European countries have banded together in the past when their nations and cultures were being threatened by foreign forces, which has included Muslims. European countries were also where right-wing nationalism has been able to take root at various times. It is more likely to happen there, than here. Not all, but many, if not most. Most young Muslims in the West would be more loyal to Islam than their home country, with double digit percentages preferring Sharia over current Western systems. http://news.investors.com/100115-773707-tapper-scolding-of-carson-ignores-islamic-fifth-column-building-inside-america.htm Some feel that way, others will only fight if victory was possible. Both have Islamic roots. Hudna relates to the latter.
They had a plan but they overestimated the desire and ability of the Iraqi people to step up and create a civilized nation...when that happened the real mistake occurred. We should have simply governed the place for a few decades until the locals grew tired of murdering each other and strangers.
9/11 didn't cause that. Two failed Presidents(Obama/Bush) and one Dumbass Secretary of State(Hillary) caused that. Don't hold this country liable for its incompetents.
No, it's to show that ISIS is just the continuation of what Muslims have been doing since the very beginning of their religion. You intentionally dismiss the overwhelming majority of Islam's history because you only focus on the time frame that allows you to support your anti-Western, xenophilic narrative. There's no double standard. You simply made a strawman, attributing an argument to me that I've never made.
When did I mention it? There are varying degrees of adherence in every belief system. The Barbary Pirates shouldn't have attacked the US ships if your narrative was true. The US had never gotten involved in that part of the Islamic world at that point. Unless, of course, their stated motivation for the attack, which was Islamic in nature, was true? Think that's possible?
Every State has been a militarized State. And when you look at it from that perspective, acknowledging that every State has once armed itself and moved for its objectives. Blaming a State for doing so, is like blaming a person for wearing their favorite clothes during the day. No, of more importance is whether or not a State used its military for the betterment of the world, of society and of course it's own natural interests. Speaking globally, the European Expansion into the West created two financial hubs(London and the US), spread highly advanced medicines through the continents and generally, everyone is living healthier lives(we have bonus points for cultivating and advancing Asian interests. A move that helped redefine this 21st century positively as well) Without the West, there is no civilization. Especially since Arabia fell off the map once they took Muhammad's declaration of war, and ran with it. Becoming the bloodied cesspool of crap that it is now. Nationally, the US not only expanded its own sphere of influence, but is a de-facto shield for itself and its allies. Allowing for Mexico/Canada to co-exist relatively peacefully. The US put an end to over a century of European fighting. That we haven't enjoyed the same success in the Middle East, as in Europe is owed to strategy(Bush/Obama). It's hard to overcome 16 years of bad politics. But even with these past 16 years, the US is still the leader and beacon of the free world, and the world can only remain free with US Prestige and US Supremacy. That's why its important to elect the next leader of the US to be better than the other two stooges.
I'm going to give you guys something else to think about. It just occurred to me that traditionally - and by traditionally, I'm referring to going back many centuries - France, England, much of Europe have been nations that tended to colonize other countries or send their citizens elsewhere/leave on their own. Heck, that's pretty much Australia, Canada, and the US, among other countries. But now, relatively recently - and by recently, I mean measured in decades rather than centuries - European countries are becoming places where immigrants are headed towards. And from a historical standpoint, Europeans aren't as able to deal with that as the US has been, where the US has traditionally been formed FROM immigrants. I found an article HERE that explains it a lot better than I could. It's soemwhat well documented that Muslims integrate better in the US than in Europe, for instance - and maybe that's because Europe doesn't really have an entrenched tradition of integrating other cultures into itself. Not that the US is perfect, far from it. But as far as our European colleagues blaming everything on the US - well, they might want to take a look at what they themselves as national entities have been doing as well - and how at least part of that could have led to what happened in France today.
They actually did not have a plan. Christian/Jewish west being a colonial power again and thieve resources etc... Them days are gone.
Still waiting for you to withdraw you claim FOX lied about a terrorist being captured. Did I miss it or something?
them gone days is exactly why we see what we see. If nothing else we have seen that there are nations in the middle east not ready for self governance...
It's to show that ISIS is just ''the product of geopolitical games of the U.S. in the Middle East and blindly following them - by the West countries''.
For two reasons. One, it takes time for movements to coalesce and organize. Two, the intensity and extent of western interventionism did not reach its apex until the post-WWII era. The US government invaded and occupied two countries in response to 9/11, one of which had nothing to with 9/11. Support for those interventions was extremely high in the aftermath of 9/11 and only deteriorated after years of bungling and poor results. In other words, the western response to 9/11 was the exact opposite of the results you claim such attacks were intended to produce. Again, Muslims countries had ships that could traverse the Atlantic and federal immigration policies were virtually nonexistent, so your claim that oceans and "guarded borders" were the main reasons why Muslims didn't immigrate to America in large numbers simply isn't support by evidence. That doesn't change the fact that they came here from foreign countries. And I've pointed out that the Barbary pirates attacks were not happening IN AMERICA, but thousands of miles away from America. Feel free to educate yourself on the fact that Muslims were immigrating to America long before this ever occurred. Where is your evidence that the vast majority of Muslims living in the US are "sleeper cells" who want to conquer America? Never said or implied anything remotely approaching this. You also said they had a right to govern themselves according to their culture, so you also support their right to establish a caliphate. Doesn't matter why I support them. The fact that I do disproves your earlier claim that I'm against "whites" having "any kind of nationalism to strengthen themselves." My position is just a reformulation of the golden rule, which is one of the most common sensical maxims in western history. do unto others as you would have them do unto you In other words, if you wouldn't like having your country invaded, bombed, subverted, and otherwise violated by an arrogant foreign government, then chances are other people would not like it either. That is just common sense, unless you're emotionally invested in the supremacy of white-skinned people, regardless of how arrogantly and aggressively they behave. I'm not categorically opposed to borders. I'm opposed to artificial borders that are based on authoritarian unionist propaganda that serves to tyrannize me. I would have to be in possession of my cultural and political independence for it to be threatened by foreigners. But it was already stripped from me before I was born by unionist tyrants. You mean aside from the fact that I risked my life to fight AQ. I haven't presumed to quantify the distribution of blame because I've been too busy fighting the assumption that Muslims are 100% to blame. Once that assumption no longer prevails among a large amount of westerners, then I can attempt to quantify the distribution of blame among the respective parties to the conflicts. Not sure what this has to do with your earlier claim that ISIS members are not students of history. They don't need to be students of history in order to be cognizant of western imperialism since it was happening just recently in their own country. Based on their behavior. Which of those polls show that the majority of Muslims want to conquer the west? I never said or implied they were equal. I just objected to your laughable assertion that my position is somehow the easy way out when your position is the one wrapped up in self-love and supremacism. It's sad how you always try to conduct these amateurish psychoanalyses of people you don't even know. I'm sure it gives you a sense of importance and superiority, but it's still lame and amateurish. The fact is that my position is based, not on some sense of guilt or a need to assuage it, but on the same kind of non-interventionist principles and theories advocated by someone like Pat Buchanan, who can hardly be accused of suffering from "white guilt". I just recognize the simple fact that US government interventionism in foreign countries can have negative consequences in the form of blow-back, which is something even the CIA acknowledges as a valid concept. But because you fancy yourself some kind of a forum psychoanalyst, you spend half your time assigning ulterior motives to your opponents by guessing at their subconscious machinations, which is nothing more than an attempt to distract from your weak racialist arguments by fixating on the person instead of their evidence and their logic.
They banded together against Islamic imperialism when they shared a more-or-less common religion. That is no longer the case, as more and more Europeans are abandoning Christianity, not to mention the schism between Catholics and Protestants that didn't exist during the times of the Crusades. And when they weren't fighting Muslims, they were fighting each other for centuries and centuries, because the idea of a monolithic European culture is a myth, just like the idea of a monolithic American culture is also a myth. Their link to the Pew poll isn't working. And the question of Sharia law in America is not necessarily one of competing interests, since many Muslims are referring to Sharia law in the context of civil disputes over marriage, inheritance, and custody, which is no different than Jews or Christians who fashion contracts or resolve family disputes in accordance with their religious traditions. Apparently, only a tiny amount of them feel that way, since suicide bombers are relatively rare. As for the ones who will only fight if victory is possible, I've yet to see any evidence that they are a sizable amount of Muslims living in west.
How can it be a "continuation" when they didn't even exist until after the US government invaded Iraq? It's an obvious double standard. You fixate exclusively on Islamic imperialism while dutifully ignoring the exact same kind of behavior from the west.
Bush's response to this would have been a reference to the axis of evil, fear mongering, and war. The best response to this would most likely be better intelligence, and giving up liberty for security. The government should be able to access all emails and telephone communications, their professional enough to use the information responsibly.
Finally... a picture showing the wounded/dead. http://video.foxnews.com/v/46119630...tside-paris-cafe/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips Time to examine the picture. My interest is the bombings. Waiting for the videos showing them at the time of the explosions. No people argue anything when our news media show pictures and videos of deaths and bombings in the Middle East countries... I don't think that interest to see similar pictures and videos from the attacks in Paris will cause a motive for arguments.
I am real tired of people trying to say Isis does not represent Islam. The head of Isis had a Ph.D. In Islamic studies for Christ sake. And this shariah is compatible in western democracy crap is full on nonse as well
No 9/11 did not cause it - the response to 9/11 caused it, using the fear of the American people and propaganda to condone it. It was exactly what Bin Laden wanted so why he won. I could never have imagined in the mid 90's that we would have the hell of a world we have today and that arises from the response to 9/11.
I think there have been one or two mobile videos taken in the concert hall but do you really believe that when someone is in front of you with a machine gun or has you lying on the floor and one movement will mean your death, people are going to think 'oh heck must get a photo of this' as being more important to saving their lives.
Oh, so now there's both a time limit and a threshold that needs to be crossed with respect to Western interventionism before Islamic attacks happen. Can you quantify either of these? I never predicted the results. I said the goal of Muslims was to terrorize the infidel into submission. I'm just not convinced that Westerners reacted in the way that you claim. So why didn't they immigrate to America, then? So what? I never said they had to be citizens. They were still allowed to live in the US and prepare for an attack. So what? Your point was that Islamic aggression is caused by Western intervention. What intervention did the US commit at that time that would warrant a Muslim attack? Not in large numbers. The change in 1965 is what brought their numbers from about 100,000 to between 3 and 4 million, where it is today. http://cis.org/USMuslimImmigrants I never said the "vast majority of Muslims living in the US are sleeper cells who want to conquer America". How many more dishonest strawman arguments are planning to use? When any attribute any Islamic attack against the West to "Western interventionism", isn't that what you are arguing? Sharia is an inescapable part of the Islamic religion, so Muslims are always going to want it. It's inevitable. Your support of the Confederacy has nothing to do with wanting to allow whites to use nationalism to strengthen themselves. The Confederacy is long gone. You don't support white nationalism now. Again, it's not "common sense" that the reason we have Islamic terror attacks is because of Western interventionism. That's simply your opinion, driven by your agenda. Differentiate "borders" from "artificial borders". Poor you. But keep being in favor of open borders immigration with countries full of low-skilled 3rd world Hispanics. I'm sure they'll come around to your libertarian ideology at some point. Just because they never have in any of their own countries doesn't matter. But that was before your discovered your current ideology. Knowing what you know now, would you go and risk your life to fight AQ? Why are Muslims the only group of people that we have to worry about in this way? We've been involved in the affairs of many other countries. Why do we not have suicide bombers from the Philippines? Why are Japanese nationals not trying to take down US airplanes? If US or Western interventionism is causing this behavior, why are Muslims the only ones? They may or may not be. Of those who are, it's unknown how many were motivated primarily because of Western interventionism. And what if they lie and act differently? The polls show a high percentage of Muslims who have the viewpoint you mentioned. I would say yours is the more comfortable position to have in today's progressive climate. Anti-white, pro-minority sentiment is the mainstream, these days. We have our kosher media, Academia, and Hollywood to thank for that, more than any other. Your views are nothing like Buchanan's. Buchanan supports borders and is in favor of maintaining a white, Western population in this country. You support neither of these things. Buchanan is more of a Nationalist, when your ideology opposes Nationalism just as much as global socialists do.
Yeah OBL won because he got a US he wanted - an environment opposed to one another and a major finance problems... OBL changed US society and culture... He got everything he wanted.... He got more than that with the Patriot Act.... In short he murdered 2500 people and created a police state - never mind the buildings...
Fighting doesn't mean a people don't share a common culture. Two brothers in the same family can get into a fight, and it doesn't change whether or not they share a similar background, culture, or family bond. People fight for many different reasons. Both sides of those European fights would have more in common with each other than with Zulus or Mongols. http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf Took me 3 seconds to find it. How many want Sharia limited to just these topics? Keep in mind the majority of Muslims view themselves as Muslim first, over their national identity. I doubt they are very loyal to something like the Constitution. I doubt that such a specific poll has been taken, but considering how a double digit percentage of Muslims in the West believe suicide bombing is at least sometimes justified, it wouldn't be a big stretch to believe many believe in violent jihad. - - - Updated - - - Islamic terrorists have existed for a very long time. Almost 14 centuries. You seem to believe this began with ISIS. While you do the opposite. Talk about double standards.
Isn't it amazing how these Muslims who have studied and practiced Islam their whole lives come to misunderstand their peaceful religion? It's too bad they don't know what Islam really is. Maybe they can talk to some left-wing college students who took a World Religions class during their sophmore year?
