Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These acts were done from Afghanistan, not KSA. The Wahabis may have provided ideological support but the terror training camps and basing was in Afghanistan.
The individuals were Saudi and Egyptian. The individuals themselves were Wahhabis. None of them were Afgani. No Afghans have been involved in terrorism in the West, not even Taliban.
These days, they can do their planning just as well from Syria.
The individuals were Saudi and Egyptian. The individuals themselves were Wahhabis. None of them were Afgani. No Afghans have been involved in terrorism in the West, not even Taliban.
These days, they can do their planning just as well from Syria.
Except for that Afghan guy who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub 5 years ago. He told police he did it for Al Baghdadi, the ISIS leader that Trump got a few years later. If that wasn't Islamic terrorism, I don't know what is.
]Except for that Afghan guy who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub 5 years ago.[/b] He told police he did it for Al Baghdadi, the ISIS leader that Trump got a few years later. If that wasn't Islamic terrorism, I don't know what is.
Omar Mateen was born in New York.
And the Islamic State was a direct result of the power vacuum left by the Iraq War.
But please, go on with why we need to be at war in Afghanistan to stop a dude from New York who was inspired from a guy from Iraq whose biggest career break was the U.S. invasion thereof.
Except for that Afghan guy who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub 5 years ago. He told police he did it for Al Baghdadi, the ISIS leader that Trump got a few years later. If that wasn't Islamic terrorism, I don't know what is.
The US gets so many mass shootings in a year that whatever the actual cause behind a single event, simply gets lost in the statistics. The following year there was the Vegas shooting...
I’m not trying to downplay the event, but is it possible that the cause may be misleading. The US has over 330 million people. Muslims account for somewhere between 0.5-1% of that total. Given the large number of mass shootings, isn’t it fair to assume that some may be committed by Muslims, without involving ideology or politics.
And the Islamic State was a direct result of the power vacuum left by the Iraq War.
But please, go on with why we need to be at war in Afghanistan to stop a dude from New York who was inspired from a guy from Iraq whose biggest career break was the U.S. invasion thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
The US gets so many mass shootings in a year that whatever the actual cause behind a single event, simply gets lost in the statistics. The following year there was the Vegas shooting...
I’m not trying to downplay the event, but is it possible that the cause may be misleading. The US has over 330 million people. Muslims account for somewhere between 0.5-1% of that total. Given the large number of mass shootings, isn’t it fair to assume that some may be committed by Muslims, without involving ideology or politics.
I'm going to point out a politically inconvenient fact that Saudi Arabian Wahhabism is the primary Muslim doctrine being taught to Sunni Muslims in the US. There are some Shiites and a precious few Sufis, and tiny numbers of other sects, but Saudi Arabia pays for all the shiny mosques and masjids and Muslim prison outreaches, and they are teaching extremist Saudi Wahhabism to the Sunni Muslims in the US and the rest of the West.
Of course, the vast majority of them are comfortable enough in their Western lifestyles not to put their teaching into actual practice (pretty much the same can be said about Christians in the West), but there will be their own "Dylann Roofs," a tiny few disaffected enough to go out like martyrs.
I'm going to point out a politically inconvenient fact that Saudi Arabian Wahhabism is the primary Muslim doctrine being taught to Sunni Muslims in the US. There are some Shiites and a precious few Sufis, and tiny numbers of other sects, but Saudi Arabia pays for all the shiny mosques and masjids and Muslim prison outreaches, and they are teaching extremist Saudi Wahhabism to the Sunni Muslims in the US and the rest of the West.
Of course, the vast majority of them are comfortable enough in their Western lifestyles not to put their teaching into actual practice (pretty much the same can be said about Christians in the West), but there will be their own "Dylann Roofs," a tiny few disaffected enough to go out like martyrs.
The solution to this was energy independence. When the U.S. is free of any dependence on Middle Eastern energy products, there would be no need for the U.S. to be involved in the Middle East, with bases, military intervention, patrolling the Persian Gulf, and arming countries which essentially hate the U.S. and everything it stands for. Just sell Israel the weaponry it needs and otherwise stay out of that toxic region.
Unfortunately, that policy was discarded in January 2021, and we are now returning to a dependence on imported energy products. I cannot understand how the American people went along with this, but there is an old saying: follow the money. There is a reason that some elements of the power structure are happy to keep the U.S. dependent on Middle Eastern oil and Chinese manufacturing output.
George Washington presciently warned against entangling alliances. His words ring just as true today as then. Though, of course, commerce to and from the nascent U.S. was effectively protected by the British fleet, so it was easy to be aloof. Yet, there is great value in keeping malevolent forces at bay. China is trying to dominate the world; does it not make sense that the U.S. should stop funding them?
Getting back to the topic of colonialism, China is practicing a form of economic colonialism as we speak. Their roads and bridges project is designed to create gratitude and dependency on Chinese commerce. They have thousands of businesspeople living and working in Africa. Interestingly, however, the Africans say they would prefer to deal with Americans.
I agree that we shouldn't have occupied Afghanistan. We should flatten it if any harm comes to the West again from that country. The people were the ones who let the Taliban back in. As Obama said, elections have consequences.Even though the Afghans didn't hold an election in the U.S. sense, the people have tolerated the Taliban takeover and the human rights horrors. That tolerance has consequences.
Is that a principle?
I mean if some crazy American men get together and carry out terrorism in Russia or China, should Russia or China "flatten" China or Russia? A lot of countries have legitimate gripes for things the US has done in the past. So why shouldn't they be able to "flatten" us in any way they can?
I mean if some crazy American men get together and carry out terrorism in Russia or China, should Russia or China "flatten" China or Russia? A lot of countries have legitimate gripes for things the US has done in the past. So why shouldn't they be able to "flatten" us in any way they can?
Miswrote this. Should have said:
I mean if some crazy American men get together and carry out terrorism in Russia or China, should Russia or China "flatten" us? A lot of countries have legitimate gripes for things the US has done in the past. So why shouldn't they be able to "flatten" us in any way they can?
I mean if some crazy American men get together and carry out terrorism in Russia or China, should Russia or China "flatten" us? A lot of countries have legitimate gripes for things the US has done in the past. So why shouldn't they be able to "flatten" us in any way they can?
If Russia and China were to decide to team up to "flatten" the U.S., I imagine that nuclear weapons would be involved in that flattening. The U.S. would respond with equal nuclear retaliation. The result would be an irradiated planet, nuclear winter, and a remaining population of survivors who would view the dead as having been the lucky ones. I would hope that the superpowers of the world continually keep the reality of mutual annihilation in mind as a check against any thoughts of starting WW III.
I'm not saying this to justify the comparative safety of a powerful nation's reining in of a much weaker and less stable nation, but I nevertheless can understand the reasoning behind it. For all we know, someday the leadership of one of those weaker, less stable nations with a fierce and passionately theocratic antipathy towards Western culture may gain control of a nuclear device and decide to use it against us or against one of our allies. At which time, it will be too late for us to be thinking: "Well, we should've seen that coming."
If Russia and China were to decide to team up to "flatten" the U.S., I imagine that nuclear weapons would be involved in that flattening.
Or economic pressure. The Soviet is able to exert economic pressure through oil and gas policies, China through economic policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
