Because following WW2 they had the billions of petrodollars to carry out the attacks and fuel their growth in population. And I'm not sure there was that much of an upswing anyway. There were no foreign policies that I'm aware of could ever come close to explaining the genocide against the Greeks and Armenians.(Original post by Aeolus)
Radical Islam plays a part, but the question remains, why has the rise of Islamic extremism only seen this surge since the end of WWII and the beginning of heavy American intervention in the middle east? Ron Paul doesn't just blame it on policy, he says himself in that clip that he doesnt just blame USA foreign policy but that we must acknowledge it has played a massive part in creating the hate that leads to Islamic extremism. How else would you explain it, it is simple cause and reaction.
x Turn on thread page Beta
"If Ron Paul was ever elected, he would be assassinated." watch
- 07-08-2009 18:20
- 07-08-2009 19:39
I feel Aeolus' logic is kind of weak. You keep saying that after WW2 they attacked us, but America and the West intervened long before WW2. You can look at the Balfour Declaration as one example, the Peel Commission, World War 1 had Middle Eastern fighters as well....
I also don't buy this petro dollar notion whatsoever, and I feel Ron Paul doesn't either.
I do give you guys credit as I previously thought Ron Paul was an idiot but I've started to like his libertarian policy on how the government should stay out of the lives of individuals.
My only issue with RP is on foreign policy. I am Neo-Conservative mainly because I believe America should be strongly supporting Israel. I also do not believe that if America left the Middle East the hatred would go away and Islamists would lay down their arms.
(Original post by Harris)
- 07-08-2009 22:13
I also do not believe that if America left the Middle East the hatred would go away and Islamists would lay down their arms.
- 07-08-2009 22:43
Yes, blaming anti western hostility on an 'evil ideology' as Blair used to is just a convenient way of excusing their own actions. Al keeda states US the presence of US troops in Saudi is a major grievance of theirs.
Using this excuse is basically akin to saying the Islamists are mad and cannot be reasoned with, just like you average commie hey? And cause they can't be reasoned with, we have to go and fight them over there so they don't come over here. It's very repetitive.
If people don't have any major grievance they are far to busy getting on with their own lives to engage in anything violent.
(Original post by tucker672)
- 08-08-2009 01:43
Why because "they hate us for our freedom" ?
You really think if the West pulled out Al-Qaeda would just stop? Hamas would stop? Hezbollah would stop? Iran's nuclear program would stop? That's very naive.
1/7 British Muslims feel the london bombings were justified...these people are crazy.
- 08-08-2009 02:17
Apologies in advance for the highly dissected post
(Original post by Harris)
Well for starters they view the west as infidels, who treat women innappropiately and are a sex-obsessed culture.(Original post by Harris)
They have jew-hatred enshrined in their cultures(Original post by Harris)
You really think if the West pulled out Al-Qaeda would just stop?(Original post by Harris)
Hamas would stop? Hezbollah would stop?(Original post by Harris)
Iran's nuclear program would stop? That's very naive.(Original post by Harris)
1/7 British Muslims feel the london bombings were justified...these people are crazy.Last edited by Captain Crash; 08-08-2009 at 18:18.