PDA

View Full Version : The US is Not and Never Will be at War With Islam: Barack Obama



megimoo
09-10-2011, 07:31 PM
On this 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we remember that 9/11 was not only an attack on the United States, it was an attack on the world and on the humanity and hopes that we share.

We remember that among the nearly 3,000 innocent people lost that day were hundreds of citizens from more than 90 nations. They were men and women, young and old, of many races and faiths. On this solemn anniversary, we join with their families and nations in honoring their memory.

We remember with gratitude how ten years ago the world came together as one. Around the globe, entire cities came to a standstill for moments of silence. People offered their prayers in churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship. And those of us in the United States will never forget how people in every corner of the world stood with us in solidarity in candlelight vigils and among the seas of flowers placed at our embassies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNdQ-CSQww

We remember that in the weeks after 9/11, we acted as an international community. As part of a broad coalition, we drove al-Qaida from its training camps in Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and gave the Afghan people a chance to live free from terror. However, the years that followed were difficult and the spirit of global partnership we felt after 9/11 frayed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-US-is-not-and-never-will-be-at-war-with-Islam-Barack-Obama/articleshow/9939169.cms

COMMENTS:

Sounds like he's getting ready to cut and run from Afghanistan....
............................
Time to wake up Obummer...Islam Is At War With America..

Elspeth
09-11-2011, 01:08 AM
Cut and run?

It's been 10 years, and Osama Binladin/Bin Laden is dead. Isn't that the reason we were over there?

Staying around after OBL's unfortunate demise is an admission that the war was never about him. Winding down and getting out will give the impression that it was.

txradioguy
09-11-2011, 02:46 AM
Note to BHO...Islam is at war with us.

Might want to keep that in mind.

RobJohnson
09-11-2011, 05:57 AM
Cut and run?

It's been 10 years, and Osama Binladin/Bin Laden is dead. Isn't that the reason we were over there?

Staying around after OBL's unfortunate demise is an admission that the war was never about him. Winding down and getting out will give the impression that it was.

So we should just ignore the threats from the terrorists? I thought it was a war on terror?

Novaheart
09-11-2011, 09:57 AM
Note to BHO...Islam is at war with us.

Might want to keep that in mind.

You know that any US President has to say that we aren't at war with Islam because we're friends with Turkey and a bunch of other countries which seem stable but probably aren't.

Starbuck
09-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Cut and run?

It's been 10 years, and Osama Binladin/Bin Laden is dead. Isn't that the reason we were over there?

Staying around after OBL's unfortunate demise is an admission that the war was never about him. Winding down and getting out will give the impression that it was.
When stung by a wasp, a wise person will eradicate the nest. The individual wasp that stung is immaterial.

PS: OBL's "unfortunate demise"? What a foolish statement.:confused:

Odysseus
09-11-2011, 12:00 PM
Note to BHO...Islam is at war with us.

Might want to keep that in mind.

Oh, he knows. He's just not that into winning.

megimoo
09-11-2011, 12:05 PM
Oh, he knows. He's just not that into winning.

He needs the Money the military spends on the war in Afghanistan to feed his ever expanding welfare base..

noonwitch
09-12-2011, 10:40 AM
You know that any US President has to say that we aren't at war with Islam because we're friends with Turkey and a bunch of other countries which seem stable but probably aren't.




Well, that and the many americans who also happen to be muslims.


A nation can't successfully fight a war against ideology. A war against another nation, or against a group of people who are trying to kill americans and their allies, yes, but this is not the crusades, with christians fighting muslims for control of the Holy Land.

txradioguy
09-13-2011, 04:44 AM
Well, that and the many americans who also happen to be muslims.


A nation can't successfully fight a war against ideology. A war against another nation, or against a group of people who are trying to kill americans and their allies, yes, but this is not the crusades, with christians fighting muslims for control of the Holy Land.

If that were the case we'd have never won WW II, Korea, Vietnam or the Cold War.

What do you think was the driving force behind our enemies in those two conflicts if not a brutal totalitarian ideology?

NJCardFan
09-13-2011, 08:27 AM
Cut and run?

It's been 10 years, and Osama Binladin/Bin Laden is dead. Isn't that the reason we were over there?

Staying around after OBL's unfortunate demise is an admission that the war was never about him. Winding down and getting out will give the impression that it was.

It was never just about him. If getting him was endgame, we would have just sent strike teams in to find him or carpet bombed the mountains and probably came up with the Jericho missile just for him. That said, this is the war on terror not the war on Bin Laden.

NJCardFan
09-13-2011, 08:29 AM
If that were the case we'd have never won WW II, Korea, Vietnam or the Cold War.

What do you think was the driving force behind our enemies in those two conflicts if not a brutal totalitarian ideology?
You call Vietnam and Korea wins?

noonwitch
09-13-2011, 08:55 AM
If that were the case we'd have never won WW II, Korea, Vietnam or the Cold War.

What do you think was the driving force behind our enemies in those two conflicts if not a brutal totalitarian ideology?



We fought the Nazis because of the things they did, not because of the things they believed. We tolerated their beliefs for a decade before getting serious about them, after they had taken over all of Europe and had their sights on England. Even then, it took the Japanese bombing us at Pearl Harbor to get the US directly into the war (we were arming the british prior to that with the lendi/lease program).

We entered into the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam because of the armed forces of one side threatening the people who were our allies.

Wei Wu Wei
09-13-2011, 09:15 AM
If that were the case we'd have never won WW II, Korea, Vietnam or the Cold War.

What do you think was the driving force behind our enemies in those two conflicts if not a brutal totalitarian ideology?

WWII and the Cold War were conflicts against state apparatuses. We were fighting state machines, not ideas. The Cold War didn't end with a battle of minds and a redefinition of concepts, it ended when a government structure collapsed. WWII didn't end when people gave up their ideas of authoritarianism, racism, nationalism, or anything. It ended when the Governments we were fighting surrendered.

Those wars are in no way comparable to this "war on terror".

There's no government that can surrender to end the war on terror, there's no person that can be killed or captured, there's no person who can declare victory or defeat.


If we are fighting resistance to American imperialism and global hegemony, then it will be impossible to bomb our way to victory. The more we reach around the world into different countries, kill people (including civilians), and exercise our extreme military might, the more we are simply going to justify the ideas of the people we are fighting. Every civilian we kill or injure causes their family, friends, or community to become more radicalized.

It's like fighting the perception that you are a bully by going around and kicking everyone's ass who voices opposition to you.

The ideology behind this "war on terror" gives America an excuse to stomp around the globe, killing people and making up concepts in order to fight a global war, regardless of borders. This sort of war has never been fought before, so you cannot compare it to previous wars.

Rockntractor
09-13-2011, 09:20 AM
WWII and the Cold War were conflicts against state apparatuses. We were fighting state machines, not ideas. The Cold War didn't end with a battle of minds and a redefinition of concepts, it ended when a government structure collapsed. WWII didn't end when people gave up their ideas of authoritarianism, racism, nationalism, or anything. It ended when the Governments we were fighting surrendered.

Those wars are in no way comparable to this "war on terror".

There's no government that can surrender to end the war on terror, there's no person that can be killed or captured, there's no person who can declare victory or defeat.


If we are fighting resistance to American imperialism and global hegemony, then it will be impossible to bomb our way to victory. The more we reach around the world into different countries, kill people (including civilians), and exercise our extreme military might, the more we are simply going to justify the ideas of the people we are fighting. Every civilian we kill or injure causes their family, friends, or community to become more radicalized.

It's like fighting the perception that you are a bully by going around and kicking everyone's ass who voices opposition to you.

The ideology behind this "war on terror" gives America an excuse to stomp around the globe, killing people and making up concepts in order to fight a global war, regardless of borders. This sort of war has never been fought before, so you cannot compare it to previous wars.

We don't just stomp around the globe, killing people, now you have me pissed.

Wei Wu Wei
09-13-2011, 09:24 AM
We don't just stomp around the globe, killing people, now you have me pissed.

America has been killing people in at least 4 countries recently.

What are you mad about? How can you support wars without acknowledging that people die in the process, many people, including innocent civilians. What is that other than killing people?

We can talk about wars but we can't talk about the fact that people die in the process of war-making?

Wei Wu Wei
09-13-2011, 09:26 AM
We have an entire subforum dedicated to the War on Terror, but if we're not allowed to talk about people dying in the context of war just let me know. I can edit my posts.

Rockntractor
09-13-2011, 09:29 AM
America has been killing people in at least 4 countries recently.

What are you mad about? How can you support wars without acknowledging that people die in the process, many people, including innocent civilians. What is that other than killing people?

We can talk about wars but we can't talk about the fact that people die in the process of war-making?

Our military does not just willie nillie kill civilians and soldiers just for something to do, you are disrespectful to our military our country and to this board.

Wei Wu Wei
09-13-2011, 09:32 AM
I didn't claim that our military randomly selects civilians to kill for fun.

I'm saying that pursuing this "war on terror" that has no endpoint or conditions for victory, that has no geographical boundaries or even a uniformed enemy, we are engaging in warfare that results in immense civilian casualties, which only serves to exacerbate the problem we are fighting.

Rockntractor
09-13-2011, 09:53 AM
I didn't claim that our military randomly selects civilians to kill for fun.

I'm saying that pursuing this "war on terror" that has no endpoint or conditions for victory, that has no geographical boundaries or even a uniformed enemy, we are engaging in warfare that results in immense civilian casualties, which only serves to exacerbate the problem we are fighting.

We also fight crime within the country on a day to day basis through local, state and federal law enforcement agencies which is also an endless responsibility. We protect ourselves and your comment about just stomping around the globe killing people has no value or substance and is just trolling.

Wei Wu Wei
09-13-2011, 01:32 PM
We also fight crime within the country on a day to day basis through local, state and federal law enforcement agencies which is also an endless responsibility. We protect ourselves and your comment about just stomping around the globe killing people has no value or substance and is just trolling.

1. Every nation has the right to enforce it's own laws within it's own borders with it's own domestic police force. That's not the same as being World Police, that is Imperialism. The United States doesn't have the right to be the police of the world.

2. How many people have been killed by domestic law enforcement official in the United States in the last 10 years? The best numbers I can find on the topic suggest 200-300 per year, so 2,000-3,000 over the last decade?


How many people have been killed by military actions in the middle east in the last 10 years? various sources including aggregates on wikipedia suggest between 100,000 and upwards of 1 million for the largest estimate in Iraq; and between 7,000-30,000 in Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282 001%E2%80%93present%29

You cannot compare a couple thousand deaths from regular police work and a couple hundred thousand deaths from "global policework"


The war on terror isn't a war like past wars. There is no government to dismantel, no target to kill, noone who can "surrender" or enter into a peace treaty. There is simply no way to "win" this war. If you are going to consider it a form of police work, you have to acknowledge that this is international global police work, an action of imperialism that has no end in sight, and who's "enforcement" will only lead to more radicals being created by us overstepping our boundaries.

Odysseus
09-13-2011, 05:11 PM
WWII and the Cold War were conflicts against state apparatuses. We were fighting state machines, not ideas. The Cold War didn't end with a battle of minds and a redefinition of concepts, it ended when a government structure collapsed. WWII didn't end when people gave up their ideas of authoritarianism, racism, nationalism, or anything. It ended when the Governments we were fighting surrendered.
Actually, we were fighting ideas during both WWII and the Cold War. National Socialism and Communism were the driving motivations behind the Nazis and the Soviets. The problem with our current conflict is that we are afraid to acknowledge the ideas that animate our enemies. Partly, this is because we would then have to address the logical conclusion, that political Islam, advanced through jihad (violent and non-violent), is what drives our current enemies.


Those wars are in no way comparable to this "war on terror".
This is true, but not the way that you think. Socialism was an acknowledged failure after 70 years in the USSR (and far less in other countries). The "Thousand-Year Reich" barely made it into its teens. But the global jihad, the unbroken string of Islamic imperialist conquests, began in the seventh century and, after a few centuries of rollback, is on the march again. Centuries of failure have not dimmed the passions of the Islamists. If anything, those failures have made them more desperately fanatical.


There's no government that can surrender to end the war on terror, there's no person that can be killed or captured, there's no person who can declare victory or defeat.
Actually, there are several. Terrorism is a tactic, employed by both governments and non-state actors (in fact, the use of non-state actors makes terrorism attractive to governments because it provides them with plausible deniability). The non-state actors in this war are al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and a host of other terror groups, which receive funding from, and enjoy sanctuary in, nations. Those nations which harbor and finance terrorists are the ones that we can impose our will on.


If we are fighting resistance to American imperialism and global hegemony, then it will be impossible to bomb our way to victory. The more we reach around the world into different countries, kill people (including civilians), and exercise our extreme military might, the more we are simply going to justify the ideas of the people we are fighting. Every civilian we kill or injure causes their family, friends, or community to become more radicalized.
We're not. We're fighting religious fanatics who have been working on the establishment of a global caliphate since Mohammed raped his first virgin. The only people who talk about American imperialism and global hegemony with a straight face are people who have not outgrown the fantasies of leftist utopias.


It's like fighting the perception that you are a bully by going around and kicking everyone's ass who voices opposition to you.
If America were the kind of country that did that, do you really think that you'd be able to say the things that you do? Doesn't your continued liberty and very obvious dissent prove that, far from being a global bully that seeks to impose its will on everyone and everything, America approaches the world with the same laissez faire attitude that it used to bring to domestic affairs (before people like you began imposing their will on the rest of us)?


The ideology behind this "war on terror" gives America an excuse to stomp around the globe, killing people and making up concepts in order to fight a global war, regardless of borders. This sort of war has never been fought before, so you cannot compare it to previous wars.
That is the stupidest thing that you have ever said on this forum. Seriously. Do you really believe that we would willingly give up years out of our lives to go overseas to pick fights with people who have done us no harm? That we would suffer the privations of long deployments and time away from our families if anything less than the future of our nation were at stake? And this sort of war has been fought repeatedly throughout history. We've even fought several of them ourselves. Look at our suppression of the Barbary Pirates, or Britain's attacks on the slave trade. In each case, non-state actors (pirates, slavers) were acting in collusion with nations that provided them with the means to act, even as those states denied responsibility.

I didn't claim that our military randomly selects civilians to kill for fun.
No, but you have implied it. After all, if your argument is true, that the GWOT is solely a war for the aggrandizement of the United States, then those of us who fight it are, at best, dupes, and at worst, consciousless thugs who indulge in slaughter for the sake of empowering our elites. Now. of that's not what you meant (and we both know that it was), then say so now.


I'm saying that pursuing this "war on terror" that has no endpoint or conditions for victory, that has no geographical boundaries or even a uniformed enemy, we are engaging in warfare that results in immense civilian casualties, which only serves to exacerbate the problem we are fighting.
Sure it does. But you have to acknowledge the realities of the war. Our enemies are the nations that provide aid (training, weapons, financial support) and comfort (sanctuaries, diplomatic pressure, propaganda) to the terrorists who have done the physical labor of killing Americans. Some of these nations are failed states, which are incapable or uninterested in dealing with the terrorists, and some are conventional states who use their national assets on behalf of terrorists. The former include places like Somalia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Lebanon and Afghanistan (before we demonstrated that being a peaceful failed state was better than being a flattened state). The latter are obviously Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea. Finally, there are those states which, while nominally on our side, have significant portions of the population which are overtly in favor of the Islamist agenda and provide as much support as they can, and which are unable to completely suppress this due to the power of these factions. These are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan.. well, pretty much the entire Organization of Islamic States. Victory, then, would consist of defeating those states that sponsor terrorism, suppression of terrorists in those states which lack the means to suppress it themselves, and the empowerment of allied forces in those states which have significant ties to our enemies so that they can impose their will on their own terror supporters. When the Somalis decide that farming is safer than piracy, when the Iranian mullahs are in hiding from their own people, and the Saudis treat Islamists as harshly as they treat Christians, Jews and their own women, we'll have seen victory.


1. Every nation has the right to enforce it's own laws within it's own borders with it's own domestic police force. That's not the same as being World Police, that is Imperialism. The United States doesn't have the right to be the police of the world.
Every nation has the right to protect its people from external aggression. This is what differentiates war from police work. The goal of a police action is to arrest criminals and try them for their crimes. The goal of war is to defeat your enemies and destroy their will to continue fighting.


2. How many people have been killed by domestic law enforcement official in the United States in the last 10 years? The best numbers I can find on the topic suggest 200-300 per year, so 2,000-3,000 over the last decade?

How many people have been killed by military actions in the middle east in the last 10 years? various sources including aggregates on wikipedia suggest between 100,000 and upwards of 1 million for the largest estimate in Iraq; and between 7,000-30,000 in Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282 001%E2%80%93present%29

You cannot compare a couple thousand deaths from regular police work and a couple hundred thousand deaths from "global policework"
The one-million figure is patently absurd, and even the various other estimates fail to distinguish between civilians deliberately killed by our enemies, enemy combatants in civilian clothing and persons killed accidentally by our own forces. The various casualty counts lump all of these together as "civilan deaths" and then lay the blame for them on us.


The war on terror isn't a war like past wars. There is no government to dismantel, no target to kill, noone who can "surrender" or enter into a peace treaty. There is simply no way to "win" this war. If you are going to consider it a form of police work, you have to acknowledge that this is international global police work, an action of imperialism that has no end in sight, and who's "enforcement" will only lead to more radicals being created by us overstepping our boundaries.

Once again, you are simply regurgitating simplistic talking points that may go over with your special ed class, but are utterly false. In fact, victory can be achieved, but the first step is to acknowledge who and what we are fighting and what motivates them. It would also help if you were actually on the side of your own country, but we both know that that's not going to happen.

noworries
09-13-2011, 05:57 PM
Thank you both Odyssues and Rockntractor for dealing with Wee he is a idiot and pisses me off

Odysseus
09-13-2011, 10:08 PM
Thank you both Odyssues and Rockntractor for dealing with Wee he is a idiot and pisses me off

When I was in basic training, the drill sergeants used to call us "rocks". One day, they showed us what they meant. One of the drill sergeants took a rock, put it on the ground and began shouting orders at it, demonstrating that it couldn't learn anything no matter how hard you tried to train it. Wei is like that rock, only more so.