Paris attacks - ongoing

So the desire for money and power has nothing to do with it?

If these jihadi fuckheads are so righteous in their cause, why do they justify the murder of other muslims who have nothing to do with the west?

Why do they always have foreign, NON-WESTERN, backers that keepem around for so long?

I am not saying the west is blameless but many early posts are worded in such a fashion that it insinuates the west is soley if not completely to blame for terrorism, which is asinine.

So ok, no bombings in the west without foreign influence, I'll giva ya that. But what about bombings in the ME itself?

Look no further than post Soviet Afghanistan. The west didn't meddle in their politics or try to form a government. The warlords turned into fucking children and fought amongst themselves.
 
Last edited:
You actually said something that makes a lot of sense. Why does someone straps explosives on himself and blows himself up in the middle of a crowd? Because they have nothing to loose, their life is literally crap, and they have nothing left except a lot of anger.

Want to thin the terrorist's lines? Give people a decent living, help them have a job that gives them economical stability, a family, and they won't risk it to go blow themselves up, all of a sudden they have something to loose, important things.

Of course that's easier said than done, but as an idea is a perfectly valid one. There is also a correlation with quality of living and birth. Worried about overpopulation? Studies say that with a better quality of living people have less children, the population stops growing and stabilizes. Stop poverty and you stop overpopulation.

Anyway, I rambled enough.
 
Gonzalez, we'll go by a hypothetical, NON-WESTERN scenario here.

The governments in the area still have to deal with corruption, non-western foreign influence, religious rivalries, tribal rivalries, secularism VS theocracy, sexism, education etc.

To completely blame others without a fucking iota of introspection is monumentally foolish.

TBH, having many children while not financially capable to take care of said children is terrible. Look at what happened in the PRC. People depend on the government and family to provide education on such matters and when such education is flawed or missing due to religion, corruption, cultural issues, etc, we lose out on quality of life.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Gonzalez, we'll go by a hypothetical, NON-WESTERN scenario here.

The governments in the area still have to deal with corruption, non-western foreign influence, religious rivalries, tribal rivalries, secularism VS theocracy, sexism, education etc.

To completely blame others without a fucking iota of introspection is monumentally foolish.
Click to expand...
No one's "completely blaming others", we're pointing out that the West is culpable or even directly responsible for a lot of destruction and violence in the region, and that that violence in turn creates a breeding ground for further violence by taking away people's perspectives, people's normal environment, and by creating power vacuums for violent groups to jump into. That doesn't mean ISIS and other groups aren't responsible for the violence they in turn are inflicting. But the historical and societal context in which all of this happens matters.

See, this is what you wrote:
Even without western influence, Al Qaeda and the like will always be around. They will continue to exist as long as people are dumb enough to join and think sectarian violence is ok.
Click to expand...
That is false. Al Qaeda is a direct reaction to Western imperialism. It could not have existed without Western violence. The same is true for IS. The same is true for a lot of violent dictators who were propped up by Western policies, too. Now, would we have seen different violent and problematic groups and regimes instead? Maybe, maybe not, maybe the groups we'd see would be a lot more benevolent. But the world we are dealing with right now was shaped by Western violence, and no amount of counterfactual theorizing will make that go away.

No, leaving the West out would not make that region any more idyllic than it would any other place on Earth. But it would leave people to deal with the issues that face every society on their own terms, with their own resources, and their own agency. And you would have had one MILLION fewer dead people in Iraq.
 
Al Qaeda was also in the fight against the soviets too ya know. If anything, we can thank the soviets for inspiring Bin Laden and other leaders of MAK to grow their organisation. This a refutation that 'the west', created Al Qaeda.

Abdullah Assam wanted to use their new found power to focus on an islamic Afghanistan and disagreed with the other MAK leadership about other foreign adventures. Al Zwahiri and Bin Laden however, wanted global jihad and to tear down other muslim governments they deemed weren't following THEIR idea of Islam. This is in conjunction with their mission against foreign influence.

Al Qaeda also has a big fucking beef with Shias, Sufis, etc. This is not a group that targets ONLY westerners.

Your words Sander, DESTRUCTION AND VIOLENCE. INSTABILITY.

I am not arguing western influence hasn't caused a great deal of this. I AM arguing to think that without the west, terrorism would go extinct is a pipe dream. I am arguing that the west is not the ones that CREATED the idea of terrorism.

The west would simply replaced by someone else, who causes the exact same shit. TBH, its unfortunate the ME had such such a large supply of something that would be so important that it would draw the attention of greedy assholes, both western and non-western.

I would theorize without western involvement, the area would be just as violent, albeit, the targets being other foreigners.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Al Qaeda was also in the fight against the soviets too ya know.

Al Qaeda also has a big fucking beef with Shias.
Click to expand...
And al Qaeda, as an organization, has always had as its mission to remove foreign powers from what they perceive as Muslim countries. In practice, this has always been the West and local dictators, many of whom were propped up by the West. Al Qaeda as an organization was founded after the Soviets left Afghanistan, albeit by mujahideen who had fought the Soviets. And yes, they're sectarian too -- but sectarian violence is not its raison d'etre. Its foundational tenet has always been anti-imperialism. They are reacting to a world shaped by colonial and imperialist violence. That doesn't make them righteous, nor does it make their means nor their cause justified, but if you want to know what's going on you first have to understand what it is these people are actually doing and motivated by.

Again, though, no one's arguing that everything would be fine without the West. However, your counterfactuals continue to fail to deal with the world as it actually is. It seems to me that what you're primarily doing here is to try to morally absolve the West by constantly stating that fictional "other people" would do the same. A statement you couldn't possibly prove, simply because a world that had not been faced with Western imperialism would look radically different from ours. Think about the morality of these actions what you will, but realize that they don't change the actual reality people live with and react to. It doesn't change the fact that Western imperialism destroyed the region, and slaughtered over a million people since 2003. That is the reality people are reacting to. You keep dancing around it, instead of dealing with it.
 
I am not morally absolving anyone of anything. You have read my posts Sander, I am the biggest supporter of the EVERYONE is an asshole philosophy. It's politics.

And folks like Dr. Fallout posted stuff like, there was no terrorism/retarded infighting AKA bombings in the ME before whenever.

You folks cannot prove that Al Qaeda was a direct result of WESTERN IMPERIALISM, your words Sander. The soviets were not, THE WEST. You folks are equally un-able to prove the ME wouldn't be invaded by a different hegemon in hypothetical scenario that doesn't involve the west. You also cannot prove that any terrorist groups that would come about in the hypothetical, non-western intervention scenario, would be more benevolent. Lastly, the mujahideen turned into MANY things, including non-AQ affiliated warlords. AQ is still primarily resulantant of wahhabi/salafist of the Saudis, UAE, and others. Your argument reeks of bias.

You are also ignoring the fact that the MAK had a leadership crisis and Assam was AGAINST 'fitna'/MAK getting involved in other foreign affairs besides Afghanistan.

Did we aggravate the situation greatly? YES. YES YES YES YES YES.

Did we 'make' Al Qaeda, hell no, or atleast, weren't the only ones responsible for stoking the violence.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
I am not morally absolving anyone of anything. You have read my posts Sander, I am the biggest supporter of the EVERYONE is an asshole philosophy. It's politics.

And folks like Dr. Fallout posted stuff like, there was no terrorism/retarded infighting AKA bombings in the ME before whenever.

You folks cannot prove that Al Qaeda was a direct of WESTERN IMPERIALISM, your words Sander. The soviets were not, THE WEST. You folks are equally un-able to prove the ME wouldn't be invaded by a different hegemon in hypothetical scenario that doesn't involve the west. We are both guilty of extrapolation here.

You are also ignoring the fact that the MAK had a leadership crisis and Assam was AGAINST 'fitna'/MAK getting involved in other foreign affairs besides Afghanistan.

Did we aggravate the situation greatly? YES. YES YES YES YES YES.

Did we 'make' Al Qaeda, hell no, or atleast, weren't the only ones responsible for stoking the violence.
Click to expand...

Well actually... Al Qaeda was only powerful because of the funding and support America gave it. Al Qaeda would have remained some backwater terrorist groups if the WEST didn't fund them to fight the Soviets who were being imperialistic assholes. The majority of Terrorist groups are actually only so powerful as their funding and support, hence the Taliban and Al Qaeda being some form of a threat.
 
Ignoring the words of Bin Laden and Al Zwahiri and others, MAK had funding from the Saudis and various other arab states as well.

I still say the only people we supported were afghani mujahideen. Any of THAT support that may or might not have found its way to MAK/AQ, isn't on us.

We funded The Taliban? Our funds went to afghanis at a time when Afghanistan was ruled by a communist regime.

Just like how HAMAS and Hezbollah also get funded by non-western powers. Lets atleast try to not let our biases cloud our arguments please.
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing about Jihadism (from an ex-Muslim(yayatheism):

There is a book, a holy book in Islam, with different interpretations leading to different branches (Shia and Sunni, for example (Much like Christianity's Catholicism and Protestants). Some verses of the holy book explicitly says stuff like: Kill all apostates, We will rule the world, child sex slaves are allowed (not joking), but most would say it is either a misinterpretation or 'a product of its time' (just like libertarian Christians). I mean not to say Muslims are bad, they are actually kind people.

And then comes the fucking Jihadists.

A message to them:

You guys.

You guys made my family have a bad reputation because of their beliefs.

You fuckers are turning Islam into the new Communism, the world's evil.

You guys destroyed the lives of many, all in the name of your actions because of OUR common Quran.

You destroyed families by radicalizing one of their kin.

YOU DARE have the balls to behead normally innocent people and show its footage online.

YOU DARE to destroy monuments from the ancients, just because they were not representing your god.

YOU DARE kill people in public.

I mean, if I was a devout Muslim, I wouldn't force everyone my religion, I would just teach them about it when they ask.

Fuck you guys.

-Phexion
 
DarkCorp said:
Ignoring the words of Bin Laden and Al Zwahiri and others, MAK had funding from the Saudis and various other arab states as well.

I still say the only people we supported were afghani mujahideen. Any of THAT support that may or might not have found its way to MAK/AQ, isn't on us.

We funded The Taliban? Our funds went to afghanis at a time when Afghanistan was ruled by a communist regime.

Just like how HAMAS and Hezbollah also get funded by non-western powers. Lets atleast try to not let our biases cloud our arguments please.
Click to expand...

The CIA directly trained Osama bin Laden and funded Al Qaeda. But sure, ignore that cause it makes MURRICA look bad.

I'm not saying the West funded all of the terrorist groups, but they did fund several major ones.
 
And you can ignore my point because it refutes yours, its going nowhere.

I would ask for proof but I'd rather not turn this thread into every other one I have been in.
 
DarkCorp said:
And you can ignore my point because it refutes yours, its going nowhere.

I would ask for proof but I'd rather not turn this thread into every other one I have been in.
Click to expand...

What points? Making statements without proof are not points, no matter how hard you wish them to be. To be fair, we're on equal footing making statements without providing any actual proof.
 
And thats my point. We BOTH have sources but they disagree with eachother, and legitimacy can always be questioned because of bias.
 
DarkCorp said:
I am not morally absolving anyone of anything. You have read my posts Sander, I am the biggest supporter of the EVERYONE is an asshole philosophy. It's politics.
Click to expand...
But this is the moral absolution of everyone involved. Every time anyone talks of anything the West has done, or the USA has done, your response is "yeah well other people would do the same thing." Whether they would or not if they were in the same position is an unanswerable counterfactual. The reality is that others did not do those things. The West did. It is a reality you continually elide in your every post in this thread, and a reality you are actively fighting because you object to it being named every time it comes up.

Stop running away from the history and reality of Western imperialism by pointing to fictional alternative scenarios. Deal with the world the way it actually is.

DarkCorp said:
You folks cannot prove that Al Qaeda was a direct result of WESTERN IMPERIALISM, your words Sander. The soviets were not, THE WEST.
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda wasn't founded until either shortly before or after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Yes, it evolved from mujahideen fighting Soviet imperialism under different organizations but again, the core tenet here is anti-imperialism. Throughout its actual operating history, Al Qaeda have always (with the possible exception of very early days in Afghanistan - a war that cannot be separated from Western imperialism either) focused on removing the West and Western-backed dictators. Al Qaeda as the organization that we know is based on that, and its popularity and success are based solely on what it's done since targeting the West.
 
Uh, the CPC is certainly power hungry. If it wants to exert influence on other countries, why wouldn't it do the same in the ME if it was the dominant hegemon.

We already see Putin getting his hands dirty in the ME becase he wants foreign influence too. And Russia isn't even the dominant hegemon.

I am not pulling this shit out if my ass Sander. You know this much as well back when I was playing devils advocate for the CPC back in the day.

And yea, AQ was formed because of the soviets.

Yes they are popular but thats for MANY different reasons. Its known for an anti-imperialism stance, an organisation that not only adheres to but wants to spread a very radical ideology, a group that wants to topple any islamic government that does not adhere to such an ideology, a local/regional power player, anti-secular promoter, etc. Many organisations begin as something good but end up going in a very different direction. The motivations for joining AQ are equally varied.

AGAIN, I run from nothing. I simply disagree that terrorism is something that came about SOLEY because of 'the west'. I disagree that groups like AQ/HAMAS can be justified as poor, victimized arabs, oppressed by foreign powers, their actions legitimised by some kind of resistance fighter image. Maybe you agree with me but the many arguments here are worded in such a way that it implies such beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Darkcorp, your argument is based on that America is fine in doing shit because others do it.

What kind of argument is that? Bad things are always bad, no matter if it's done by America or Russia or anyone else. Just because America is a hegemon does not grant it full passport to mess around with other countries, which corrupts its role and just makes it another power hungry super power. America is no better then Russia, and if anything is far worse.
 
Dr. Fallout again with this?

I have never said it is morally correct. Not in the US shitty place to live or the ukraine civil war thead or akratus thread.

Politics is a fucked up beast where there will ALWAYS be winners and losers.

Sometimes, its a total fuckup and nobody wins and everyone loses.

Anything done for corporate greed and not out of a true national security issue or allied commitment I will whole-heartedly disagree with. I have said so many times in other threads already.

PS: My answer above this was for Sander and not directed at you Dr.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Dr. Fallout again with this?

I have never said it is morally correct. Not in the US shitty place to live or the ukraine civil war thead or akratus thread.

Politics is a fucked up beast where there will ALWAYS be winners and losers.

Sometimes, its a total fuckup and nobody wins and everyone loses.

Anything done for corporate greed and not out of a true national security issue or allied commitment I will whole-heartedly disagree with. I have said so many times in other threads already.

PS: My answer above this was for Sander and not directed at you Dr.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, but you IMPLY it what I see, and I see you justifying the US because others do it and that it's a hegemon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top