BF2S Forums Religion and 9-11

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Bin Laden got pissed off when the US came to help Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War. He didn't like it that these guys were on "sacred land". Now, why is it that:

He thinks of the US as foreigners
He thinks that Saudi is Sacred land
He thinks that it's bad that the US are on Sacred land

The reasons? Islam. The USA are considered foreigners because they're mostly not Muslim. He thinks SA is Sacred Land because of Mecca and all that shit.

Of course, he wasn't complaining about foreigners and that shit when they were helping him against the Soviets. But what's a religious fanatic without bucketloads of hypocrisy? Nobody, that's what

Why do you choose to believe these people are stupid? They are all very smart men, and they know what they need to say to warrant the correct reaction. AQ is mad that a nation with everything used them for their own ends until the party was over, and then left them in a ruined country with nothing. What were they supposed to do? You train an attack dog and then expect him to visit sick hospital patients when you're done with him?

Islam is an easy method of recruitment in his war against the West.

I'm not sure, I think the way in which the attack was carried out may have differed, i.e. the pilots wouldn't be inspired to blow themselves up and become martyr's. I know there are terror groups not affiliated with religion and stuff, but to me the whole back story as to why it was carried all links up with religion in some way. The 'infidels' being on Saudi Land and so on, the dislike of that will be spurted on further by religion. Holy Wars as well, trying to beat down others because they're not Muslims, like the majority of the Israeli's. I don't think its as much they occupied the land these days as it is because they're a different religion that permits a different culture.

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Islam is the scapegoat for their "reasons".  But it's not the reason.

bollocks.  they fool us into thinking that so they can preach their hate safely worldwide because "it is just a harmless" religion.  well, i for one am not fooled by it.

lol. Who exactly is 'they'? Global Islamic Conspiracy Foundation Inc.?

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We were given continuously long before that.. did you read it at all?

Did you read it?

ze article wrote:

Last year, we provided about $114 million in aid. With this new package, our humanitarian assistance to date this year will reach $124 million.

That means in 2000 they gave 114 million in humanitarian aid, and then only 10 million in the years before that. Again, a far cry from what we thought they needed when they suited our own interests.

Also, it looks like they are giving this money in return for a ban on poppy seeds (heroin). Not because we're such an awesome nation.

I read that as: last year we gave 114 million. This year we have given 114 +10 million. "to date this year will reach $124 million"

Even read that way, it's still not a history of being a very nice to a nation that gave the Soviets their Vietnam.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I read that as: last year we gave 114 million. This year we have given 114 +10 million. "to date this year will reach $124 million"

Even read that way, it's still not a history of being a very nice to a nation that gave the Soviets their Vietnam.

Over 83 billion dollars isn't nice? Helping them fight off the Soviets wasn't very nice? Why is it you think they didn't gain anything? gtfo

Where did 83 billion come from?

No, helping them defeat the Soviets was not nice, because we weren't helping them, we were waging a proxy war on an innocent third party's turf. All the deep down goodness of beating the Soviets while someone else foots the bill of civilian and military casualties. After the fact don't you think we could have stuck around a little, helped them rebuild what we were as much at fault fucking up as the Soviets, instead of leaving them to "gain" a war-torn version of what was already one of the poorest countries in the world?

We were assholes to those people. Stop believing our own propaganda.

Bin Laden wouldn't have even been part of the glorious jihad against the soviets had he not been a Muslim. The only reason he and other Arabs and shit went to Afghanistan to fight the soviets was to help out their fellow Muslims in Jihad (why else would they have travelled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets?), and the only reason the US helped them was because it was the Cold War.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Over 83 billion dollars isn't nice? Helping them fight off the Soviets wasn't very nice? Why is it you think they didn't gain anything? gtfo

Where did 83 billion come from?

No, helping them defeat the Soviets was not nice, because we weren't helping them, we were waging a proxy war on an innocent third party's turf. All the deep down goodness of beating the Soviets while someone else foots the bill of civilian and military casualties. After the fact don't you think we could have stuck around a little, helped them rebuild what we were as much at fault fucking up as the Soviets, instead of leaving them to "gain" a war-torn version of what was already one of the poorest countries in the world?

We were assholes to those people. Stop believing our own propaganda.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_a … -estimates

I'm not so naive to think we didn't benefit from the relationship also. But don't play the pity card when the afghans clearly gained as well. You know damn well if we would have went in back then to help them rebuild we would be hearing from the same "nationbuilding sucks you imperialistic bastards" crowd.


Stop looking at one side.. that's the difference between opinions here.

Hahaha, that chart means beyond nothing. 83 billion - cost of waging our own war with their people - cost of rebuilding the nation that we personally bombed the crap out of = chicken feed.

Just because we have been giving them money does not mean they have "benefited" from it, or that they were even had a choice in our terms.

There is nothing wrong with abusing your power as a militarily superior nation, but to be short sighted and/or blind to the consequences is stupidity. A large part of our current situation is a direct result of our actions in the late 70s and 80s, and it should be a lesson to us in the future.

Yes. I still don't think 9/11 was "about" religion. Jihad, "they hate our way of life" and all that only obscured the real issue. Power. Who has it, who doesn't, and who wants it.

Power simply is, and it is without attributes beyond being power itself. What happens is that power attracts the already corrupt.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Where did 83 billion come from?

No, helping them defeat the Soviets was not nice, because we weren't helping them, we were waging a proxy war on an innocent third party's turf. All the deep down goodness of beating the Soviets while someone else foots the bill of civilian and military casualties. After the fact don't you think we could have stuck around a little, helped them rebuild what we were as much at fault fucking up as the Soviets, instead of leaving them to "gain" a war-torn version of what was already one of the poorest countries in the world?

We were assholes to those people. Stop believing our own propaganda.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_a … -estimates

I'm not so naive to think we didn't benefit from the relationship also. But don't play the pity card when the afghans clearly gained as well. You know damn well if we would have went in back then to help them rebuild we would be hearing from the same "nationbuilding sucks you imperialistic bastards" crowd.


Stop looking at one side.. that's the difference between opinions here.

Hahaha, that chart means beyond nothing. 83 billion - cost of waging our own war with their people - cost of rebuilding the nation that we personally bombed the crap out of = chicken feed.

Just because we have been giving them money does not mean they have "benefited" from it, or that they were even had a choice in our terms.

There is nothing wrong with abusing your power as a militarily superior nation, but to be short sighted and/or blind to the consequences is stupidity. A large part of our current situation is a direct result of our actions in the late 70s and 80s, and it should be a lesson to us in the future.

The chart has a source. You should probably check it.

The Afghans retained their independence. The US benefited also. That's the way a relationship works. I've never said otherwise. If it makes you feel better keep repeating yourself.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_aid_to_afg_tot_dev_aid_est-aid-afghanistan-total-development-estimates

I'm not so naive to think we didn't benefit from the relationship also. But don't play the pity card when the afghans clearly gained as well. You know damn well if we would have went in back then to help them rebuild we would be hearing from the same "nationbuilding sucks you imperialistic bastards" crowd.


Stop looking at one side.. that's the difference between opinions here.

Hahaha, that chart means beyond nothing. 83 billion - cost of waging our own war with their people - cost of rebuilding the nation that we personally bombed the crap out of = chicken feed.

Just because we have been giving them money does not mean they have "benefited" from it, or that they were even had a choice in our terms.

There is nothing wrong with abusing your power as a militarily superior nation, but to be short sighted and/or blind to the consequences is stupidity. A large part of our current situation is a direct result of our actions in the late 70s and 80s, and it should be a lesson to us in the future.

The chart has a source. You should probably check it.

The Afghans retained their independence. The US benefited also. That's the way a relationship works. I've never said otherwise. If it makes you feel better keep repeating yourself.

United Nations Development Program? Okay? The fact the chart is terribly irrelevant is the problem, not its quality.

The Afghans retained an independence hardly worth having, while the U.S. benefited greatly. It was not a fair deal, and it only worked because they weren't united enough to have any leverage.

I'll feel better when you stop dancing your increasingly ungraceful dance and say the U.S. cultivated AQ from its brutish foreign policy in Afghanistan from the late 70s and 80s.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Of course the cold war was a major reason in the 80's. But we also helped (more than anyone else) after the cold war and prior to 9/11.

The most does not mean enough.

No amount of money will be enough. A few thousands years of bloodfeuds is all the fault of a nation that has only been around a couple hundred. srsly

It wouldn't have taken very much to have kept the Taliban out of power. I'm not asking for a Wal-Mart flanked by a McDonald's and Starbucks on every street.

Kmarion wrote:

Did the Afghans want independence? Just answer that simple question ..grace.

Yes.

Now do me a favor and answer this. Did the Afghans want food and water?

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Did the Afghans want independence? Just answer that simple question ..grace.

Yes.

Now do me a favor and answer this. Did the Afghans want food and water?

Yes.. and we provided more than any other country. Including their Arab brethren.

More than every other country isn't very nutritious.

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Yes.. and we provided more than any other country. Including their Arab brethren.

More than every other country isn't very nutritious.

Thank you Dr.Specific. Maybe they should flip some of the poppy fields to something a little more nutritious. Er.. wait they did and we paid them for that as well. How very evil of us.

Oh come on, poppy translates to money translates to food. I seriously doubt the money we gave the Taliban to put a ban on poppy sufficiently compensated the farmers as it is, you know they weren't very nice people.