Proposal: "They" Hate Us for: a)Our Freedoms b)Our Policies

Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends which "they". For the majority it would be policies.

Some Wahabists do hate what the West sees as freedoms and what they see as licentiousness, immorality, lack of self control etc, but many fundamentalist Christians (and other religious fundamentalists) would agree with them.
 
Has anybody thought about - they hate us because of

Our freedom of religion
Our freedom of speech
Our freedom of sex (gays!)
Our freedom of dress (bikinis!)
Our type of laws (not cutting off the hands)
Our freedom not to choose 72 vigins :D

May be there is more....

Is that what we are talking about? If not just delete this post....
 
Has anybody thought about - they hate us because of

Our freedom of religion
Our freedom of speech
Our freedom of sex (gays!)
Our freedom of dress (bikinis!)
Our type of laws (not cutting off the hands)
Our freedom not to choose 72 vigins :D

May be there is more....

Is that what we are talking about? If not just delete this post....

I think there is an element of that, but its fairly insignificant.
For example one of the reasons why Bin Laden etc turned their attention on the west, was because their dreams of sparking a revolution in muslim countries to sweep away what they saw as corrupt government and replace it with theocratic regimes failed so miserably.
They blamed the corrupting influence of western values on muslims for this failure, and therefore decided that it was the west who them must fight.

But its important to remember though that people of Bin Laden's ilk were always a very small minority of the islamist movement in general - most islamists are nationalists - fighting within their own countries to establish theocracy / remove imperialist influences - so its only when the west gets involved in these areas that we come into conflict with them.

So the balance is definitely in favour of B - our policies
 
Bin Laden did not care about a theocratic government. The CIA threw him out after the Soviets lost the war. His actions are basically revenge. That is the inside story.
 
Bin Laden did not care about a theocratic government. The CIA threw him out after the Soviets lost the war. His actions are basically revenge. That is the inside story.

Nothing of the sort - it was OBL's failures to install theocratic governments in places like algeria and egypt through his connections with and involvement in Islamic Jihad (there's a clue in the name there kmguru) during the 90's that led to him targetting the west.
He was never a CIA agent - merely an "asset" who was conveniently placed to help the US with their proxy war - likewise OBL wanted little to do with the US but was merely happy to accept money and arms from them.

This stuff is hardly difficult to research
 
My DIA contacts say otherwise. My company does a lot of business with the intelligence community. Do not believe everything you read in public....:D
 
My DIA contacts say otherwise. My company does a lot of business with the intelligence community. Do not believe everything you read in public....:D

Your DIA contact has either over-simplified it for you, is playing the party line, or is simply engaging in a bit of inter-agency rivalry ("hey if we'd have been given the job we wouldn't have fucked it up like those other guys" kind of thing ) - it smells like the latter to me.

OBL's actions are revenge of a sort - but not for the way he was abandoned by the CIA once he had fought their proxy war for them.

The fact that he is taking revenge against the USA for what he sees as their part in the abject failure of his brand of jihadism is extremely inconvenient in terms of the public picture that is portrayed of OBL and AQ by our governments and media.

It shows him for what he really is: marginalised by his own side, out of touch with even the mainstream of islamism, with little or no manpower, and no significant ability to threaten the west.

Think about it - it wasn't until AFTER the various islamist revolutions that OBL and Islamic Jihad (the organisation which he was a senior member of) supported failed that he turned his attention on the west - citing the corrupting influence of the west as the reason for the failure.

Ask your DIA buddy why he took so long in attacking the west
 
How can you fight terrorrism... this is what get's me. It's like fighting fire with fire. Not only that, there can be no concievable notion that ''a war'' can defeat the nature of the human race. In other words, you cannot take terrorism out of a country like Iraq, and expect the war to be over, because it will always exist, unfortuntely.

It's war that's already lost, from the American and British goverenment side of things.
 
And what will be next? What about the terrorism in America and Britain? Are we going to start a war on ourselves?

Bush should have continued diplomacy.
 
Shit, it looks pretty simple to me: they hate you because you make stuff up all the time.

Money for example - the US financial 'industry' invents new ways to make money out of thin air almost every week.
The US and European leaderships invent reasons to sanction Arab countries every week.

Mostly, they hate you because you keep inventing religious reasons to hate them, when the conflict itself has next to nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with culture and access to resources.
They aren't 'allowed' the same access. You have to sanction any efforts by Arab countries because you want them for yourself (note: I'm using the term "Arab" generically, not geographically, I know Arabs are from Arabia, Persians are from Iran, etc).
 
Last edited:
Shit, it looks pretty simple to me: they hate you because you make stuff up all the time.

Money for example - the US financial 'industry' invents new ways to make money out of thin air almost every week.
The US and European leaderships invent reasons to sanction Arab countries every week.

Money's a business.
 
I would like to assist Spock on his position. If there's a second to assist Challenger, can it be done?

Yeah, team debates can be done, Although you'll need to PM spock and collaborate to ensure that you say the correct things.
I'll assist Hype if he needs it.
 
I'm kidding; I messaged Spock, and I will tell you if he will be active when he messages...he'll probably post here in any case after I sent him the link.

So as for the rules;
A party gives initial full statement.
Then 3 interjection questions for clarification / proof of citation from Part B
B second party gives full statement
Then 3 interjection questions for clarification / proof of citation from Part A

Then; the second party rebuttals the first.
Then the first the second...

etc etc.

Each party will only post through one member. And at this point all clarifications of definitions will be handled through PM. At the beginning of the next post, the Clarifications will be headlined at the beginning of rebuttal (if relevant).

Any ideas for change? Or are there set standards?
 
Last edited:
It isn't the hating part but the why. After all we don't like them that much either...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top