Divisive The REAL War!

[The_Chameleon]

I'd like to talk about the real war that is being waged right now. I'm going to say what needs to be said. This "War on Terror", what is it? When did it really start? Do these people have anything to be really p!ssed about? Are we completely innocent in all this? There are certain parties that would have you believe that we are. Regardless of who threw the first stone, the real story is not one of ideologies or religion, it is a story of greed and waste. It is a story of a civilization that has had it too good for too long, and another that has had to pay a heavy price for that prosperity for too long. Some will see me as a traitor for even suggesting that we are not innocent and righteous in our motives and deeds as a society. I challenge readers to consider that just maybe this isn't so.


Some will say that I am blaming the victim, but who really is the victim in all this? Why are so many of "them" attacking us, bombing our cities and lashing out with utter contempt? What drives people to take such action? Religion? Not for probably over a century has the true cause of war been religion. If that's what you believe is behind this then you've been drinking the proverbial cool-aid. The real reason they are so angry at us is because for a long time we've been cutting them down like wheat. We've been wreaking a path of destruction through their society leaving bodies in our wake. Not just bodies of soldiers, but of women and children killed as "collateral damage". We've been mowing them down not because of their religious mandate to do likewise to us (and how nice of them to provide us with such a convenient excuse) but because of something as black as the hearts of those who would have you believe this is a war for democracy and freedom.


I can tell you with full confidence that if the NATO nations had in the 70's, with vigor, collectively begun and persued the process of becoming completely energy self-sufficient and renewable energy reliant, we wouldn't be in this mess now. Friction with the Muslim world would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. The reason we tolerated them coming here (and bringing their less than compatible ways), made concessions for them, and haven't probably gone to war with them is because they have something we want. But now we're not as inclined to ask and barter, we just justify and take. We supposedly kill them because of "the war on terror", but this terrorism is a symptom of the hatred we've generated by murdering them so we can take their natural resources. For every incandescent light bulb you replace with an LED, you've probably saved a Muslim life somewhere in the world. And maybe, with a bit less waste, there'll be just a few, just a tiny few less people motivated to blow themselves up in our public spaces. But the real difference maker will be when we DEMAND change. Not the kind of change that excuses the status quo to be ramped up in intensity, but the kind of change that benefits both parties. If we truly want democracy and freedom, then we must truly want it for everyone.




- Chameleon

 

[Hilander]

The problem with some in the Muslim world they don't want democracy or change. They want the status quo to continue, they want Sharia law to rule their world. They don't want people, especially women, to have freedom to go about their daily lives or say what they feel. They want to rule with a heavy hand, keep people in their place, especially women.

They attack us because some of them don't want our democracy and they are trying to scare us into staying out of their part of the world. They want their people to be brainwashed into thinking Sharia law is the only law that should be obeyed. Our way of life and laws are a threat to this.

We do not take their oil we pay for it. They want us to buy it, that is why they allow companies in to extract it.

Am I saying we have always done the right thing in the middle east, of course not, but I think we are learning. Is the answer to never venture there, no.

These boneheads that go around blowing themselves up killing others in the name of Allah are mislead by their own leaders.

There is always collateral damage in all wars. If these terrorists were worried about innocent lives then why do they hide behind them, use them as shields. I tell you why because when they are killed they can claim the great Satan killed their people like it was no fault of their own. They know very well if they start killing people they will fight back so that is on them.

More Muslims are killed by other Muslims than by the west.

 

[The_Chameleon]

Let them have their Sharia law, their oppressed women, their internal fighting, their screwed up perverse way of life. Let them have it. Let them keep it. Let those who want democracy and freedom flee those places rather than us trying to impose it on the entire region. That won't work, we only end up making the problem worse in those places. Saddam was a lunatic, and sometimes mass murdered his own citizens. Hundreds died over the years. A drop in the bucket compared to what ISIS has already done in their short reign. We don't really care about democracy over their, because if we did, we would have stayed their and made sure to create a politically stable environment for the people before leaving. So why then were we there? There's no other reason than black gold.


We pay for it? We marched in, secured the oil derricks, and split. If we don't care about stealing the oil in Iraq, why then were we caught angle drilling from Kuwait across the boarder? Why do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait? Why is there a big-ass oil pipeline being constructed through Afghanistan from Iraq (a pipeline project that was being threatened by Al-qaeda)? Why did the US fabricate evidence of WMD's in Iraq and use it to justify an invasion if they already had a legitimate excuse? The stolen oil doesn't have to come here, it can be sold to allies on that continent. Oh what a tangled web we weave. There are more things in Heaven and global politics Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.



- Chameleon

 

[Sim]

It's complicated. Islam or the Muslim World is not monolithic, there are many different factions, many of which hate each other, and very different kinds of government in different Muslim countries, which too have very different interests.

It's true that we (the West) did not always act smart. That doesn't mean I would blame us, at least not entirely. When someone decides to murder and to commit terrorist attacks, and to oppress people, including women and minorities, that's his fault, no matter how much he has been provoked.

How did the West not act smart? For example, during the Cold War against the Soviets (1945-1990), we often supported horrible dictatorships abroad, for the only reason they supported us against the Soviets. They oppressed their own people, but we turned a blind eye, because we could use their support against the Soviets. Many people there did not forget that, and started hating the West, because we helped their oppressors to oppress them.

An infamous example is the first Afghanistan war: In 1979, the Soviets invaded the former neutral country. We wanted to push the Soviets back, and in order to do so, we supported Muslim radicals there, because they would fight against the Soviets. We gave them weapons and know how and all other kinds of support -- that was how Al Qaida was born. Once the Soviets were gone, they turned against us.

We also supported many secular tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 80s -- until he suddenly turned against us by invading Kuwait in 1991. We supported Mubarak in Egypt. And after he apologized for former terrorism and offered oil, we also supported Ghaddafi in Libya.

And up to this day, we consider the worst theocratic islamist tyranny on this planet, the one country that all over the world finances islamist terrorists, and where 14 out of 19 attackers from 9/11 came from, an ally -- Saudi Arabia. That's a country where women are stoned to death for adultery, when they had been raped. Where women are not allowed to drive cars or leave the house without husband, father or brother. We consider this state an ally, because they're the most important oil exporter and we need their oil, and because their king supports us against Iran.


You have to see that the Muslim world has different ideological streams: There are conservative Muslims, there is secular nationalism and there is radical islamism. Secular nationalism used to be strong at a time when Muslims started caring less and less about religion, in the first half of the 20th century. But many secular dictatorships came out of that -- such as Saddam Hussein, Syria's Assad, Egypt's Mubarak or Libya's Ghaddafi.

Because secular nationalists started oppressing the people, the people was looking for something else. Many rediscovered religion. But the old mainstream clerics, the conservative Muslims, had often cooperated with the tyrannic governments and/or stayed out of politics. That's how islamism came up: A revival of fundamentalist Islam. Radicals, who claimed they want to go "back to the roots" of Islam and "live like the prophet once lived 1400 years ago". They were also extremely political: They proposed a liberation from the secular tyrants, but did not want to replace secular dictatorship with democracy, but with original-islamic theocracy -- a society just like Mohammed lived in 1400 years ago.

That's why conservative Islam -- while certainly rather strict too -- is often in opposition to islamist radicals. Much like the Catholic church is not so fond of Evangelicals free churches who want to live like Jesus once lived.

You also still have a minority of seculars and/or modernists, people who don't want religion to dominate public life and politics. But in most countries, there number is too small to make their fight for a Western model of government look successful.

On top of that, there are more divisions among Muslims. The main schism is between Sunni and Shia Muslims. It goes back 1400 years. After Mohammed died, some said the military leaders shall be his successors, the others said his son should be the successor. That's how both branches went apart.

Sunni and Shia often hate each other. Iran is Shia, and a majority of Iraqis are Shia too, but almost all other Muslims are Sunni. That's why Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other, although both are theocratic tyrannies.


Now the West often meddled in this, we were often short-sighted and didn't think long-term. We just wanted a short-term benefit. That often backfired. And you can imagine that in a situation as complex and confusing as this, any kind of meddling is dangerous. You WILL get new enemies when meddling, no matter what you do.

 

[The_Chameleon]

We supported extremist Muslim groups as a way to keep certain dictatorships under control, and when we were done with them we abandoned them or outright turned on them. Those caught in the middle of the different parts of the global political chessboard that we so love to manipulate have become collateral damage and swept to the wayside, but ultimately became prime candidates for recruitment into collective movements targeting the West. Movements like Al Quaeda and ISIS. Of course once such movements gain momentum, for the locals, it's either join or die.


We however still like to think of ourselves as having nothing to do with what is going on "over there". If we bomb the crap out of a building and scatter civilian body parts all over hell's half acre for the locals to clean up, that's just an unfortunate accident to us, but to them, it's akin to an act of terror and not much different from what some guy with a bomb belt and nothing left to lose might do to us. But when we do it to them, it isn't "terrorism". We have a list of organizations and groups considered "terrorist" organizations, and while we are not on it, of the names that are, over 800 have at some point been supported either directly or financially by the United States.


... Food for thought.



- Chameleon