IF ISIS manages to attack inside America will

[Oldstyle]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

POPPIES...Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world.

Since the opium trade weakens countries rather than enriches them I'm having a hard time counting poppies as an asset, BigBoyz. Certainly not one that an empire would lose troops fighting for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Plenty of other stuff? Like what for instance? We're still in Afghanistan because we're trying to keep the Taliban from taking it over once again. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban was providing a safe haven for Al Queda. Osama bin Laden's death doesn't mean "game over" as ISIS obviously proves.

Other stuff being the world isn't so simple that one reason is going to be enough, in almost all cases.

Why does the US want to stop the Taliban taking over? I mean, it's either them or some other guy who's doing whatever he wants. The warlord situation isn't going to change over night?

No, his death doesn't mean it all ends now, at the same time the US being in Afghanistan doesn't help the US in any way, shape or form, and doesn't help Afghanistan either. It's just going to cause more problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

POPPIES...Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world.

Since the opium trade weakens countries rather than enriches them I'm having a hard time counting poppies as an asset, BigBoyz. Certainly not one that an empire would lose troops fighting for.

Well the British shipped Opium from India and took it to China and it caused loads of problems. It strengthened Britain, and made India a gold mine, and messed China over.

 

[Oldstyle]

Plenty of other stuff? Like what for instance? We're still in Afghanistan because we're trying to keep the Taliban from taking it over once again. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban was providing a safe haven for Al Queda. Osama bin Laden's death doesn't mean "game over" as ISIS obviously proves.

Other stuff being the world isn't so simple that one reason is going to be enough, in almost all cases.

Why does the US want to stop the Taliban taking over? I mean, it's either them or some other guy who's doing whatever he wants. The warlord situation isn't going to change over night?

No, his death doesn't mean it all ends now, at the same time the US being in Afghanistan doesn't help the US in any way, shape or form, and doesn't help Afghanistan either. It's just going to cause more problems.

So did you want to provide some of those other reasons?

Why does the US want to stop the Taliban from taking over? Because they are the same group of Islamic fundamentalists that gave safe haven to Al Queda and would almost certainly do the same for them again? Because they want to take away the religious freedom of anyone they can? Because they treat women like third class citizens? Because if they do take over it's a given that they will slaughter anyone who cooperated with the West?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What has the US done to promote Islamic extremism?

Do you know of anything?

Oh, yeah, I know of tonnes of stuff.

Let me explain. In general "terrorism" comes about because of how governments treat people.
ETA in Spain exist because Franco attempted to destroy their culture and their language and the people were willing to fight back.
The IRA exist because the British went into Ireland and treated the Catholics really badly.
There are plenty of examples, and very few examples of where terrorism exists where the people were not treated badly.

Extremist Islam has its roots in the British Empire, and to a certain extent the French Empire too.
The US took on the mantle that the British were leaving behind to a certain extend by supporting Israel, which in itself was not a bad thing.
Giving free reign to Israel to do what it likes has been a disaster and causes hatred within the Arab and Muslim world.
However the US policy of invading and bombing oil rich countries who oppose them, of supporting leaders, like Mubarak in Egypt, or opposing leaders like Assad in Syria, whenever it suits the US, rather than suits the people of the country is going to cause hatred.

There are other countries that are part of this, Chechnya was a Russian issue, there are issues in China, Thailand, Burma, in various places in Africa, however ISIS is happening for one reason....

...it's a DIRECT consequence of A) the Iraq war in 2003 and B) the bungled nation building attempt that was a failure from day one when the US disbanded the Iraqi army and police, creating a power vacuum that is still being fought over.

ISIS is also coming out of the war in Syria, which while the US didn't directly help in a manner like Libya, it opposed a leader without really considering the consequences to what would happen in the future.

If the US had no gone into Iraq, if the US had not bombed Libya, if the US had not given free reign to Israel, if the US had not supported the anti-Assad movement, if the US had not given weapons to Saddam, if the US had not invaded Afghanistan, if the US had not done all of what it did to lead to the hatred that led up to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and flying planes into buildings on 9/11, then we would not be seeing Muslims from all over flocking to Syria and Iraq to join in the fighting.

A lot of this has been a direct consequence of US policy and action.

I was questioning your use of the word 'promote'. That is the question, "What has the US done to promote Islamic extremism?"

The US has never promoted Islamic extremism. We are strongly opposed to Islamic extremism.

You wrote, "if the US had not done all of what it did to lead to the hatred that led up to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and flying planes into buildings on 9/11"

What did the US do to lead to the hatred that led AQ to attack the World Trade Center first under Clinton and then under Bush.

What numbskull Reagan did was to put the CIA on the side of the Freedom Fighter Islamic extremists in order to help them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was not promoting Islamic extremism that was taking the Islamist side during the Cold War. And look how they thanked us.

You are quite wrong about quite a bit of history.

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

POPPIES...Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world.

Since the opium trade weakens countries rather than enriches them I'm having a hard time counting poppies as an asset, BigBoyz. Certainly not one that an empire would lose troops fighting for.

Well the British shipped Opium from India and took it to China and it caused loads of problems. It strengthened Britain, and made India a gold mine, and messed China over.

Is anyone here making the point that Afghanistan is being fought over because of it's opium production? That we've stayed because of that? That the Soviets invaded because of that? Sadly, opium production in Afghanistan is a major part of their livelihood but that simply points out how dirt poor the country is as a whole.

 

[g5000]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

Pipeline routes from the Central Asian States to the rest of the world.

 

[g5000]

Obama learn obout it on the news?
Blame it on the news?
Finish his golf game anyways?
Fly to his next fundraiser?
Blame it on Bush?
Pull his head out of his ass & CREATE A PLAN?

If there is another terrorist attack inside the US, Washington DC will release PATRIOT Act II: This Time We REALLY Mean Business.

Everyone with a beard more than six inches long will be waterboarded. Meter maids will be authorized to shoot double parkers on sight. Fox News hosts will start wearing armbands, and anyone caught not wearing a flag pin will be detained for questioning. Ann Coulter will insist that pulling fingernails is not torture.

 

[Oldstyle]

What has the US done to promote Islamic extremism?

Do you know of anything?

Oh, yeah, I know of tonnes of stuff.

Let me explain. In general "terrorism" comes about because of how governments treat people.
ETA in Spain exist because Franco attempted to destroy their culture and their language and the people were willing to fight back.
The IRA exist because the British went into Ireland and treated the Catholics really badly.
There are plenty of examples, and very few examples of where terrorism exists where the people were not treated badly.

Extremist Islam has its roots in the British Empire, and to a certain extent the French Empire too.
The US took on the mantle that the British were leaving behind to a certain extend by supporting Israel, which in itself was not a bad thing.
Giving free reign to Israel to do what it likes has been a disaster and causes hatred within the Arab and Muslim world.
However the US policy of invading and bombing oil rich countries who oppose them, of supporting leaders, like Mubarak in Egypt, or opposing leaders like Assad in Syria, whenever it suits the US, rather than suits the people of the country is going to cause hatred.

There are other countries that are part of this, Chechnya was a Russian issue, there are issues in China, Thailand, Burma, in various places in Africa, however ISIS is happening for one reason....

...it's a DIRECT consequence of A) the Iraq war in 2003 and B) the bungled nation building attempt that was a failure from day one when the US disbanded the Iraqi army and police, creating a power vacuum that is still being fought over.

ISIS is also coming out of the war in Syria, which while the US didn't directly help in a manner like Libya, it opposed a leader without really considering the consequences to what would happen in the future.

If the US had no gone into Iraq, if the US had not bombed Libya, if the US had not given free reign to Israel, if the US had not supported the anti-Assad movement, if the US had not given weapons to Saddam, if the US had not invaded Afghanistan, if the US had not done all of what it did to lead to the hatred that led up to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and flying planes into buildings on 9/11, then we would not be seeing Muslims from all over flocking to Syria and Iraq to join in the fighting.

A lot of this has been a direct consequence of US policy and action.

I was questioning your use of the word 'promote'. That is the question, "What has the US done to promote Islamic extremism?"

The US has never promoted Islamic extremism. We are strongly opposed to Islamic extremism.

You wrote, "if the US had not done all of what it did to lead to the hatred that led up to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and flying planes into buildings on 9/11"

What did the US do to lead to the hatred that led AQ to attack the World Trade Center first under Clinton and then under Bush.

What numbskull Reagan did was to put the CIA on the side of the Freedom Fighter Islamic extremists in order to help them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was not promoting Islamic extremism that was taking the Islamist side during the Cold War. And look how they thanked us.

You are quite wrong about quite a bit of history.

The driving force behind putting the CIA on the side of the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan was a Democratic congressman from Texas named Charlie Wilson. He used covert funds from his position on the House Appropriations Committee on Defense to supply Afghan fighters with Stinger missiles and millions in cash. This actually took place during both the Carter and Reagan Presidencies. I'm not saying that Reagan didn't support what Wilson was doing because I believe Reagan very much did but it was not something that was Reagan's baby and was in fact very much of a bi-partisan affair.

 

[paulitician]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama learn obout it on the news?
Blame it on the news?
Finish his golf game anyways?
Fly to his next fundraiser?
Blame it on Bush?
Pull his head out of his ass & CREATE A PLAN?

If there is another terrorist attack inside the US, Washington DC will release PATRIOT Act II: This Time We REALLY Mean Business.

Everyone with a beard more than six inches long will be waterboarded. Meter maids will be authorized to shoot double parkers on sight. Fox News hosts will start wearing armbands, and anyone caught not wearing a flag pin will be detained for questioning. Ann Coulter will insist that pulling fingernails is not torture.

Did you miss the Boston Marathon bombing?

 

[Oldstyle]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

Not closing the border is partisan politics at it's finest. Democrats don't want it closed because the influx of Hispanics gives them voters.

The only way they will ever agree to close the border is if a terror attack occurs in the US that can be shown to have happened after terrorists came into the US through our southern border. The resulting shit storm from that would force Democrats to close the border. Otherwise...it's not happening!

 

[paulitician]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

Not closing the border is partisan politics at it's finest. Democrats don't want it closed because the influx of Hispanics gives them voters.

The only way they will ever agree to close the border is if a terror attack occurs in the US that can be shown to have happened after terrorists came into the US through our southern border. The resulting shit storm from that would force Democrats to close the border. Otherwise...it's not happening!

I hear ya. But they would likely concoct a story. So we wouldn't get the truth. But are they really concerned with Terrorism? I don't think so. Border Security would have been priority-one if they were. In my opinion, the 'War on Terror' is just a Big Brother power-grab. It's being used as a tool to assault our Constitution.

And the ISIS threat has been way way over-hyped. They're a Warmonger's wet dream. Big Brother's flavor of the week Boogeyman. He always has a Boogeyman for the People to fear and hate. A Permanent State of War seems to be the goal. Americans need to break the cycle. They have to demand an end to Permanent War.

 

[Oldstyle]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

Not closing the border is partisan politics at it's finest. Democrats don't want it closed because the influx of Hispanics gives them voters.

The only way they will ever agree to close the border is if a terror attack occurs in the US that can be shown to have happened after terrorists came into the US through our southern border. The resulting shit storm from that would force Democrats to close the border. Otherwise...it's not happening!

I hear ya. But they would likely concoct a story. So we wouldn't get the truth. But are they really concerned with Terrorism? I don't think so. Border Security would have been priority-one if they were. In my opinion, the 'War on Terror' is just a Big Brother power-grab. It's being used as a tool to assault our Constitution.

And the ISIS threat has been way way over-hyped. They're a Warmonger's wet dream. Big Brother's flavor of the week Boogeyman. He always has a Boogeyman for the People to fear and hate. A Permanent State of War seems to be the goal. Americans need to break the cycle. They have to demand an end to Permanent War.

With all due respect, Paulie...ISIS is hardly a "flavor of the week Boogeyman". They are essentially a terrorist State with upwards of 40,000 troops, millions coming in from oil sold on the black market and in control of a vast area of land stretching over several nations.

You may choose to break the cycle of war by doing the isolationist thing but my question to you is a simple one...what will be the result of our doing nothing about ISIS?

 

[paulitician]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

Not closing the border is partisan politics at it's finest. Democrats don't want it closed because the influx of Hispanics gives them voters.

The only way they will ever agree to close the border is if a terror attack occurs in the US that can be shown to have happened after terrorists came into the US through our southern border. The resulting shit storm from that would force Democrats to close the border. Otherwise...it's not happening!

I hear ya. But they would likely concoct a story. So we wouldn't get the truth. But are they really concerned with Terrorism? I don't think so. Border Security would have been priority-one if they were. In my opinion, the 'War on Terror' is just a Big Brother power-grab. It's being used as a tool to assault our Constitution.

And the ISIS threat has been way way over-hyped. They're a Warmonger's wet dream. Big Brother's flavor of the week Boogeyman. He always has a Boogeyman for the People to fear and hate. A Permanent State of War seems to be the goal. Americans need to break the cycle. They have to demand an end to Permanent War.

With all due respect, Paulie...ISIS is hardly a "flavor of the week Boogeyman". They are essentially a terrorist State with upwards of 40,000 troops, millions coming in from oil sold on the black market and in control of a vast area of land stretching over several nations.

You may choose to break the cycle of war by doing the isolationist thing but my question to you is a simple one...what will be the result of our doing nothing about ISIS?

Like i said, the ISIS threat is being way way over-hyped. A Warmonger's wet dream. In reality, they're just a relatively small ragtag group of nutters created by the West and Sunni Nations in the region to 'Regime Change" Assad. They're being used by the usual suspects to drag us into yet another war. They'll be gone soon. But i'm sure the Globalist Elites already have another flavor of the week Boogeyman in the pipeline.

They need to keep the People living in fear. When the People live in fear, they become susceptible to all sorts of degradations. They'll even cheer their own demise. And sadly, that's what you're seeing in America right now. We just need to break the cycle. End the Permanent War. Just come home.

 

[blastoff]

Whether ISIS or some other assholes, I don't believe for a second it's a question of if we get hit again. It's simply a matter of when and the severity of the attack, likely worse than 9/11 IMO.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So did you want to provide some of those other reasons?

Why does the US want to stop the Taliban from taking over? Because they are the same group of Islamic fundamentalists that gave safe haven to Al Queda and would almost certainly do the same for them again? Because they want to take away the religious freedom of anyone they can? Because they treat women like third class citizens? Because if they do take over it's a given that they will slaughter anyone who cooperated with the West?

Reason 1. A Republican president always loves a war. Why? Well wars, especially successful ones, are great for the president's image.
Reason 2. Wars are great for giving lots of money to your buddies in weapons manufacturing, who will possibly donate you more money.
Defense OpenSecrets
See the increase in defence donations? Republicans get far, far more than dems when they have a president in office, when they don't they get slightly less. This is their industry, this is way of making political funding.
Reason 3. The Republicans like to be at war to be able to get through their own repressive policies (like the "Patriot Act") while appearing to still "love the constitution", because without war nobody would accept this rubbish.
Reason 4. To project US power. The Cold War had ended, the US had very little reason to carry out large scale interference in other countries. Bush wanted to make "America great again" after 8 years of Clinton not trying make the US "great" by going around the world and invading places or flexing the US's muscles. Serbia and Somalia hardly look great on your CV.
Reason 5. The need for a common enemy. Well the common enemy was found anyway, due to 9/11. However Bush had been toying with China before this, which relaxed after a while. The increase in tension now with China is more to do with the Chinese using the situation for nationalism reason to gain popularity for a non-democratically elected govt.
So al Qaeda became the new common enemy, Bush squeezed this for all its worth.
But the problem is, if you have an enemy you need to fight it, and fighting it in the traditional sense makes sense to a lot more people, they can see action and understand it. So war in Afghanistan was a logical next step to show people how serious he was. It also helped promote Islam as the new common enemy to replace the USSR, which Clinton had done nothing about, but which the Republicans need (and relates directly to Reason 3.)
Reason 6. Get a foothold into central Asia for the US, preventing Russia and China from getting in there. Afghanistan borders China, slightly, Russia has had its war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Reason 7. Control of the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian sea and Middle East areas.

And you can be sure there are other reasons too.

Why does the US give a damn about whether the Taliban control a country so far away, or whether someone else does? Are the Taliban any worse than the Saudi monarchy? I doubt it.
The US govt will make noises about democracy, freedom and all that stuff, but when it comes to the crunch the US govt will get rid of a democratic govt that doesn't support them, or will get rid of a country that allows freedoms etc, and allow them to be replaced by non-democratic and non-freedom loving govts if it suit THE NEEDS OF THE US GOVT.

Take Venezuela for example. OPEC country, Chavez gets in, starts getting support from OPEC members to strengthen OPEC's hold on the world markets. That was 1999 onwards.
2002 the US helped the coup to get rid of Chavez. Initially successful but ultimately it failed.
Why would the US govt get rid of a democratically elected leader? Why would it basically tell people it's not democratic from then on?
The fact is, since the end of the Cold War, most of the US wars have involved OPEC members.
Kuwait 1991.
Iraq 2003
Libya 2011.
Iran hasn't been invaded yet, because the dems won't do it, and it'd be a very dodgy war, no so easy to win. So it's sanctions instead.

These last three plus Venezuela are the 4 OPEC countries that opposed the US. Is it any surprise that Iran wants to get nukes? Then they can scare the hell out of a country that would love to invade.

The US doesn't give a sheet about religious freedom either. The US supports plenty of countries which happily deny religious freedoms to people, like Pakistan for example, Saudi Arabia is another massive example.

International Religious Freedom Report 2002 Saudi Arabia

"Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy without legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice."

Saudi Arabia uses capital offence of apostasy to stifle debate Amnesty International

"Badawi – who founded “Saudi Arabian Liberals”, a website for political and social debate – has been in detention since June 2012 on charges including “setting up a website that undermines general security” and ridiculing Islamic religious figures. "

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_saudi.htm

"Saudi Arabia has essentially no separation between religion and government. Their citizens enjoy little religious freedom. "

Need I go on? If you're going to claim the US gives a damn about religious freedom in other countries, you'd expect the US to have invaded Saudi Arabia by now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was questioning your use of the word 'promote'. That is the question, "What has the US done to promote Islamic extremism?"

The US has never promoted Islamic extremism. We are strongly opposed to Islamic extremism.

You wrote, "if the US had not done all of what it did to lead to the hatred that led up to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and flying planes into buildings on 9/11"

What did the US do to lead to the hatred that led AQ to attack the World Trade Center first under Clinton and then under Bush.

What numbskull Reagan did was to put the CIA on the side of the Freedom Fighter Islamic extremists in order to help them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was not promoting Islamic extremism that was taking the Islamist side during the Cold War. And look how they thanked us.

You are quite wrong about quite a bit of history.

It depends what you mean by "promote".
I'm not talking about the US making posters saying "support Islamic terrorists".
I'm talking about US actions in the Muslim world, like invading Iraq, Afghanistan, supporting Israel's right wing nonsense which all helps Islamic extremism to get more supporters. Thereby the US is promoting Islamic extremism, not deliberately, but is still doing so.

What did the US do?

Let's try Syria 1949, a coup, the guy who led it met with the CIA, then when he got into power he had policies that benefited the US. He allowed pipelines through the country to take oil from Saudi Arabia to the US, for example.

Iran 1951, the new leader nationalised the oil industry, then the British (who had owned the oil company) wanted to get rid of Mossadeq and Eisenhower agreed (where Truman didn't but left office). The US spent $5 million helping Zahedi get into power.

US involvement in Egypt amounted the US giving lots of money to Nasser for policies that suited the US. Nasser felt this was colonialism, but then he had the war with other countries and really couldn't do much about it.

You have the US interference in Lebanon as another example.

There are plenty of examples of US interference, either with money supporting govts who do what the US want to do, or of taking down people who don't support the US.
It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and led certain people to be more extreme.

The result is that this was the start of a movement against the US and is building up stronger every year.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is anyone here making the point that Afghanistan is being fought over because of it's opium production? That we've stayed because of that? That the Soviets invaded because of that? Sadly, opium production in Afghanistan is a major part of their livelihood but that simply points out how dirt poor the country is as a whole.

No one goes into Afghanistan because of the opium, it's quite frankly not a consideration for the US govt or the Russia govt to invade for this reason.

IN FACT under the Taliban, before the US invasion, opium production was MUCH LOWER than it is now. Why? Because the Taliban HATED the opium trade.

They had a year of reduced opium production, but opium production under the US puppet govt of Karzai has seen far, far more.
Also, there was a lot less under Soviet times than now, so hardly a reason for the Soviets.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A Nation so concerned with Terrorism, yet leaves its border wide open. Anyone else see something very wrong with this picture? I would think securing our borders after 9/11 would have been a top priority. But clearly it wasn't. So it begs the questions... Is your Government really concerned with Terrorism? Or is the 'War on Terror' designed to crush our Constitution and Liberty? Something to ponder i guess.

But then again there hasn't been another 9/11, there have been a few small scale attacks, like the Boston bombing, which would probably be almost impossible to prevent even with closed borders.

The point being that "securing our borders" might mean one thing to you and another to those who actually have to secure the borders for national security.