Damn terrorists...

[Phantom Engineer]

Complicated question, but a good question.

[Ator]

Alot of the terrorists that attack us are Islamic. However, these people are so extreme that they take Allahs word, and twist it into "Kill your enemies (non believers), and you will go to paradise with 77 virgins feeding you grapes." Well, at least thats what i've heard. They feel that martyr is the best way to get to heaven, so they kill us westerners.

[TomServo69]

Most likely, none of this would have ever happened if the U.S. had not decided at some point in history (after WW2) that it had some responsibility to be the "world police/caretaker". You ever notice how we (America) send millions of dollars to take care of foreign countries but we have people living under overpasses in this country? You ever notice how any time anyone threatens that flow of money to or from this country (i.e. Arab nations with oil money) that we have to get involved in a generally militaristic way? That's why there are terrorists. We've tried to police people who have been fighting since time began by trying to introduce our Democratic (and only about 250 year old) way of life upon them. Sure, what they do and did was wrong but, when you take a look at it, it's all an effect of our, as well as the U.N.'s tampering with ancient rivalries all for monetary gain.

Just a thought from a historian,

Servo

[BobJohnson]

Remember too that we bombed them becuase they were terrorists and they are retalliating just like we did in Pearl Harbor or 9/11 but in a more extreme way. And also, our fore fathers were terrorists too. The Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack against the British and the Swamp Fox militia, which is a hit and run team. All I know is we brought it on to ourselves because we go kill innocent people who are not affiliated with terrorists and we cover it up as collateral damage.

[LordKaT]

I promised myself not to get involved in this thread; but, as with many conversations on the Internet, this one has become full of generalizations. And, too many generalizations leads to a very clouded history.

So! Class is in session. Shut up, sit down, and learn.

First, America didn't just stand up and say "hey! we wanna be the world's police!" In fact, before WW2 started, America was highly reluctant to get into anything involving Europe because of debts owed to us from many countries which could not - and would not - repay us. We only entered WW2 because of Perl Harbor - because the American interest now became self defense (incidentally, did you know that 6 of the destroyers that were bombed were refloated about a week after the bombing?).

WW2 didn't just end with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - although they were a huge contributor. America faced a _very_ uphill public relations battle. The military gave one description of events and death tolls, while the truth gave a very different - and very deadly - description. Japan, using this leverage, managed to negotiate a bit of their surrender, and got off easier than Germany in the long run (although innocent civilians would suffer for decades, the land was same for resuse almost immediately). We all know what happened with Germany (that big "wall thing"). Russia is an interesting story, since Hitler back stabbed her, Russia and the US were actually allies for a while (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). But, when it came to the surrender negotiations, Russia had felt that the US was trying to strong arm her. Oddly enough, out of all the theories of world domination, the most basic thing Russia wanted - which was denied - was a warm water port, so that the economy could bloom again.

After WW2, Russia starts to make some aggression to Poland, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The US - after some political persuasion from the Frech and British - steps in and says "hey! Any aggression towards Turkey will be seen as an act of war." Russia, not wanting any part of that (just yet), backs off.

All of this helps lead to the whole arms race and decades of chest pounding nationalism - which is a really interesting read, if you ever have the time to research it. This also leads to the deployment of troops all over the world, due to political instability (hey, we're practically the only country with enough fighting men to help out at this point).

Korea and Vietnam are both important, politically and historically, to discuss, but they're not vital to the current situation. However, it's enough to say that a lot of political bickering within the US led to a lot of the manslaughter that we had to endure. Hey, Egos are a deadly thing, especially with old men in power. Anyway, let' get back on track.

Fast forward to the 1960's and 70's: terrorism is a global trend. The middle east is politically unstable, with Iraq being a major cause of the instability. The CIA is funding a political overthrow of the current government with Saddam Hussein and the Bathist party. However, Hussein was never meant to become the dictator he once was. The intent was to setup a republic similar to what we have here. It's a _really_ long story of how Hussein came into power, but it's enough to say that he became dictator.

Hussein gasses the Kurds, and the Arab world blames the US (in the Arab media, they constantly reminded the people that the US put Hussein into power, even though the original intent was different; therefore, the US are the murderers in the eyes of the Arab world).

Where does Bin Laden come into play? Again, another long story, but he too, was supposed to be someone the US trusted. However, there is a very unique twist to this story. The CIA was funding Bin Laden's group for another political overthrow. Now, this is hotly debated, but the general consensus is that the Senate was never informed of this spending and thus yanked the money from the CIA. All bin Laden saw was that the US was no longer helping him, and his people, with only partial training and no more funding, were going to be slaughtered. This became personal to him and thus was born Al Qaeda.

Alright, fast forward again to Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. We know the basic story: Iraq invades Kuwait, US attacks Iraq, but doesn't go the Baghdad. This is used as propaganda that Hussein could defeat the American army. However, one important note about this war that is always overlooked is that the Arab world - now disgusted by America - saw this as yet another slap in the face to the Arab world, because now the US wouldn't take out the dictator they put in on purpose.

Bill Clinton then plays a little ti for tat with bin Laden - bin Laden blows up a boat, we send one cruise missile into their (abandoned) camp.

OK, so 9/11 comes along, f*cks everything up. People are pissed off, the press is pissed off, and the military is chained down like a rabid dog just wishing for the President to say "go." So, we went. And bombed the crap out of a bunch of dust. Interestingly enough, right after 9/11 we received both condolence (from France, Russian, Germany, Britain, et al.), and claims of innocence (Iran, Iraq, UAE, Pakistan all had their respective leaders come on the airwaves and say "we didn't do it!" Yeah, they didn't want to get the crap kicked out of them, eh?). So, the Afghanistan war is about the happen, and a lot of political weight is being thrown around. Bush claims he wants bin Laden, Afghanistan, at first, said they didn't have him, then changed their remarks to we have him but his crimes will be tried by us, not you.

Hell, folks, let's be honest here: we had a f*cking invasion force knocking on the doors of Afghanistan. An invasion force so pumped up and ready to kill it would've made China go "damn! I'm glad we didn't piss those fellas off." So, even if the Taliban hand delivered us bin Ladens head on a silver platter, with al of his generals as appetizers, they were going down - hard.

So the Taliban and Al Qaeda retreated into the mountains. Yes, that war is not over. I know that, you know that, and I'm sure President Bush knows that. But, we move on to Iraq.

Alright, I have my own opinion on this current war in Iraq. It's a convoluted story, it's not clear cut, and it's rediculous what the current administration has been able to get away with; however, that's just my opinion. We won't know the truth, or the outcome, for years - or decades - from now. Suffice it to say, there is a regime change in Iraq. So, what's the Arab reaction? Well, it's actually a mixed reaction - partially bad, partially good. Many media outlets were actually saying that was America was doing was good (a sharp change from the way America was portrayed); however, many were still saying that it was a problem America should've left for the Arab world to deal with. both of these opinions drastically changed when America captured Hussein. The Arab media was once again unified in its America bashing, mostly feeling that America should've let Iraq capture him on their own.

So what the hell does all of this have to do with Al Qaeda? first off, before you start to sound like a dickweed, the war in Iraq is not "their Perl Harbor." In fact, Bin Laden has been very adamant about regime change in Iraq for a long time. However, being a good political organization, they know how to manipulate the Arab media. They now support the former Bathist party. As I said, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In conclusion, this is one big political mess. On one hand, it's America trying - desperately - to get the Arab world to like it. On the other hand, it's the Arab would pounding its chest with pride and regionalism. Of course, there are other problems too, such as Saudia Arabias control of the Media and Internet. Hey, I'll bet you didn't know that in Saudia Arabia, reporting news not sanctioned by the government is punishable by death? Of course, it's much more than just Saudia Arabia. It's political problems within each individual country (including the USA). For example, in Saudia Arabia, the royal family is very close with the US administration; however, the overwhelming majority of the political powers that be are adamantly anti-west.

*whew*

And now, the joke:

Alright, so this was a condensed (and astonishingly innacurate) lesson in political history. If you took me seriously, you're a moron. If you simplify things, you help cloud history. If you think you know it all, you've managed to revise history.

The lesson is folks: things are way too complicated for us to understand in our lifetimes. Sit back, have a beer, and let the powers that be bicker over some crap, because in 20 or 30 years this will just be another page in some kids history book.

[TomServo69]

Damn!!! Seems like my rant set some of youz guys off. Didn't intend it to. Just one of many viewpoints. In fact, all of us are right. Cause it's just opinion.

Servo

[nightfalcawk]

I live in New York. I seriously don't care. All New Yorkers don't. They just want to harague sympathy from the other states.
Now that you have read this I will have to kill you.
[glow=red,2,300]TEXT[/glow]DIE!!!!!!!

[Torgo]

nightfalcawk said:

I live in New York. I seriously don't care. All New Yorkers don't. They just want to harague sympathy from the other states.
Now that you have read this I will have to kill you.
[glow=red,2,300]TEXT[/glow]DIE!!!!!!!

What the hell?





You know, this is the great thing about Idaho. Nobody wants us dead and nobody wants us alive. Our state is that unimportant.

[Phantom Engineer]

Torgo said:

You know, this is the great thing about Idaho. Nobody wants us dead and nobody wants us alive. Our state is that unimportant.

It's not completely unimportant. I have realatives there.

[Torgo]

phantomengineer said:

It's not completely unimportant. I have realatives there.

This is like a safe shelter with a lifetime's supply of potatoes.

Move the whole family here. It rules.