US 'war on terror' has killed over half a million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,915
Lisbon, Portugal
CIA may have funded a few (such as during the Soviet invasion of Afghan), do you think Muslims + Muslim nations fund more or less extremists groups than the CIA? If the CIA fund 1 and KSA or Iran fund 10, who is driving these groups more? The CIA or Muslims?
First, I doubt that your affirmation is true, and second, both the KSA and Pakistan (which are probably the largest financiers of international terrorism in the world) are complete surrogates of American power in the Middle East and South Asia. Those two countries would not be capable of supporting a single major terrorist group if they didn't receive money, arms and heavy support of the United States to begin with.

That's not attributing all the blame to America, but you as an American citizen should be more worried about your tax-paying money indirectly financing terrorism or aggressive military operations like Saudi Arabia is doing now in Yemen. Just as Pakistanis citizens should be primarily worried about their own government being complicit in international terrorism.

By the way, Iran support for terrorism is actually very limited and overrated. Iran is not a major destabilizing force or a threat to the world as the American, and Israeli, establishment like to portray.

Long before America became involved in any form of “attacks on Muslims”, Muslims were attacking Americans (and many, many other nations/peoples it should be noted), using their religion as justification.



First Barbary War - Wikipedia
The first Barbary War had nothing to do with the current "war on terror" or modern Islamic terrorism. Don't know why you are using this faulty argument.
 
Likes: JaddHaidar
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
First, I doubt that your affirmation is true, and second, both the KSA and Pakistan (which are probably the largest financiers of international terrorism in the world) are complete surrogates of American power in the Middle East and South Asia. Those two countries would not be capable of supporting a single major terrorist group if they didn't receive money, arms and heavy support of the United States to begin with.
I mentioned Iran as an example, not Pakistan.

The majority of support KSA gives to fundamentalist Islamism is money, not US weapons. Iran gives weapons and embedded military units, plus training to militias. Anyway, regardless, Iran, KSA and many other Muslim nations do more (I suspect) that the CIA et al in support of Islamic extremism.

That's not attributing all the blame to America, but you as an American citizen should be more worried about your tax-paying money indirectly financing terrorism or aggressive military operations like Saudi Arabia is doing now in Yemen. Just as Pakistanis citizens should be primarily worried about their own government being complicit in international terrorism.
I’m not American. Still, I am worried about my tax money going to such things. It appears to be so hard for Muslims and their supporters to admit the Islamic faith has previously and continues to justify acts of violence purely based on their victims religion.

By the way, Iran support for terrorism is actually very limited and overrated. Iran is not a major destabilizing force or a threat to the world as the American, and Israeli, establishment like to portray.
Another thread but so long as you agree Iran does support Islamic extremists then we can leave this point where I put it, ok?

The first Barbary War had nothing to do with the current "war on terror" or modern Islamic terrorism. Don't know why you are using this faulty argument.
I thought it was clear why I’m using this from the post you quoted?

Islamic nations have used the holy texts of the Islam to justify attacks on non-Muslims before that particular non-Muslim nation attacked a Muslim nation (to put it plainly), therefore to say Muslims have only attacked in self-defense or as a counter is not true, historically speaking, as per the example given. Clear?
 
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
The Barbary Corsairs were rightful to respond to the US ships that came into their own domain. That is what occurred with the so called Barbary wars. And the USA was right to do what it could to stand up against the Corsairs.

Why do some people demonize Muslims(not saying you but the way some folk talk about Muslims is demonizing) whom fought the USA in the past, but not demonize Christians from the British Empire whom fought the USA in two large wars, The American Revolution and The War of 1812.
Are you serious?! Really? Just returning with “why do people demonize Muslims” is not a coherent counter argument.

To even attempt the US/BE wars as religious is wholly misleading – and I’m being polite. Do you have any evidence that 1812 and the rev war were driven by religion in the same manner as the barbary states view of warfare against non-muslims, please refer to my wiki link and the quote from the ambassador then provide the equivalent for the wars you mention.

In the Barbary Wars, neither the corsairs nor the Americans were the good guys. Both entities at the time supporting the practice of human slavery. So the Muslim side here can not be demonized.
Again, please stop trying to spin this as if both sides are equal.

Were the US ships capturing and enslaving the Muslims as per the Muslims actions against Christians? If it was west African states kidnapping the US sailors you might have a point…

Both the Corsairs and Americans of the early 19th century were products of their time. While otoh in places like France and England, the ideals of liberty and freedom gained support faster and stronger compared to how Americans felt about freedom in the early 19th century.
Not entirely true, but another thread.

Lets discuss the background of the Barbary Wars...After the US revolution, American merchant ships operating around North Africa would lose the protection they used to have from the British....that is where the Barbary Corsairs came in, they saw American shipping coming into seas that were not owned by the Americans, so it was open season on these ships.

Imagine if some of the Barbary Corsairs came over to the Atlantic or Pacific ocean parts that are in US Territory, of course US military would stop or shoot at the Barbary Corsairs.
Please stop these false equivalency’s and attempted spin.

The barbary states didn’t just engage in mass kidnap and extortion in their own waters, did they? It was state policy and the slavery raids were widespread and far from their own shores.

In the end, Thomas Jefferson meant with a representative of the Barbary States at the White House in 1805. In this meeting while total peace between The Barbary States and the USA did not come about, there were advancements made between the American side and the Barbary side. The meeting bewteen Jefferson and Mellimelli can be considered a interesting episode where American Christians and Barbary Muslims got to learn more about each other, it was good to see people learning about different cultures and eating dinner with each other. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli and his Muslim entourage were lavishly welcomed at the White House. So there was abosulty no case of Christian Americans accepting "dhimmi" status.
They accepted Dhimmi status or accepted Islam, please refer to the wiki from my previous post, at the time those many, many, people who were kidnapped and enslaved were referred to as “taking the turban” i.e. being converted to Islam.

Yeah, they had no choice to entertain and be polite. They were hoping to get back their kidnap countryman who were enslaved via diplomacy, when this failed, the US Marines were sent in – as they should have done.

There is no dhimmi status in true Islam btw... Saying that Islam allows for non Muslims to be second class citizens is wrong and it is the same logic as when AQ or ISIL members view Americans as being violent Christians, that Christianity allows Christians to treat non Christians as 2nd class citizens.
Are you being serious? You’re attempting the no-true Scotsman fallacy now? Even people of the book were given different legal and social status.

Absolutely not true. Dhimmi status *is in true Islamic law*, do you think this word was made up or not easily supported by numerous Islamic societies and legal codes, including the rightly guided Caliphs?

Wrt the Barbary Wars my friend Lalli...again just look at how Thomas Jefferson meant with a Barbary Representative Mr Mellimelli as a equal...it was friendship and comradery among man
I’m lost for words regarding your posts, “friendship and comradery among men”, what are you talking about because I know it’s not what everyone is discussing? Truly you’ve demonstrated in the post above a complete lack of understanding on this subject and the history and legal systems that underpins the actions being discussed.
 
Oct 2012
509
Lalli,

The Barbary Corsairs were rightful to respond to the US ships that came into their own domain. That is what occurred with the so called Barbary wars. And the USA was right to do what it could to stand up against the Corsairs.

Why do some people demonize Muslims(not saying you but the way some folk talk about Muslims is demonizing) whom fought the USA in the past, but not demonize Christians from the British Empire whom fought the USA in two large wars, The American Revolution and The War of 1812.

In the Barbary Wars, neither the corsairs nor the Americans were the good guys. Both entities at the time supporting the practice of human slavery. So the Muslim side here can not be demonized. Both the Corsairs and Americans of the early 19th century were products of their time. While otoh in places like France and England, the ideals of liberty and freedom gained support faster and stronger compared to how Americans felt about freedom in the early 19th century.

Lets discuss the background of the Barbary Wars...After the US revolution, American merchant ships operating around North Africa would lose the protection they used to have from the British....that is where the Barbary Corsairs came in, they saw American shipping coming into seas that were not owned by the Americans, so it was open season on these ships.

Imagine if some of the Barbary Corsairs came over to the Atlantic or Pacific ocean parts that are in US Territory, of course US military would stop or shoot at the Barbary Corsairs.

In the end, Thomas Jefferson meant with a representative of the Barbary States at the White House in 1805. In this meeting while total peace between The Barbary States and the USA did not come about, there were advancements made between the American side and the Barbary side. The meeting bewteen Jefferson and Mellimelli can be considered a interesting episode where American Christians and Barbary Muslims got to learn more about each other, it was good to see people learning about different cultures and eating dinner with each other. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli and his Muslim entourage were lavishly welcomed at the White House. So there was abosulty no case of Christian Americans accepting "dhimmi" status. There is no dhimmi status in true Islam btw... Saying that Islam allows for non Muslims to be second class citizens is wrong and it is the same logic as when AQ or ISIL members view Americans as being violent Christians, that Christianity allows Christians to treat non Christians as 2nd class citizens.

Wrt the Barbary Wars my friend Lalli...again just look at how Thomas Jefferson meant with a Barbary Representative Mr Mellimelli as a equal...it was friendship and comradery among man
I agree to a point. Things were and are more complicated than just plain good and evil. And yes there is demonizing of the muslims in the west as there is demonizing of the west among the muslims.
The thing is we could do better with a bit less demonizng all around. Btw. the point about "dhimmi" status in true islam. That is a common argument, how this or that is not according the true islam and
how people misinterpret the Quran. When Quran according the muslims is Gods last and final word maybe He should have made his word clear enough to avoid misinterptation.
 
They targeted the offices of Charlie Hebdo because of a cartoon, not because the writing staff were planning to launch missiles at Muslim women. Same deal for the Danish embassy’s and Danish people. Come on, be serious!



CIA may have funded a few (such as during the Soviet invasion of Afghan), do you think Muslims + Muslim nations fund more or less extremists groups than the CIA? If the CIA fund 1 and KSA or Iran fund 10, who is driving these groups more? The CIA or Muslims?

They very much target Russia, and China, you just hear about it less often. You should also read-up on Islam extremists in South Africa and India…I'm assuming the manner these places deal with extremism within their own nations and communities is...different, lets say, compared to the west.

The structure they use, as you put it, is also their justification and entire drive/focus. They aren't seeking to protect or avenge "women and children" but *Muslim* women and children. The means to justify and reward these acts of violence is wholly within the teachings of Islam, let’s not lose focus on this, or try to diminish this in any way.



Very few people follow Christianity to the letter, those that do often face social ostracism, even within Christian communities. In the future, when the dust has settled, the same will be said of the extremist elements (core) of Islam. Before Islam changes in this manner, please be wary of trying to blame the faults of one on another.

Long before America became involved in any form of “attacks on Muslims”, Muslims were attacking Americans (and many, many other nations/peoples it should be noted), using their religion as justification.



First Barbary War - Wikipedia
So let me ask you one question ................

Do you think we'd have ISIS today if we hadn't had decades of US aggression in the Middle East all the way back to the creation of Israel?

Do ISIS ever dare enter Iraq if Saddam was in power? do ISIS get a foothold in Syria if American CIA and special forces hadn't funded ISIS in the beginning and stirred rabble rousers in Syria destabilising the country and weakening Assad?

Ask yourself .............. how the hell did ISIS even exist to begin with, where does thousands of armed extremists just pop up out of nowhere and invade not one but two countries, funded and armed to the teeth?

Ask yourself why Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan doesn't suffer with these issues? are they not crazy muslim countries also? isn't it interesting ........... that only Muslim countries not allied with America (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya) seem to get these issues?
 
Likes: JaddHaidar

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,571
USA
So let me ask you one question ................

Do you think we'd have ISIS today if we hadn't had decades of US aggression in the Middle East all the way back to the creation of Israel?

Do ISIS ever dare enter Iraq if Saddam was in power? do ISIS get a foothold in Syria if American CIA and special forces hadn't funded ISIS in the beginning and stirred rabble rousers in Syria destabilising the country and weakening Assad?

Ask yourself .............. how the hell did ISIS even exist to begin with, where does thousands of armed extremists just pop up out of nowhere and invade not one but two countries, funded and armed to the teeth?

Ask yourself why Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan doesn't suffer with these issues? are they not crazy muslim countries also? isn't it interesting ........... that only Muslim countries not allied with America (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya) seem to get these issues?
No Islam, no ISIS!
America has nothing to do with it.
 
May 2017
1,201
Syria
No Islam, no ISIS!
America has nothing to do with it.
-Operation Cyclone in Afganistan saw funds and arms directly given to close associates of bin Laden which helped form al-Qaeda.
-America and Britain's invasion of Iraq created the conditions that saw the rise of ISIS.
-The CIA's 4 year long program to arm, train and fund the "moderate rebels" of Syria. Many of those "moderate rebels" have always been ideologically affiliated with (and in the end defected to) al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda.

If all of that means "America has nothing to do with it", I have no idea how much more it would take for you say that they are "partly responsible".
 
Last edited:

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,571
USA
-Operation Cyclone in Afganistan saw funds and arms directly given to close associates of bin Laden which helped form al-Qaeda.
-America and Britain's invasion of Iraq created the conditions that saw the rise of ISIS.
-The CIA's 4 year long program to arm, train and fund the "moderate rebels" of Syria. Many of those "moderate rebels" have always been ideologically affiliated with (and in the end defected to) al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda.

If all of that means "America has nothing to do with it", I have no idea how much more it takes for you say that they are "partly responsible".
None of the American help provided that you have mentioned was to create Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS. America never cultivated Islamic terrorism among Muslims. Islamic terrorism was born of Islam, just as an apple is born of an apple tree. It is reprehensible to claim that America is behind terrorism in Islam, a religion that was founded by a self-declared terrorist.

America has interfered in many countries to bring about democracy and stability, such as Korea, Vietnam, Panama and so on. How come none of those countries created religious terrorism, except for the Muslim countries? Think!
 
Last edited:
Likes: andyferdinard

Similar History Discussions