News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Why ISIS hates us

Started by Cocoa Beware, August 10, 2016, 04:38:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on August 24, 2016, 07:26:17 AM
His comments about Bush and Cheney are hard to fathom.  No one knows if they were social justice warriors, or just plumb stupid, evil, or exactly what their intentions were.  I have heard people who despised Bush and Cheney describe neocons as idealists (usually a term of adulation), and if you had kept up with New American Century's website, it was no secret that the neocons certainly aspired to the ideal of bringing the Mideast into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if necessary. 

I don't agree that Cheney et al wanted to bring the Mid East in the 21st Century.  I don't think they wanted to even bring them into the 20th.  My understanding, from spare quotes such as were caught from them unawares, is that they wanted control of the oil before the Russians got it and "WMD" was the only argument they could all agree on. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Cavebear

Why ISIS hates us is a very different matter.  They hate all Europeans (and we are an extension of Europe in their view) because we are the Evil Crusaders who attacked them.  Which we did.

However, what they are too damn ignorant to understand is that THEY attacked Europe first from both East (Constantinople) and from the Southwest (Spain) after butchering their way through the existing peaceful Christian communities all across Northern Africa.  It was only their attacks (and the Vikings from the North), that turned medieval Europe into the crazed military thugs they became later for the Crusades.  The Crusades (moronic as they were) were a response to Islamist aggression.

I don't care a rotten fig's worth of difference between Christianity and Islam, but the Islamists ought to at least get their screwy history right!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Wanting to modernize the ME ... is a neo-lib thing, not a neocon thing.  Neocons just like to kill rag-heads, not modernize them.  But both the Bush and Clinton families are "all in" with the family of Ibn Saud.  That is what unites both sides of American foreign policy.  Give the Saudis anything they want (per agreement with FDR in 1944).  This is also why there must be nuclear war with Iran ... because SA and Israel.  France and Germany both agree that Russia must go ... see Napoleon's and Hitler's invasion of Russia.  This is why Washington said ... beware of foreign entanglements.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

Quote from: Cavebear on October 22, 2016, 11:09:54 AM
I don't agree that Cheney et al wanted to bring the Mid East in the 21st Century.  I don't think they wanted to even bring them into the 20th.  My understanding, from spare quotes such as were caught from them unawares, is that they wanted control of the oil before the Russians got it and "WMD" was the only argument they could all agree on. 

I've heard the same argument, not that really effects the nation building ideal of the neocons, because it's all of the same objective.  And groups like the neocons are always going to attract the Cheneys and the Bushes, who might have different agendas, but find the umbrella group useful.

The neocon website had been advertising nation building for 15 years before 9-11, and I tend to believe them, although I've heard other arguments, specifically that Bush's agenda was to destabilize the Mideast to drive up oil prices, but of course a family of oil billionaires would never want that, right?

There will always be enough unknowns about the disaster of the Bush Administration that we could speculate forever.

Baruch

Yes, nation building like US history.  Move in Europeans.  Kill the natives.  Develop natural resources formerly owned by the natives.  Not at all benign ... you have a choice ... paleo-imperialism or neo-imperialism.  And it still violated General Powell's principles (not that he didn't mind violating his own principles).  No more Vietnams?  It is Vietnam, all the way down.  We and our allies doe a My Lai ever week ... but now it isn't even controversial.  Just bomb more hospitals and weddings.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

Quote from: Baruch on October 22, 2016, 11:45:33 AM
Wanting to modernize the ME ... is a neo-lib thing, not a neocon thing.

I tend to think of neocons as right wingers, although I have heard the media on several occasions refer to them as "of liberal origins."  I'm not sure what that means.  Liberals?  Democrats?  Moderate Republicans?  I view them as right of mainstream Republicans.

Cavebear

I think of them as right-wing of the right-wing for other causes the support (supply side economics for example).  But you could come at "nation-building" from the left too.  Democracy here there and everywhere.  Depends on what kind of democracy you have in mind.

And I don't think that Cheney and Bush had the same idea of democracy as I do.  Bush senior once said that he didn't think atheists were "citizens".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

drunkenshoe

I cannot emphasise enough that how happy I am to hear atheists are even gradually getting rid off those jingoist, war mongering frauds. They are the number one reason responsible of dumbing down of the American Atheism. I have written about it many times, not going to bother again.

I am putting Dawkins aside with his 'scientist' role. Though that is it and that is all.




"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Bringing the string up to date ... Shoe is referring to the Islamophobia of the New Atheists ... since they aren't as afraid of the Vatican, since they are too old to be choir boys ;-)

The Europeans though, are quite the warmongers themselves.  They were in favor of the intervention in Libya and Ukraine, and the ongoing intervention in Syria ... even without the US.  Some of the New Atheists are/were Europeans ... so even if the ME was pacifist, they would be in favor of invading it, because they don't like being so dependent on Russian petrochemicals.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

baronvonrort

Quote from: Cocoa Beware on August 11, 2016, 05:00:52 PM

Another problem here is that I haven't seen this DABIQ article get any kind of mention by the BBC, Independent, and other left leaning publications. Instead, from these papers you will usually find examples of what ISIS thinks of us based on their own opinion, which as you might imagine are not exactly consistent with said article. Publications in general from both sides seem more then ever unreliable as a means to glean the actual truth of this particular matter. It's frustrating, and a topic for another day I suppose.

A lot of quotes from the Quran and Sunnah in Dabiq and the Al Qaeda magazine called Inspire.

Apart from the Caliphate not much difference between Dabiq and Inspire magzines.

Easy to find and download online.

Cavebear

Quote from: drunkenshoe on October 23, 2016, 06:28:22 AM
I cannot emphasise enough that how happy I am to hear atheists are even gradually getting rid off those jingoist, war mongering frauds. They are the number one reason responsible of dumbing down of the American Atheism. I have written about it many times, not going to bother again.


Please do, I would like to hear your reasons, if only briefly presented.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 02:04:32 AM
Please do, I would like to hear your reasons, if only briefly presented.

I don't think that is worth the time and energy considering your general outlook. The same junction point.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Cavebear

If you can't give reasons, you aren't really justified in presenting an opinion...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!