Boston Bomber Cites Iraq and Afghanistan for Bombing

A simple exercise can resolve this. Muslims did not ever try to harm Americans, until Americans showed up in "Muslim territory" with weapons and business plans.

Americans may not want to admit it, but your government considers this an acceptable consequence of their foreign policy. Not only that, but it is a fantastic excuse to take your money and funnel it towards the part of the government with minimal transparency and oversight.

Hate/want your freedoms? Nope.

JEALOUS of them? Absolutely.

But there's a certain balance in the world which is tragic yet balanced. Taking away someone else's freedoms ends up costing you your freedoms. The cost of stealing sovereignty from other countries is only covered by giving up your own rights, because of the otherwise inevitable security problems which would arise. You need more security because you steal more security. You want to control other people >> you have to take some of their freedom >> you bomb people and bribe their leaders >> 0.001% of them are crazy and end up wanting to blow your **** up >> you need more security >> more security means less privacy and less freedom. The "1%" on both sides pocket the money, everyone else suffers. One day I realized, that's how it's always worked. That's how all empires implode.

Incredible how that works. Things like that keep me believing in intelligent design.

 

already discussed in the other threads

this one should probably be locked up

and no, glynch, they cited Islam

 

Important to note: the "residual" forces in Iraq is nothing that Americans would accept in their own country, so please stop this façade of believing that Iraq is now "America-free".

 

Nope, people kill because they're damaged, disoriented and selfish.

 

They cited Islam, and they also cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Both are correct.

 

Dzhokhar told the FBI that they were angry about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the killing of Muslims there, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-suspect-stopped-talking-miranda-044858309.html

 

So that makes it right in the eyes of the resident leftists and crazies?

 

Blowback yet again. And who is surprised?

Spoiler

Don't blame me - I voted Ron Paul.

 

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

No, what it means is that we don't look for boogiemen to keep Americans afraid. And once again have confirmation of why a lot of us apposed the Iraq war and the lies of the last administration.

 

You're better than this.

 

You're smarter than this.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nobody has said a thing about making it okay to bomb the Marathon. Nobody has said anything close to it. How does your mind make the connection that because people cite one of the motives for the bombing that they are saying the bombing of the marathon was right?

That's like saying that if someone didn't wash their hands and got a sepsis infection, that the sepsis infection is right because they mentioned one of the things that led to the sepsis infection.

What's next? Are you going to make a juvenile fart joke at someone's expense because they disagree with you?

The non-sensical leaps you took to jump to that conclusion is hilarious.

 

It's all very strategic. The point is to steer attention away from the initial accusation people like him made: which is that the motives were religious rather than political. This is the refuge of the modern xenophobe - almost like an excuse to make borderline xenophobic statements by pointing to texts which are known to be ambiguous. This point is further advanced with the typical "Why are you changing the topic by bringing up American actions abroad" types of posts, as if these things can be divorced from each other.

Also by drawing on morality - "is it right?" - he steers attention away from the fact that the outcome is predictable outcome of policies that he supports. By questioning morality, he hopes that no one will question policies he supports which predictably lead to such unfortunate outcomes. The first line of defense is - "if you consider it predictable, then you must be affirming its legitimacy." This is of course absurd, and he is well aware of the absurdity, but he would prefer to spend time discussing the level of absurdity in that assessment than his support for policies which have regularly been cited as motives for these types of attacks.

It's all very sick and transparent. What is happening is that even terrorists are becoming more aware of how to clearly communicate their motives, and this is causing difficulty for the colonial types. Just wait till they start pointing to how their policies were a boon for the victim countries, bringing them closer to "civilized" status. Like clockwork. It's becoming harder to make their point, so instead they shift focus repetitive discussions about things that can't be proven. But that dead horse has been beaten far too long now so the same ridiculous posts look more and more ridiculous by the day.

Sad to see, but glad it's coming to an end.

 

How do you feel about Waco being the reasoning behind the OKC bombing?

This is irrelevant to both wars. These are 2 crazy guys. America invades Iraq and Afghanistan, and in return, they kill a child, a Chinese woman, and another woman. They don't attack the government in any way.

 

Clearly those people watching that race had to pay for our "disgraceful" war in IRAQ... do you even know how stupid that sounds?

 

Not sure why anyone would care about the motive for killing women and children.

 

What? You don't feel better after reading this thread?

 

To prevent further killing of women and children, obviously. I don't think that's too far-fetched.

 

Random attacks like this shouldn't alter our decisions on going to War. There are a number of reasons why Iraq and Afghanistan were flawed decisions, but I don't consider this to be one of them.