quote:
Roadside bombs. Car bombs. Suicide bombers. Snipers on top of buildings. All happening in territory which has been occupied by the US. I couldn't think of a better example of a war that has been ALL guerilla warfare. This war has the potential to be quite similar to Vietnam. We could have thousands of American deaths, only to find that terrorists are running the country in the end.
I can. Look at central Africa, central America and south America for real examples of guerilla warfare. Look at the French resistance during WWII for guerilla war. And look at the Viet Cong in Vietnam for guerilla war.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare can share a few common traits but are in reality are vastly different.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 08:27 PM   #158
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is the world we live in now post 9/11 has little if nothing to do with Israel. And when Israel is brought in it is simply propaganda, just like when Saddam used it during Desert Storm.

The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC didn't do it because of Israel. The attacks on Madrid and London weren't because of Israel. The embassy attacks in deeper Africa, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, the barracks in Saudi Arabia. None of those acts attributed to AQ were stated as because of our relationship with Israel.
Yes but it can't be denied that Israel's occupation of the Islamic holy land is part of the ideology of hatred towards the west.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 08:34 PM   #159
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
[B]

We hold both Najaf and Fallujah and have for quite some time.
Umm...no....are you telling me that I'm lying and that my friend didn't have to travel between Fallujah and Najaf because the towns were facing extreme terrorist hostility and were becoming very difficult to hold.


Quote:
A terrorist cell and a paramilitary unit are far different things. A guerilla's target is military. A terrorist's target is civillian. By far, most targets in Iraq have been civillian. There's no guerilla war in Iraq.
Hmm...time to use some high school geometry. A guerilla's target is military. The main target by the terrorists in Iraq have been US military and the Iraqi police force who are trained by the military. Therefore by the transitive property, the terrorists are fighting guerilla warfare. Yay!! I never thought geometry could ever be useful in life.


Quote:
I can. Look at central Africa, central America and south America for real examples of guerilla warfare. Look at the French resistance during WWII for guerilla war. And look at the Viet Cong in Vietnam for guerilla war.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare can share a few common traits but are in reality are vastly different.
You haven't addressed the issue of WHY roadside bombs, mines, car bombs, hidden gunmen isn't guerrila warfare. This ISN'T a traditional war like in the past where there is a clear enemy and they wear uniforms and fight against us. These are people who are fighting us from the shadows. Very similar to in Vietnam.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 08:36 PM   #160
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Plus we shouldnt have gone to war anyways.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:31 PM   #161
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Um, I believe I made it quite clear that we shouldn't be diplomatic with the terrorists.


No you haven't made it very clear. You've said that we should've looked for a diplomatic solution. Here, I quote you: "We should've taken more diplomatic measures."

Quote:
I just think we should've found some way to take people like him out without putting innocent people in the line of fire. We have done it before, after all.
Well ALRIGHT! An actual suggestion from the other side. :-) And I'm not being sarcastic either. Problem with that solution though is the same one W's dad faced. *Maybe* you could take him out; but his sons, his generals, and his inner circle would still be in power. He's not the danger; his government is. And again, really, I don't know how feasible it would have been. Look how long it took for the entire army to find him; a single assassin would've had a much more difficult time. Saddam was waiting and ready for an assassination attempt from us.

Quote:
Also, we were friends with Saddam for the longest time, and we're friends with other countries in which the dictators there treat their people as bad as Saddam did, if not worse, so pardon me if I didn't quite feel our efforts to suddenly remove him were sincere.
That doesn't mean jack and I'm sick of that arguement. We were friends with Bin Laden too. We are friends with Japan and Germany and Britain now when we were the bitterest of enemies at other times in history. The Soviet Union was an ally of ours during WWII and then we fought the Cold War against them. Italy was our ally in WWI and our enemy in WWII. It's the nature of politics. We helped Saddam because he opposed our enemy Iran who as a nation took a bunch of Americans hostage for no reason. He didn't become an enemy in turn until he invaded a peaceful nation. Even then; he didn't need to stay an enemy if he had just complied with UN resolutions; and he had ten years to do so.

Quote:
And yet there were other people who opposed this who weren't involved in that sort of thing, they opposed it because they just didn't see how our doing it this way would help the situation.
Yeah, I know there were dissenters based on ideology rather than economics. But traditionally; while their accomplishments are not to be overlooked; they aren't up to the type of help a country like Russia can provide. And like you yourself; those countries as you say had a difference of opinion. They wanted diplomacy to work. They wanted weapons inspections and want a peaceful solution. I'm here to tell ya, SO DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But those policies were proven to be insufficient.

Quote:
Again, not negotiate. Capture. Find ways to capture them, put them in jail, and let the people who suffered under their horrid rule come up with the best punishment possible for the person.
We did that. Saddam's going on trial soon. Bin Laden will when he's captured (if he's alive). Guantanamo Bay is full of captured suspects.

Quote:
Uh...I do. It would be quite nice to not have our country constantly being threatened by extremists.
Certainly would. But I'm making the point that as long as those threats don't materialize; I can handle the threats.

Quote:
Well, the way the administration and a lot of people who supported this war were making it seem, this stuff was supposed to stop as a result of this war, the world was going to love us and everyone would be happy.
Categorically false. Yes, alot of this stuff is supposed to stop... when the war is won. The administration emphatically stated this would take years. They said over and over that this could cause more threats; that short term terrorism could increase. And I defy you to find a single quote from anyone in the administration that is in the realm of "the world is going to love us and everyone would be happy."

Quote:
We're supposed to be ending terorrism, and the extremists' threats are a part of their terror tactics. Their threats make people paranoid and antsy, which is what they enjoy.
They also enjoy the dissention that it causes. Why doesn't that concern you?

Quote:
Yeah, but terrorists have threatened before and actually acted upon their threats, and they could do it again. So I'd say it's worth taking seriously.
Who says it's not taken seriously? By your own admission, security is tightened, they're quick on the trigger with terror alerts. Drills by enforcement agencies are being run constantly on how to deal with terror crisis. The Patriot Act was adopted. The Homeland Security dept was created. I'd say it IS being taken seriously.

Quote:
But this war, I honestly don't know if we can win. Sure, we have the greatest military available, we can win in the battles on the ground. I just don't think the long-term effects on the people will be all that great, that is where I think we'll lose.
The people of Iraq disagree with you.

Quote:
History has proven that people tend to hold grudges, and sometimes those grudges come back to bite people in the ass big time
So we do nothing? We enact policies that have been proven in the past not to work?

Quote:
No, again, I have no problem with things moving slowly, but if they're moving slowly and only adding to the violence, I don't see how it's working.
Well, Saddam's been captured, terrorist strongholds like Naja, Basra and Falluja have been pacified aside from isolated attacks. A provisional government has been put in place. A constitution is being written and a democratic election is to happen before the year is out. A civillian police force is also being formed. I'd say things are happening quickly at this point and with those small victories, I'd have to say it's working.

Quote:
I do want long-term solutions, it's just that I would like it if those solutions were non-violent ones, because the long-term effects of those will be a lot better for all involved than violent ones. That's all.
Non-violent solutions don't work against terrorists. We're not talking about elected officials to put pressure on here. Can you imagine how absurd it would be to bus in a few thousand pacificists to have a rally in Afghanistan?

Quote:
So they voted for Bush in the last election. So what? The thoughts they had then aren't necessarily the ones they have now. People can and have changed their minds. And even if the majority feels they're still doing something good, the fact that a minority has some complaints is something worth considering, too...is it just because they're in a crappy situation, or is it because they genuinely don't feel we're doing as well as we claim to be?
Especially if they agree with you, right? Maybe the majority opinion is worth being considered as well?

Quote:
And that takes time. So how long exactly do we intend on staying there? And how are we going to be able to stay there as long as we might without it starting to look like an occupation instead of a liberation?
It is an occupation. Just like we occupied Germany after WWII. But occupation and liberation are not mutally exclusive. As to how long? That's the part that nobody likes; including me. But the truth is we'll stay there as long as it takes for Iraq to stand on it's own. But I'd be watching our relations with Iran and Syria right now. Especially Iran. We could be there for a long long time.

Quote:
Besides that, there have been some stories in various news reports that I've read over time in which some Iraqis aren't happy with us, and would kinda like us to go away now. We got Saddam out for them, great, they appreciate that. Now we should leave them alone and let them set up their government their way, let them deal with the rogue people who try and oppose them having control over their own government. It just seems that with us having our hands in the government building process over there that it doesn't quite make them 100% "free".
Of course they are. If I were Iraqi, I might not be too happy about it either. By the same token; those reports never say whether the dissenters are Suuni or Shiite. And that's a valid question. And no matter what they say, we pull out now, that country dissintegrates into something along the lines of Somalia. And no one wants that.

Quote:
For the love of god, will you get off that already? Both sides are guilty of that, too. They're both guilty of smugness and both guilty of exaggeration. Let it go.

Sorry, that's just really starting to bug me.

Angela
Yeah, well it bugs me too. Bugs me enough to point it out. You don't like it, tell some of the others to stop and stop yourself. I'd love to have a conversation about this just on the facts without all the "ums" and "ers" and other crap. As I said, I keep it civil so long as others do. But I have NO problem with responding in kind.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:35 PM   #162
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Uh, excuse me, but I think I've been pretty nice to you so far, the sole exception being my snapping towards the end of my last post. I haven't been smug, I haven't been rude. Nobody here is denying the anti-war crowd can be smug. We're just saying that the pro-war crowd isn't always free from that, too, is all.


Just look at the inital posts of anti war responses to pro war arguments. The ones where a new debator enters the fray.

Quote:
And besides that, if you think we're being so smug and rude, why stoop to our level? Why not be the better person?

Angela
More of an Eye For An Eye type of guy, myself.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:40 PM   #163
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


Umm...no....are you telling me that I'm lying and that my friend didn't have to travel between Fallujah and Najaf because the towns were facing extreme terrorist hostility and were becoming very difficult to hold.


What makes you think I would have a problem with saying you are lying about something?

Quote:
Hmm...time to use some high school geometry. A guerilla's target is military. The main target by the terrorists in Iraq have been US military and the Iraqi police force who are trained by the military. Therefore by the transitive property, the terrorists are fighting guerilla warfare. Yay!! I never thought geometry could ever be useful in life.
You obviously share that opinion about history.

Quote:
You haven't addressed the issue of WHY roadside bombs, mines, car bombs, hidden gunmen isn't guerrila warfare.
Did.

Quote:
This ISN'T a traditional war like in the past where there is a clear enemy and they wear uniforms and fight against us. These are people who are fighting us from the shadows. Very similar to in Vietnam.
Most of the battles in Vietnam were with people who wore uniforms. Plus those that didn't almost still exclusively attacked military, not civilian targets. And I never said this is a traditional war. I just said it's not like Vietnam.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:42 PM   #164
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


Yes but it can't be denied that Israel's occupation of the Islamic holy land is part of the ideology of hatred towards the west.
Never denied it. Just said that Israel hasn't been used as a reason behind the attacks we've experienced.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:05 PM   #165
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Never denied it. Just said that Israel hasn't been used as a reason behind the attacks we've experienced.
Maybe the guy on the video tapes didn't say "israel is the reason" but it's definetly fuel to the ideology of hatred towards the west. there isn't ONE specific thing that causes so many islamic extremists to hate us.....it's a collaboration of many things, and Israel plays a major role in this.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com