Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

No kidding, and it's probably the often vicious and vindictive comments from people who cheer and applaud the west's policies in the ME that radicalizes them the most.

I disagree. I think it's the West's policies themselves that radicalize them the most. It's no coincidence that the terror attacks in Quebec and Ottawa last October came only a couple of weeks after the Harper gov had voted to send military forces to Iraq to fight ISIS.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I'll still advocate and fight for my side. They and I disagree about my very existence. I don't care what they think.

Well, seems you disagree about their very existence as well. I smell a protracted war I reckon!

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

I disagree. I think it's the West's policies themselves that radicalize them the most. It's no coincidence that the terror attacks in Quebec and Ottawa last October came only a couple of weeks after the Harper gov had voted to send military forces to Iraq to fight ISIS.

I wish I had noted the link, I read earlier that (in the writers position)the damage caused by the terror act of 9-11 is small compared to the damage done by the response and the ensuing aftermath.

My guess is they were suggesting that a muted carefully thought response may have saved a ton of hurt since.

Posted

Most of the angry young men come from countries which have never been attacked or threatened by the US or the West. Most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, a wealthy country where the only American soldiers to have appeared were invited by the government, in order to protect them from a neighbor.

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were at war with both the Saudi government and the US for putting foreign non-Muslim forces and permanent military bases on the holiest land in Islam (Saudi Arabia, home of Mohammed and Mecca & Medina), which was apparently sacrilegious.

And none of them longed to breath the fresh air of freedom. The only problem they had with their government was it was far too liberal.

See above. Bin Laden was also peeved at S.A. for choosing the (non-Mulsim) US military over his "just defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan" all-Muslim Mujahadeen to defend S.A. against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

I wish I had noted the link, I read earlier that (in the writers position)the damage caused by the terror act of 9-11 is small compared to the damage done by the response and the ensuing aftermath.

My guess is they were suggesting that a muted carefully thought response may have saved a ton of hurt since.

Of course it has caused more damage, in blood and treasure. But some military response was obviously needed, just not a "invade Iraq, and occupy Afghanistan for over a decade" kind of response.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

I disagree. I think it's the West's policies themselves that radicalize them the most. It's no coincidence that the terror attacks in Quebec and Ottawa last October came only a couple of weeks after the Harper gov had voted to send military forces to Iraq to fight ISIS.

This is bullshit. The West does not radicalize them. They are radicalized by their own religious leaders, or in some cases through viewing of radical propaganda.

The whole idea that "The West" is in any way responsible for these barbarous acts is nothing but a manifestation of the bleeding heart liberal guilt which seeks to ascribe all things bad to White people and make excuses for Brown people.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Any plan to counter violent extremism that takes no account of US (and other countries') violence abroad is worthless.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi

Posted

1. Yes, because I don't find it to be accurate or truthful even.

2. I'm ok with it, as long as I have the freedom to discredit it.

Sorry I should have been more clear about your use of name calling.

If you feel some sites are posting articles you disagree with, why do you feel it necessary to call some sights names meant to label them?

How about addressing the posts instead of the poster?

WWWTT

Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!

Posted

This is bullshit. The West does not radicalize them. They are radicalized by their own religious leaders, or in some cases through viewing of radical propaganda.

Radical interpretations of Islam spread by extremists as well as constant Western military intervention in the Muslim countries are both primary factors in the radicalization of young Muslims. and attacks on the West.

The whole idea that "The West" is in any way responsible for these barbarous acts is nothing but a manifestation of the bleeding heart liberal guilt which seeks to ascribe all things bad to White people and make excuses for Brown people.

So if the West never had any military intervention inside Muslim middle-eastern countries you think radical Muslims would still be attacking us? It's obviously a primary factor, straight out of bin Laden's mouth.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

Radical interpretations of Islam spread by extremists as well as constant Western military intervention in the Muslim countries are both primary factors in the radicalization of young Muslims. and attacks on the West.

So if the West never had any military intervention inside Muslim middle-eastern countries you think radical Muslims would still be attacking us? It's obviously a primary factor, straight out of bin Laden's mouth.

Right. It's not like Muslims were murdering Americans prior to the US invading Iraq or anything, huh?

For that matter, it's not like bin laden wasn't murdering Americans prior to their invading Iraq.

The first attempt to bring down the World Trade Centre was in 1993, you know.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Right. It's not like Muslims were murdering Americans prior to the US invading Iraq

Right. It's not like U.S. meddling in the Middle East and in the Arab world never happened before the Bush invasion of Iraq.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi

Posted

Right. It's not like U.S. meddling in the Middle East and in the Arab world never happened before the Bush invasion of Iraq.

All nations 'meddle' with all other nations where their interests are concerned, and always have and always will.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Right. It's not like Muslims were murdering Americans prior to the US invading Iraq or anything, huh?

For that matter, it's not like bin laden wasn't murdering Americans prior to their invading Iraq.

The first attempt to bring down the World Trade Centre was in 1993, you know.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

Sorry I should have been more clear about your use of name calling.

If you feel some sites are posting articles you disagree with, why do you feel it necessary to call some sights names meant to label them?

How about addressing the posts instead of the poster?

WWWTT

It's pretty clear that because the source is a fringe site it has little to no credibility out here, in the real world, and by extension the people who espouse it as a source have equally little credibility. Should we all post fringe sources for everything that we personally believe in? Wait, let me find the hundreds or who knows how many fringe sites that disagree with you, that will surely get us somewhere.

Posted

All nations 'meddle' with all other nations where their interests are concerned, and always have and always will.

The bigots and the hypocrites slow down progress.

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted

It's pretty clear that because the source is a fringe site it has little to no credibility out here, in the real world,

Sais who? You?

:lol:

You just don't like freedom of speech!

So instead of disproving what is being said, you attack the poster!

It's pretty clear YOU ARE LAZY to find out how to discredit the content, so opt out by just writing "well hey, those people behind that site wear tin foil hats"!

And somehow you guys think you're intelligent by writing something that took you 3 minutes?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Ya good luck with you "in depth analysis"

WWWTT

Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!

Posted

You just don't like freedom of speech!

So instead of disproving what is being said, you attack the poster!

It's pretty clear YOU ARE LAZY to find out how to discredit the content, so opt out by just writing "well hey, those people behind that site wear tin foil hats"!

Do you accept all sources equally ? If not, why wouldn't we say that you don't like freedom of speech ? How do you treat dubious sources in your world ? Let me know so that I apply such criteria to RT and the dubious sources that appear on MLW from time to time...

Posted

All nations 'meddle' with all other nations where their interests are concerned, and always have and always will.

And that seems to be the real problem. The radicalization of certain groups is a response to this.

Posted

Do you accept all sources equally ? If not, why wouldn't we say that you don't like freedom of speech ? How do you treat dubious sources in your world ? Let me know so that I apply such criteria to RT and the dubious sources that appear on MLW from time to time...

Ignore them, that simple.

WWWTT

Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!

Posted

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

You're mixing up cause and effect.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

The bigots and the hypocrites slow down progress.

I'm not show your answer relates in any way to my statement.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

And that seems to be the real problem. The radicalization of certain groups is a response to this.

The only 'group being radicalized are Muslims, and they're not being radicalized by Western actions. The radicalization of the Muslim world can be fairly easily traced to Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi school being spread around the world through billions of dollars SA is paying to fund schools and mosques and Islamic centers.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I'm not show your answer relates in any way to my statement.

It means that you are a bigot and you engage in double standards. It's people like you who slow down progress. But that's okay. Evolution and progress will make people like you a thing of the past.

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted

Ignore them, that simple.

I don't agree. Posters bringing bogus sources here isn't conducive to progressive discussion. Discrediting sources in a positive way is a good way to weed out points that won't go anywhere.

It seems to me we have FOX News and CBC as the outer baselines of acceptable sources, generally.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,909
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    miawilliams3232
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • derek848 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Benz earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • stindles earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...