Western Foriegn Policy is not to Blame for Terror Attacks

a reply to: Grambler

You're approach or rather your framework of that whole mess is flawed / lacking many important key angles.

#1
The "map" of the ME only exists because of "US foreign policy" (American Imperialism).

#2
Therefore Radical Islam only exists because of American Imperialism.

#3
But more specifically A Qaeda / the Mujahaddeen only originally existed because of American Imperialism.

#4
Moreover they only existed beyond Afghanistan because of American Imperialism in the Balkans.

#5
Islamic Suicide Terrorism only exists because of American Imperialism.

#6
9/11 only happened because of American Imperialism.

#7
Hussein only came to power because of American Imperialism.

#8
Hussein was only taken out because of American Imperialism.

#9
ISIS only exists because of American Imperialism.

#10
The Arab Spring only happened because of American Imperialism.

#11
Qaddafi was only taken out because of American Imperialism.

#12
Syria was only blown up because of American Imperialism.

#13
Saudi Arabia (like all those other dictatorships in the ME) are only so emboldened and such, with SA being the prime sponsors of Al Qaeda + ISIS, not to mention Iran's entire history in the modern age, because of American Imperialism.

That all goes without saying if you know your history. PERIOD.

Now where it gets complicated is:

NATO wouldnt be where there are with the ME without American Imperialism. Although its on them they opened their borders. Or is it? The same Globalist forces that built the EU as we know it are the same ones that own the US just the same. And the same Two Party + MIC + IC + MSM Model that runs the propaganda apparatus here, and thus drives the MSM to push their School Shooter Mass Contagion Effect Agenda here is now being run on the hack and slasher lone wolf terrorism there.

Now that was typed up in about 5 minutes after just waking up from a nap. But its pretty spot on. Although it'd be 'better' to put the blame for all that on the CIA (the IC) in particular. But American Imperialism is also the fault of the Two Party + MIC + MSM portions of the Two Party + MIC + IC + MSM System (which also includes all the citizens whom support it).

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Good Lord. I am not an American, so not inclined to defend them, but your worldview is so two dimensional that it takes no intellectual effort to actually explore the facts and evidence. It's all America's fault. So simple. So wrong.

a reply to: paraphi

Ok, the drawing of the map is also on the UK. And all the fuss about Israel (which i hadn't specified) being the norm because its "our" Imperial Beach head for the region) is also shared by Europe. But the rest of those points were it nor for the CIA just none of that would have ever happened. Likewise, the "where is gets complicated" section does tie into the bullet points, but it still all comes down to the CIA and American Imperialism leading the charge.

Now you wouldn't pick much of all that up watching the TV your entire life, because everything as a whole that is broadcast across every channel your entire life simply doesnt provide you all the pieces of facts and perspective required, but that is reality.

Good night.

Thanks for the repsonse. I obviously disagree on many areas, so here goes.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Grambler

You're approach is flawed / lacking many important key angles.

#1
The "map" of the ME only exists because of "US foreign policy" (American Imperialism).

I guess I will say you are kind of right. But at this point you can say that about any area of the world. Had the US fared differently in WW1 or 2, the entire world map would probably be different. But for argument sakes I say sure.

#2
Therefore Radical Islam only exists because of American Imperialism.

WHOA!!! What a leap! I suppose if you were right, I wouldn't be able to find any examples of radical Islam before US intervention into the ME, right?

Surely you don't believe that radical Islam didn't exist in history?

Sure there are many branches of radical islam, but Wahhbism alone started in the 1700's.

en.wikipedia.org...

And there are many more examples of radical islam for many years, even before the US existed.

#3
But more specifically A Qaeda / the Mujahaddeen only originally existed because of American Imperialism.

Not true. Although the US ended up funding and radically growing these groups, they existed before the US.

#4
Moreover they only existed beyond Afghanistan because of American Imperialism in the Balkans.

This is an oversimplification. In fact, as the video in the OP shows, AQ and Binladen were helped by kissngers policy of helping with the indonesian genocide of East Timor, which was mostly a christian nation. Bin Ladne listed as the US #3 crime of reversing course and stopping this genocide, thereby stopping AQ from gaining influence there.

So its not just as simple as US imperialism caused AQ to spread, although it may have helped.

#5
Islamic Suicide Terrorism only exists because of American Imperialism.

That is an opinion which you can not back up with facts. If this is true, why are there suicide attacks against non Us allies?

#6
9/11 only happened because of American Imperialism.

I gave you some of the reasons Bin Laden outlined, including not committing genocide in East Timor. And to solely blame the US is a gross over simplification and the exact mindset I was criticizing in the OP.

I suppose OJ only killed because Ron Goldman was with his ex wife. But that ignores the host of other fcators, and shirks blame from OJ.

Same in your situation.

#7
Hussein only came to power because of American Imperialism.

#8
Hussein was only taken out because of American Imperialism.

Not the only reason, but a big factor.

#9
ISIS only exists because of American Imperialism.

Not true. Wahhabism whoich existed long before is a big factor. The idea of a world caliphate predates the formation of the US.

#10
The Arab Spring only happened because of American Imperialism.

There were many factors, you are again over simplifying.

#11
Qaddafi was only taken out because of American Imperialism.

Again other reason but I basically agree and have condemned this.

#12
Syria was only blown up because of American Imperialism.

The US escalated, but as with Libya, Islamic extremist were attacking before US involvement.

#13
Saudi Arabia (like all those other dictatorships in the ME) are only so emboldened and such, with SA being the prime sponsors of Al Qaeda + ISIS, not to mention Iran's entire history in the modern age, because of American Imperialism.

The US helps them sure, but again, there have been dictatorships in the ME well before the US, some of which wanted a world wide caliphate.

That all goes without saying if you know your history. PERIOD.

Oof. I think you were wrong about a lot of that, period.

Now where it gets complicated is:

NATO wouldnt be where there are with the ME without American Imperialism. Although its on them they opened their borders. Or is it? The same Globalist forces that built the EU as we know it are the same ones that own the US just the same. And the same Two Party + MIC + IC + MSM Model that runs the propaganda apparatus here, and thus drives the MSM to push their School Shooter Mass Contagion Effect Agenda here is now being run on the hack and slasher lone wolf terrorism there.

Look I share your belief that there is a globalist agenda, and that these regime change wars are devastating and should be fought tooth and nail.

But it is a gross oversimplification to just say all Islamic terror is made by the US. Its simply not true, as I show in the OP.

Why Boko Haram? Why attacking other Muslims? etc.

a reply to: Grambler

US/UK drew up the map specifically to cause internal division in each 'new nation' to preemptively destabilize them. Kurdistan is one such prime example:
en.wikipedia.org...

Modern Radical Islam exist specifically because of engineered radicalization (see CIA meddling). This goes for both Sunni & Shia. Note I'm not talking about classical fundamentalism, which is universal to all religions, I'm talking about multination effing IMPERIALISTIC organization / mercenaries. See the History Iran (CIA). See the History of the Mujahadeen (CIA). See the History of Saudi Arabia (CIA).

Suicide logic started in Iran, where the Iranian Revolution only existed because of overthrowing their Shah, which as soon as they rebelled against our effing OCCUPATION there, "we" goaded Hussein to attack them, and that's where the (defensive) suicide logic originated (although not in the context of terrorism). Think of it as a meme. That's what it is. So Syria took their logic and extended it into attacks (against the Israeli occupation mostly), and then it grew out of control.

Now idiot maniacs running in somewhere shooting people up, for example, where their dying in the process is extremely likely isn't technically "suicide attacks" unless we're to classify every se school shooting as such. Perhaps the punk who killed Dimebag Darrel on stage was a "suicide terrorist"?

a reply to: Grambler

If you're seriously curious about all the angles of this topic you might also check out:
Dying To Win by Robert Pape


It's interesting to see you cite East Timor. That's not one often readily acknowledged by hardly anyone. And here it doesn't do your OP any favors as that was the result of American / Western Foreign Policy. Meaning it wouldn't even exist as an item of discussion otherwise. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is today as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN a mechanism of the CIA, which Al Qaeda citing American Imperialism trying to reverse course on the damage it caused there, as an "item of outrage" is like the best example of such an over the top subliminal propaganda campaign (for those whom do try and actually read past the MSM on the subject).

Okay, now factor in...

How many Islamic terror attacks happened in the EU before 9/11?

Um, ZERO.

How many happened before Syria?

And how many of those didn't have Western IC fingerprints all over them?

Now look at US history pre-9/11. All related to Al Qaeda / Mujahadeen (CIA), where we even had the FBI giving them WTC Bombers the bomb and helping to instigate them to do it.

Etc.

Now fast forward to today, the EU followed Globalist (see Soros) model of open borders and divided nations, then factor in The MSM Driven US School Shooter Mass Contagion Effect, apply that to the EU + ISIS (CIA) post-Syria (CIA) wish Wahhabism (CIA) on top, and thats'amore. It's soup!!!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Grambler

If you're seriously curious about all the angles of this topic you might also check out:
Dying To Win by Robert Pape


It's interesting to see you cite East Timor. That's not one often readily acknowledged by hardly anyone. And here it doesn't do your OP any favors as that was the result of American / Western Foreign Policy. Meaning it wouldn't even exist as an item of discussion otherwise. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is today as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN a mechanism of the CIA, which Al Qaeda citing American Imperialism trying to reverse course on the damage it caused there, as an "item of outrage" is like the best example of such an over the top subliminal propaganda campaign (for those whom do try and actually read past the MSM on the subject).

I will check out your link when I got time.

I don't disagree with you that the US funded and helped creat AQ to what it became. But that does not prove they were then a tool of the US.

For example, Castro was put into power with the help of US. Does that mean Castro was always working with for the US?

We could spend hours arguing this idea that Isis and AQ are merely CIA operatives, but I think it would require a thread of its own.

But lets assume for a moment that you are right, that AQ is just a tool of the CIA.

This doesn't change the fact that the people actually carrying out the attacks on the west like Omar Matteen, are most likely not CIA assets. Most of these people are not from countries the US has bombed.

Hence the idea that the US foreign bobming is the reason for the attacks is not as simple as it seems.

The other problem is your stance seems to shirk blame from those who most deserve it; the terrorists themselves.

originally posted by: Grambler
And Isis has laughed at the idea that they attack because of US or European interventions. The tell us exactly what they want; a worldwide caliphate. It doesn’t matter if the US pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and never sets foot in the ME again, and gives Isis people jobs and money. Their plan is a final solution, the end of civilization as we know it. They tell us, our very existence is why they kill us. But I guess the people blaming the US and Europe would suggest just killing ourselves so that we may stop offending the terrorists.

Do they? Says who?!?!



Of course they wouldnt exist without the CIA. The ME wouldt be blown to pieces without American Imperialism (which precipitated them). No one in the West would even care much about any of that mess if it wasn't for the MSM. Etc. Etc. (see above). So bringing up ancient Islamic concepts ala caliphate (which stands for Islamic Superstate or is it Islamic Imperialism?????), today in the 21st Century, is a losing argument because in the 21st Century why should we expect it to exist in the absence of Western Neocolonialism (our Ying pushing their Yang)? Even if the ME would have naturally evolved into a superstate form of 'caliphate' that doesnt mean it'd be held by hardcore MONSTERS, and that they'd be trying to imperialize the West. It shouldn't be any of our business if they did evolve into such a thing, for starters, while if they were trying to take over the world the world woulf fight back and they'd be obliterated. Instead what we have is the grandest examples of two wrong dont make a right in human history, and as it stands we're absolutely the bad guys in the equation DESPITE all that human rights violations crap used to justify it. For all we know, that stuff is all on US. in most of those nations. In fact, its extremely likely to be the case.


The Power Of Nightmares: Part 1 Baby Its Cold Outside (2004)

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Okay, now factor in...

How many Islamic terror attacks happened in the EU before 9/11?

Um, ZERO.

The problem is you keep making false statements.

So you are really claiming there was not one terror attack in the EU prior to 9-11?

1985 El Descanso bombing.en.wikipedia.org...

And if for whatever reason you say the EU wasn't formed then 1995 Paris metro bombing. en.wikipedia.org...

Do you see its not so simple as you are suggesting?

a reply to: Grambler

AQ always was CIA. Many held that ended because of 911, but the CIA Hillary McCain etc are bare knuckles running white with desire supporting them again as if 911 ever happened (meaning 911 is about all anyone should even be talking about anymore), so there's that.

The "ISIS" thing is interesting. The way its being sold is they're the real threat, not AQ.

Okay, maybe ISIS which emerged from AQ maybe they really did split and truly are enemies in the form of dueling imperial mobilizations. Maybe. Or perhaps that's all part of the psyop for everyone to forget how how AQ is. The MSM sure have put 100% of the focus on ISIS to distract US from AQ (which to me is the final nail in proving AQ always was CIA).

a reply to: Grambler

Okay if you dig hard enough, but hell who ever heard of and rememebered those events outside of their locales? Now factor in broader geopolitics (like Western Neocolonialism), False Flag Terrorism, lone nutter 'terrorism', and so on.

Was "Islam" trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD at any point (before decades of HARDCORE cia meddling) in the past 150 years is perhaps how this whole thing should be framed. Now, was CIA meddling ever about being against their human rights violations.

Note I edited my "()" caliphate bit a couple posts up.

Caliphate being Islamic Superstate. While Islamic Superstate wouldn't inherently it'd be Imperialistic.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You really don't understand the role that Islam or religion plays in any of this do you? Try doing some research on the fight between Sunni Muslims vs. Shiite Muslims for starters.

I'd tell you to go read copies of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas' Charters for membership, but Google might not allow that any longer. The closest I could find to explaining it was this Muslim Brotherhood Fact Sheet, which is just a short explanation for what they stand for and what they believe...

www.standwithus.com...

a reply to: Grambler

If this were true, then we would expect to see almost all of these terrorist attacks coming from countries that the US and Europe have bombed; Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. However, when we look at where the attackers are from, we see that startling few of them are from these countries. Countries such as Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates are where many of these terrorist hail from. Why would people from these countries attack the US and Europe over bombing Libya or Iraq?

Where do you think the citizens went to once their home was bombed in iraq,libya, yemen, afghanistan?
I believe that the ones with the most hate in their hearts went to places like pakistan, trinidad, somalia
so that they would be safe enough to regroup and fight back.

To say that the west holds no blame in what is happening is just silly.

I think it is , like most things is this world, a product of many different sides.
All that hate and the willing to die for your religious beliefs and political ideologues
has existed in the world since religion was created. But the west has recently
through nation building and expansion focused some of that hatred toward themselves.

Would we have these terrorists bombings if we had not built bases on foreign soil or armed
the enemies of the people who bomb us? Would it be this bad if we had not armed and
trained some of the very people that attack us now?
Who's to say? All I know is what has happened. It can't be denied that the west has been up
in peoples business they have no right to have been, and it has pissed a lot of people off.

a reply to: Grambler

Firstly I disagree with you and secondly can you point out anyone that has justified terrorism and or terrorists?

Pointing out the reason it has become such a large problem is hardly justification ....

a reply to: Grambler

Quite logical as always. Of course, the deniers won't accept that. The people to blame for the terrorism are the terrorists, and those pulling their strings.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

If this were true, then we would expect to see almost all of these terrorist attacks coming from countries that the US and Europe have bombed; Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. However, when we look at where the attackers are from, we see that startling few of them are from these countries. Countries such as Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates are where many of these terrorist hail from. Why would people from these countries attack the US and Europe over bombing Libya or Iraq?

Where do you think the citizens went to once their home was bombed in iraq,libya, yemen, afghanistan?
I believe that the ones with the most hate in their hearts went to places like pakistan, trinidad, somalia
so that they would be safe enough to regroup and fight back.

There is no proof whatsoever that the people committing these attacks moved from Iraq to somewhere like Somalia or Saudi Arabia or the UAE and then committed these attacks.

Many of the attacks are committed by second generation citizens.

And no one is saying the US hasn't made people angry or exacerbated the situation.

The problem is to blame the west as the sole reason for these attacks is too simplistic and inaccurate.

Often times, it seems as if the actions of the west have far less to do with the actions than other factors.

And it seems like the west would have been the target of hate by these extremist no matter what they did (at least according to Isis themselves).

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

Firstly I disagree with you and secondly can you point out anyone that has justified terrorism and or terrorists?

Pointing out the reason it has become such a large problem is hardly justification ....

There are many people that make this argument. Ward Churchill comes to mind, and many other academia types.

But perhaps justifying isn't the right word; how about belittling the responsibility of the real people responsible, the terrorists.

a reply to: Grambler

The problem is to blame the west as the sole reason for these attacks is too simplistic and inaccurate.

I would never do that.
I know that terrorists existed even 1500 years ago.

The simplest way I can put my view is to say that the west has kicked a very old hornets nest.