:gtsb:?
Printable View
:gtsb:?
policy to be unimpeachable, which you are not.
The West is essentially fighting defensive wars against radical Islam, whereas radical Islam explicitly seeks to defeat and subjugate the West.
I was just pointing out the logical inconsistencies at play here, not to mention the ethical ones.
Because we do need to deal with them one way or another. And your hand-wringing about them is only valid if you have a realistic alternative strategy.
I mean, to the untrained eye, it could look like the west has actually been on the offensive, being as it has been literally invading muslim countries for the majority of this century.
That's before we take into account the death tolls on either side.
west and bring the whole world into the Umma. They make no f**king bones about that and you can hear them spout it anytime they open their mouths. They demonstrated their seriousness about this intention by flying planes into the Twin Towers, remember?
Given which, what would you have suggested that the US and the West did about it? Sat down and chatted with them?
I guess to dig deeper we'd need to know your reasoning for considering it wrong, and seeing if the parallels between you and moderate muslims who also believe it to be wrong survive this extra scrutiny.
Explicitly religious. Important to remember that.
Pakistanis who had somehow been forced into radicalism and away from secularism by the evil British Empire or something. It was pointing out that these people had chosen very deliberately to espouse an explicitly regressive, anti-western form of Islam right off their own bats. It was nothing to do with Saudi Arabia or how we ought to deal with it.
But no, we were there to "liberate" them, werent we? :hehe:
Even if it's then followed by a profoundly hamfisted attempt to stuff words into my mouth.
terror' was perpetrated by radical Islam against the west and not the other way around?
And how is attempting to defeat the authors of such an attack in order to prevent them doing it again not a defensive measure?
And, if they were trying to defeat the perpetrators would they not have been better served by attacking the country a VAST majority of the attackers originated from?
If they were even trying to look like it was a defensive move they wouldnt have invaded Iraq 18 months later either.
Why get more into bed with them rather than attempt to divest ourselves from them?
That seems reasonable to me. I would have liked an invasion of Saudi, too, but like I say - there are some fairly significant problems there - like Mecca, for instance.
We have to do business with them anyway (all the oil, remember), so we might as well milk them for everything we can.
I dont think they should have invaded saud but, by yours and their logic, they should.
I'll see you on the next march, brother.
cause of all this (a position with which I agree), but don't actually want to do anything about it? That makes no sense. It seems you just want to wag an admonitory finger at our relationship with Saudi, but don't want us to do the one thing that would change it.
Oh, and they very much did go into Tora Bora, btw. They fought a massive campaign there, in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
stuff and the difficulties it creates in international diplomacy is not exactly an anti-war position.
I'm aware they fought the massive campaign there but crucially they allowed Bin Laden to escape.
counterpart by more than a thousand years. However, I realise that's not a popular view on the left, since it involves laying the blame at the door of Islam and its adherents, which is forbidden.
spilling blood for in a geopolitical context and I've mocked people who think we invaded Iraq to secure oil, which is demonstrable nonsense.
Anything to keep the judeo-christian hands clean, eh?
Sure, point to the Ottomans or the shortlived Arab Nationalists if you like but it's hardly a convincing argument.
We should probably leave it here though. As usual, we're the last two standing/bothered.
ignore the fact that it's absolutely fundamental (as it were) to modern radical Islam.
We beatify and lionise warriors in an equally distasteful way, distasteful to me anyway.
subjugate the rest of the world 'by the sword' as part of our religious duty.
All successful military societies lionise warriors. It's only loser countries that don't.
apart from that they both seem to have the same goals