It also lead to the death of Saddam, an enemy of theirs; great self inflicted damage to America’s economic, military, moral, and political strength; the destruction of Iraqi secularism; and major damage to the cause of democracy in the Middle East. It was a huge and multileveled success for them, even if we did most of the dirty work ourselves.
Which is weaker: Iran or Madagascar?
That’s a silly way to approach the semantics of the situation. But anyway, my original point stands.
Up there. India is the tenth-largest defense spender in the world. The IAF is currently buying Russian fighters and bombers which are equivalent or in some cases more advanced than the ones the Russians are using themselves.
I assume the anti-terror teams are operated by the ATS (the Maharastra anti-terror bureau) so they’re locally funded, which means lots of money that ought to be spent on their guns is being funnelled to the pockets of politicians instead.
You could say it, but before you did, it might be worth asking: “What exactly do radical Muslims want?” It seems to me this might be an important piece of the puzzle.
Both are weak; it doesn’t matter.
Hardly. It’s not a silly point; it answers the question “Why Muslims ?” Answer : Because we define the tactics they are forced to use as terrorism, while defining OUR tactics as not being terrorism, when the real difference is greater power on our part.
I guess it’s just wishful thinking on my part that makes me hope the terrorists have a long term aim that in the end will wear them down with its sheer futility, as opposed to them just making a short term point because they can.
So by your reasoning, one should expect Madagascar to sponsor approximately the same amount of terrorism as Iran, right?
Are they opposed by enemies as much more powerful as them as Iran is outmatched by us ? If they were in conflict with America and Israel for as long, with the same relative power levels, then yes; that’s exactly what I’d expect to see.
Somehow I don’t think you are going to get an honest assessment here because people are going to chalk up any deaths in Iraq to American forces, as though there weren’t Islamist death squads roaming Iraq this whole time.
Then why did they attack a Chabad house?
And why are they doing so ? Because we smashed the government that was keeping them in check. And failed miserably at imposing any kind of order in its place. People were safer and more free under Saddam, nasty and tyrannical as he was
Lol. I guess that means “no.”
It seems that “powerless” isn’t the only criteria after all. It’s fascinating that you would cite “conflict with Israel” as another criteria, however. What exactly did Israel ever do to Iran to provoke such a conflict?
9/11 was probably one of the most successful military operations in history. They completely achieved their objectives. We changed our way of life exactly as Osama bin Laden expected us to. It disrupted our economy and sowed distrust domestically and between America and her allies.
How you can say that 9/11 was anything but an unparalleled success is beyond me.
Power is relative.
Assuming there was a conflict, Madagascar would sponsor terrorism against people more powerful than itself; it would be subject to terrorism from anti-Malagasy people less powerful than itself.
The United States tends to accuse people of terrorism because — well, face it, there aren’t many nations militarily more powerful than the U.S. in the present day. This wasn’t always true; in 1776, the U.S. engaged in guerilla warfare and terrorist activities. What else would you call the Boston Tea Party, if not theft, trespassing, and destruction of private property? We didn’t have the military might to withstand the armies of Britain in a stand-firm-on-the-battlefield Napoleonic showdown. Instead, we broke laws; we tarred and feathered British loyalists; we hid in the forests and shot at the British from under cover; we attacked on a sacred holiday. Today we call this “good tactics” because … well, because it was us. If it were done against us today, we would call it “terrorism.”
People were not more free under Saddam, that’s ludicrous. They weren’t even necessarily safer.
I’m not going to get into one of these ridiculous arguments where your dogma of hate America first will trump all rigorous analysis of the situation.
Muslims who kill Muslims are responsible for the murders they commit, whatever the exigent circumstances are.
I’m not one to give America a pass on this one, but unless you can actually look at this with a critical eye there is no point in carrying a discussion forward with you.
No; it means that they don’t have a reason to. Iran fought back against Iraq with it’s army, not terrorism - because it was powerful enough to do so relative to Iraq. They don’t do that with us or Israel, because they’d lose. Is Madagascar presently in an intense conflict with someone that powerful ?
It’s irrelevant whether they did anything or not; you are missing or ignoring the point. Namely, that whatever the reason for the conflict, Iran knows it can’t win with conventional forces, so it doesn’t try.
Of course they were. Women could get educations and hold jobs ( right away that’s half of the population less free ); gays weren’t being hunted down and killed; they were a lot less likely to die from disease or deprivation; Sunni and Shia could and did marry without being killed for it; and so on. We’ve turned a nasty secular dictatorship, into a nastier fundamentalist failed state.
Claiming that pointing out the consequences of our actions is “hate America first” won’t make our action any less destructive or unjustified.
How very convenient for us. We wreck the country and none of the predictable effects are our fault.
Oh, please; you are giving America a pass right now.
Yeah, you are incapable of critical thought on certain subjects.
In essence you are saying that if I don’t place the onus of responsibility for everything that has happened at the feet of America I am giving America a pass. It’s a silly argument.
I’ll speak about this with people who are more capable of nuance.
I have no idea.
I’m a little confused . . . are you saying that if Iran had the conventional ability to do so, it would invade and occupy Israel?
I think that’s sort of implied in “Crush the Pirate State of Israel”, etc., isn’t it?