that was kind of inflammatory though its truth at the core is hard to argue against.
You can mock the US but it doesn't protect Scandinavians from criticism. (And I was always against the Iraq war.)
The Scandinavians are always so smug about the aggressive US being responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks and act like they treat minorities better when they only have microscopic minority populations. Recent Muslim attacks in Scandinavia show that your smugness is not warranted. Look around the world and you see that Muslims attack most foreign cultures they come into contact with (India, Russia, Europe, etc.)
Leaving Afghanistan alone? Please, would want nothing more. But you forget that it was the Taliban who attacked US first.
I am not sure what your point about my posts are but Norway has also published cartoons and Sweden has been attacked too, so your attempts at distinguishing between the various Scandinavian countries aren't that useful.
publish != draw
and how does the attacks on sweden factor into the mohammed drawings?
I didn't say it did. I was having a general discussion with PingVin about Scandinavia not be attacked by Muslims simply because of US foreign policy. Then you jumped in (probably without reading the previous posts in the thread.)
You can mock the US but it doesn't protect Scandinavians from criticism. (And I was always against the Iraq war.)
The Scandinavians are always so smug about the aggressive US being responsible for Muslim terrorist attacks and act like they treat minorities better when they only have microscopic minority populations. Recent Muslim attacks in Scandinavia show that your smugness is not warranted. Look around the world and you see that Muslims attack most foreign cultures they come into contact with (India, Russia, Europe, etc.)
I saw this post:
and corrected your assumptions about "scandinavian" smugness...
I know you are trying to be funny and make a point but you fail.
This current muslim war officially started 4 NOV 1979. It continues today.
This current war started when we landed in Saudi Arabia in 1990 when we put troops there.
It's called globalization and the internet, which means even backwater third-world countries know what's happening everywhere else. The murder of Van Gogh has nothing to do with the wars in the middle-east, for example. (And if you think it does than you're basically saying Islamic fundies are irrational. And if they are irrational then there's no reason to think foreign policy is a cure to their ills.) Islam doesn't just have issues with the West. It has issues with all non-Islamic cultures it comes into contact with.
Not much. The US and Europe have been meddling in the Middle East for decades if not centuries. If Islamic terror is on the rise in the West it's primarily because the world is becoming "smaller" in terms of communications and travel and because Muslim terrorists can hide among non-terrorist Muslims in the West now (Muslims using Western tolerance as a shield).So you think that there is absolutely no correlation between the wars and occupations in the Middle East and increased Islamist terror in both the Middle East and the western countries?
Beyond agreeing on an exact definition of being rational, my point is mostly that you have to be consistent about it. Again, if you're going to act like they are simply motivated by foreign policies of the west, then you have to explain how the murder Van Gogh fits into that agenda.Are fundamentalist terrorists irrational? That's is a good question. Depends on how you want to define rationality and what the goal of the fundamentalists are.
I know you are trying to be funny and make a point but you fail.
This current muslim war officially started 4 NOV 1979. It continues today.
So you think that there is absolutely no correlation between the wars and occupations in the Middle East and increased Islamist terror in both the Middle East and the western countries? Hell, even Muslim countries has portrayed Mohammed. These posters were not uncommon in the 90's.
Are fundamentalist terrorists irrational? That's is a good question. Depends on how you want to define rationality and what the goal of the fundamentalists are. If rational action is picking an approach which is believed to have the best chance of achieving the set goals, well, you still need to know what the goals are. And I'm not talking about the grand design of the fundamentalist idea (the crusade against the west), but more of those set by the designers of the terrorist attacks.
EDIT: let me know if I'm not making any sense, having a bit of a hard time explaining this is English.
Only the Swedes are smug about the warmongering, both Norway and Denmark are active parts of Nato and there is a lot more US support coming from them.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we wouldn't have these terror attacks had Afghanistan and Iraq been left alone.
Not much. The US and Europe have been meddling in the Middle East for decades if not centuries. If Islamic terror is on the rise in the West it's primarily because the world is becoming "smaller" in terms of communications and travel and because Muslim terrorists can hide among non-terrorist Muslims in the West now (Muslims using Western tolerance as a shield).
You didn't correct me on squat. I'm going to let get the last word in though. (I'll be honest you don't really seem worth the time.)
Well we can speculate all day long about what inspired batshit crazy fuckheads to be batshit crazy, but the reality is we will never truly know. What we do know is some innocent people were killed today on purpose by this batshit crazy fuckheads. So the real question is what do we do about it. The way yo write youd think we should all apologize to the fuckheads for not being fuckheads.
Sadly we may need 4 or 5 more of these types of attacks before Europe wakes up to the Islamic terrorism problem.
Infohawk, it's always possible that our foreign policies didn't create the problem of Islamic radicalism or terrorism, but did exacerbate it. Just saying.
Good point.
Cartoons could have been drawn in the 90's and likely no one over there would have been aware of it.
Fern
I didn't say they didn't exacerbate it.
I did a tour in Afghanistan, and I'll gladly do another one in the next shitfuckistan.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we wouldn't have these terror attacks had Afghanistan and Iraq been left alone. Oh, and the leaving troops in Saudi Arabia was a bad idea too. You mess with enough people, some will be bat-shit crazy enough to blow themselves up. Leave them alone and they'll mind their own business. I understand a lot of Americans don't share this point of view and I'm not expecting them too either. My sympathies are with our neighbors, though I fear this will stir up peoples xenophobia.
What for? The terrorists that attack us are here on our soil, not over there. We ARE 'shitfuckistan'. Get deployed in your home country.
You didn't say they did either, so perhaps we needed clarification. Maybe the guy you're arguing with is also not taking the opposite extreme position.