PDA

View Full Version : debate on another forum




hvac ak47
04-01-2008, 08:51 PM
Please justify your accusation against America by providing some concrete evidence. Explain exactly how we've been attacking the Middle East for decades. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "attacking"? If, by "attacking", you mean the imposition of sanctions, then the Middle East isn't the only region to which we've done this, and sanctions are there to serve as a non-violent deterrent to countries which are doing things that are or could become a threat to others. The last time I recall our military being in the Middle East to attack anyone was when Saddam Hussein launched an attack against Kuwait to gain control of their oil, so we went there to prevent that from happening.

The bleeding heart liberals would have everyone believe that all this is America's fault, and that we've provoked these people into their current rage. Their rage results from many things such as the freedom which we here in America and other countries currently enjoy, the fact that they've been left behind on the world scene due to their refusal to allow their own societies to progress, etc...... Islam despises freedom. It cannot thrive and grow in a free society since its expansion is based on forced religious control of its people. It cannot survive in a democracy, which is why they despise the idea of a democratic government.

It's funny how the liberals are the first ones to champion the idea of freedom, but they don't want to see the people in the Iraq attain it. Their desire for freedom is really a selfish one that begins and ends solely with their own attainment of it. The liberals claim to be so caring about humanity while accusing the conservatives of not caring, but they won't stand up and fight to help the oppressed. In their minds, freedom is great as long as no sacrifice is required to acquire it. Newsflash!!!!! Freedom is not and never has been free. It has always required sacrifice, and thanks to our military personnel, we and many other countries still enjoy the freedom granted to us by God-Almighty.

Your accusation of our historically constant attacks on the Middle East doesn't seem to coincide with events such as our support for Afhganistan when the Russians were trying to conquer them. I'm not trying to start an argument with you and have it devolve into a name-calling insult fest such as the ones I've had with tyg and staggerbite, I'd just like to hear your reasoning for accusing America of attacking the Middle East as a whole.

Did we attack Iraq? Yep, and for good reasons, although the libs would disagree, but we have not been attacking the whole Middle East region. We must, however, maintain an interest in that region due to the threat of radical Islam to the entire world and the threat of maniacs like Ahmadinejad (sp?) in Iran and the rest of the nutcases who are hell bent on spreading their totalitarian, dictatorial regime style governments throughout the world. As the rest of the world progresses, the Middle East countries continue to digress, and because of their unwillingness to "get on board", they would just as soon drag peaceful countries back into the 19th century with them. I guess they must be lonely
.................................................. .................................................. .........................

Im not even part of this debate. I feel like I need to jump in though, but dont have time for a well thought out responce to every thing he said. Would anyone here maybe want to go to this forum and debate this guy? If not, maybe help me come up with a response. This is from a suzuki motorcycle forum. Thanks

Give me liberty
04-01-2008, 08:53 PM
Let me guess the forum.

Sean hannity forum?

hvac ak47
04-01-2008, 08:56 PM
Let me guess the forum.

Sean hannity forum?

Im not even part of this debate. I feel like I need to jump in though, but dont have time for a well thought out responce to every thing he said. Would anyone here maybe want to go to this forum and debate this guy? If not, maybe help me come up with a response. This is from a suzuki motorcycle forum. Thanks

keh-geh-beh
04-01-2008, 09:15 PM
Im not even part of this debate. I feel like I need to jump in though, but dont have time for a well thought out responce to every thing he said. Would anyone here maybe want to go to this forum and debate this guy? If not, maybe help me come up with a response. This is from a suzuki motorcycle forum. Thanks

first of all, the Israeli Zionist regime basically stole the land from the Palestinians, because according to the bible, Jews are supposed to be in exile until the return of Messiah.

If Jews think that they are entitled to their promised land right now before the return of Messiah, then they don't believe in God.

Now, the proof of existance of Jews comes from the bible. If they don't believe in God and in the bible, how can they believe in Zionism, if Zionism's principle is "Jews for Zion" or "Jews for Jewish State."

Basically, how can they be given their promised land if they don't believe in themselves???

In my opinion, Zionists are Evil people and are occupying someone's land on top of murdering and terrorizing Palestinians.

They are pissed at USA for supporting this Evil Zionist Mafia that shows itself as a good nation.

Also, read this http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html The Afghanis are pissed at USA for destroying Afghanistan as a nation.

crazyfingers
04-01-2008, 09:29 PM
There may have been a few sporadic attacks here or there. That's not the point.

Just look at this time line of U.S. involvement in the Middle East (http://www.zmag.org/middletimeline.htm)

Obviously terrorists are not justified in their actions, but I can see why the resentment may have built up over the years.

Osama bin Laden said America's involvement in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, as well as U.S military bases in the Saudi Arabian 'holy land', were the motivating factors behind his "jihad".

As Ron Paul says, "How would you like it if another country put a military base on American soil?" Terrorists must be sought out, arrested and tried but they will never be defeated unless we change the way we interact with the world.

kyleAF
04-01-2008, 09:48 PM
"Please justify your accusation against America by providing some concrete evidence. Explain exactly how we've been attacking the Middle East for decades. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "attacking"? If, by "attacking", you mean the imposition of sanctions, then the Middle East isn't the only region to which we've done this, and sanctions are there to serve as a non-violent deterrent to countries which are doing things that are or could become a threat to others. The last time I recall our military being in the Middle East to attack anyone was when Saddam Hussein launched an attack against Kuwait to gain control of their oil, so we went there to prevent that from happening.

The bleeding heart liberals would have everyone believe that all this is America's fault, and that we've provoked these people into their current rage. Their rage results from many things such as the freedom which we here in America and other countries currently enjoy, the fact that they've been left behind on the world scene due to their refusal to allow their own societies to progress, etc...... Islam despises freedom. It cannot thrive and grow in a free society since its expansion is based on forced religious control of its people. It cannot survive in a democracy, which is why they despise the idea of a democratic government.

It's funny how the liberals are the first ones to champion the idea of freedom, but they don't want to see the people in the Iraq attain it. Their desire for freedom is really a selfish one that begins and ends solely with their own attainment of it. The liberals claim to be so caring about humanity while accusing the conservatives of not caring, but they won't stand up and fight to help the oppressed. In their minds, freedom is great as long as no sacrifice is required to acquire it. Newsflash!!!!! Freedom is not and never has been free. It has always required sacrifice, and thanks to our military personnel, we and many other countries still enjoy the freedom granted to us by God-Almighty.

Your accusation of our historically constant attacks on the Middle East doesn't seem to coincide with events such as our support for Afhganistan when the Russians were trying to conquer them. I'm not trying to start an argument with you and have it devolve into a name-calling insult fest such as the ones I've had with tyg and staggerbite, I'd just like to hear your reasoning for accusing America of attacking the Middle East as a whole.

Did we attack Iraq? Yep, and for good reasons, although the libs would disagree, but we have not been attacking the whole Middle East region. We must, however, maintain an interest in that region due to the threat of radical Islam to the entire world and the threat of maniacs like Ahmadinejad (sp?) in Iran and the rest of the nutcases who are hell bent on spreading their totalitarian, dictatorial regime style governments throughout the world. As the rest of the world progresses, the Middle East countries continue to digress, and because of their unwillingness to "get on board", they would just as soon drag peaceful countries back into the 19th century with them. I guess they must be lonely"


Oh god... where to begin??

Maybe here:

Lawrence of Arabia. Watch it and see the British meddling with the Arabs long, long ago. Winston Churchill was the British Secretary of the Navy right as the Royal Navy was transitioning from coal to oil for their ships. The war in Mesopotamia was in part in response to the alliance between the Turks and the Central Powers. Germany was to have access to oil via the Turks, which was becoming a crucially important strategic material at the time. So the triple Entente went into the middle east. The U.S. ended up helping and gained control of 25% of the oil fields in Mesopotamia as a reward from the Brits...the French also helped and got 25%, while the British kept 50% (Mesopotamia is Iraq / Kuwait today, in case this guy has no clue).

The CIA had its first successful, ADMITTED, coup when it overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Prime Minister, Mohamed Mosadegh in Iran in 1953. The reason?? Mosadegh had helped nationalize Iran's oil fields, which at the time, were operating under the control of the British oil company: Anglo-Iranian. Today, this is British Petroleum (BP). Churchill was furious, and sought Eisenhower's help, by claiming that Mosadegh was a communist sympathizer, when in fact he was the exact opposite. Eisenhower complied and the CIA installed its puppet, Shah Pahlavi. The Shah was far worse than Saddam ever was, and was accused of some of the worst human rights violations in the modern middle east region.

The Iranians got fed up, and overthrew the Shah 25 years later, and a cleric named Khomeini stepped into the leadership role... This is probably the point where this person's knowledge of the history of the region actually begins: with the 1979 revolution and American hostages. Of course there's no such thing as "blowback"... what a silly concept (!).

We didn't like the Iranian revolution very much, so we supported a war between Iraq and Iran for 8 years in the 1980s. During this war, we supplied weapons to Iraq and supported Saddam Hussein as our ALLY. We also inadvertently shot down a passenger plane from Iran. Needless to say, they weren't too pleased.

Well, the war ended, and so did Saddam's usefulness, it seems. Kuwait was actually stealing oil from his wells at the time, and Kuwait was also originally a part of what is now Iraq, so Saddam voiced a desire to invade and annex them. We sent our State Department representative to meet with Saddam, and gave Saddam the GREEN LIGHT FOR THE INVASION!

Then, after he invaded, we pounced. Yadda yadda, Gulf War 1.

We've been occupying Iraq since 1991... NONSTOP, mainly the US Air Force. We had been controlling Iraq's war policies since a very long time before that.

Islam can thrive and grow in a free society. While the Christians were dancing around in their Dark Ages, the Muslims were living in the most advanced society in the world. Guess what CAN'T thrive in a free society??? Wahabbism. The Wahabbis are mainly in Saudi Arabia. Guess who we helped to put into power and to keep in power all these decades?? Yep, the house of Saud. We kept them in power, and they've helped to expand the Wahabbi sect and violence. Most of the middle east consists of normal, moderate people who don't bomb us. Just like most Christians don't go around bombing abortion clinics.

Now, this guy doesn't seem too familiar with our foreign policy history, but also with our domestic history. All of the above history and interference in the middle east is well-known, and even admitted by our own government.

First, we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!! We are (were, really) a Constitutional Republic. Just have him recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and he can hear it for himself.

And I don't feel like typing anything more... just tell him to use Wikipedia, and he can see for himself.

derdy
04-01-2008, 09:51 PM
There may have been a few sporadic attacks here or there. That's not the point.

Just look at this time line of U.S. involvement in the Middle East (http://www.zmag.org/middletimeline.htm)

Obviously terrorists are not justified in their actions, but I can see why the resentment may have built up over the years.

Osama bin Laden said America's involvement in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, as well as U.S military bases in the Saudi Arabian 'holy land', were the motivating factors behind his "jihad".

As Ron Paul says, "How would you like it if another country put a military base on American soil?" Terrorists must be sought out, arrested and tried but they will never be defeated unless we change the way we interact with the world.

"Terrorism" is used so fast and loose these days. I only really consider a terrorist attack to be that upon civilians or civlian targets.

Other than that, a citizen or militia taking up arms against a foreign occupier to me wouldn't be terrorism.