posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:18 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
This really isn't getting us anywhere. You said a policy was allowing attacks on the US, I pointed out that it wasn't. Your response to that is to
talk about Syria, the UN, and Assad. That's sort of extraneous to whether or not a policy is allegedly allowing attacks of the US, so I don't see the
(BTW, radical Islam has not "existed for thousands of years." Islam itself is only about 1,500 years old.)
The incident of the Tripoli meeting that you refer to took place in the context of the US declaring war upon the Ottoman Empire, so I'm not sure what
you intended to illustrate. But the fact that the Ottoman ambassador justified his side's actions by referring to the Koran proves nothing about Islam
itself. It just illustrates how easily religion can be called upon to justify pretty much anything you want.
Islamism, in the sense of a political system constrained by and dedicated to the Islamic faith, didn't exist at the time.
As for why Islamists have attacked France, this is just a distraction. The fact that France has been attacked is related to what we are talking about,
but it's not what we were talking about.
For the record, France and the Muslim world have a bit of historical baggage, not relevant here, that causes tensions with North Africa and the wider
Islamic region. Also, France is a secular state, and thus seen as a great wrongdoer in a religious sense, and is historically the USA's principle
'soulmate' due to their intertwined revolutionary histories.
The fact that US Foreign Policy inspires attacks in the US isn't altered by the fact that other nations are being attacked too. It's just