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

Aug 2009
5,340
Londinium
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?
While many others have addressed your points well, I will add in my response also.

Islamic fundamentalists attempting to and being successful in their attempts to take over governments have occurred long, long before c.2013 when ISIS was established.

While its true that ISIS were able to establish themselves as there was no local nation/central government with the power to stop them, these events have not *created* ISIS nor underpin their ideology - Islam does, they say it themselves, over and over again. Similar to various parts of SE Asia where certain islands of Indonesia (as one example) have groups also like ISIS. Same in west Africa also. Very common trait it would seem.

Ask yourself, how the hell did ISIS even begin to exist? What underpins, drives and provides ground for their establishment? Islam and the Muslim communities have been corrupted/made pure Muslims (depending on your viewpoint) by them using the avenue of Islam itself, the teachings/sayings of the prophet as their complete guide - no secular or outside authority whatsoever.
 
Feb 2018
61
Hong Kong
During 80's conflict in the area Americans were most certainly the knights in shining armour for the mujahideen, you know the guys from whom the Taliban evolved from. I wonder having insight about what happened latter, after all bin Laden was a mujahid, what would happen if the US supported Najibullah and govn forces instead of the other side of the conflict (and Soviets in this proxy conflict as odd as it seems)

The Latest

Statement on the Terrorist Attack against Chinese Consulate-General in Karachi
 
Aug 2014
1,249
pakistan
This is history forum right. One should start with XIX century Great Game cold war between Russian and British empires that led eventually to the creation of Afghanistan, then Ottoman defeat and partition of the empire after the great war and then jump to recently new cold war & XXI century events. Centuries of proxy conflicts between diff great powers. Central Asian Muslim-majority countries of today are pretty stable nowadays. One should ask yourself why and research the subject. It's laughable to claim that a certain religion is the source of the problems for the area in question.
One correction. Great game between Russia and British empire did not led to the creation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan (the kingdom of Kabul) already existed when Russia began the conquest of Central Asia in 1860s. The kingdom was founded by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1748 when East India Company had not yet commenced its conquest of India.
 
Dec 2015
3,523
USA
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.



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…



Not entirely true, but another thread.



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.



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.



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?



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.
The point about The British Empire fighting the USA is a undeniable point about Christians fighting a violent war against fellow Christians. Not only this, but in the early 19th century some American men and Barbary men supported slavery. Therefore the Barbary States were on a similar level compared to the United States in the early 19th century. But there was also honor and dignity on both sides.

Why are you responding with what amounts to numerous personal attacks. No need btw for you my friend to say Are you serious?! in the lead in your response, that is going against gentlemanly and lady like conduct. And yes I am 100% serious, and I back my posts up with fact.


Where to start here, because your above post is so filled with emotion and personal attacks that it is indeed difficult;t to respond to you. Please my friend if you have a disagreement disagree politely. You may be best off not responding to folks whom are not bigots, because anti Muslim bigotry is not only rude its anti historical.

Yes, the USA and Barbary States of the 19th century both practiced slavery. Everyone whom studies history knows this. That is indeed a direct similarity between the American merchants/privateers and Barbary Corsairs whom were involved in the Slave trade in the 19th century.

Yes it is undeniable that not all Muslims think alike. You can note that the Ottoman Empire had alliances with various Christian nations such as the Kingdom of France throughout history.

As for the point about Thomas Jefferson meeting with a Barbary Representative in 1805 during the Barbary Wars.... Yes indeed Thomas Jefferson took interest in Islam, Jefferson admired Islam and treated with respect the Tunisian Envoy Mr Mellimelli.

This talk of Muslims extorting money, the use of the word dhimmi, and payoffs to Muslims by Americans wrt the Barbary Wars is all just ridiculous and a disgrace to history. In reality, in the early 19th century men enslaved other men, the Americans did this, and the Barbary Corsairs did this. And the United States had plenty of money to toss around, and Mr Jefferson entertained the idea of paying the Barbary Corsairs so the American merchant ships could operate safely in North African waters.

It is a crime for a country to just allow foreign merchants to operate whereever they want. Again, the USA would not have allowed Barbary or English, or French ships to do w/e they wanted on US waters, the Barbary Corsaris did the same wrt the American merchant ships operating in North Africa.

Mellimelli and his retinue left Washington in May 1806 and traveled up the east coast to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, raising many eyebrows along the way.15 The ambassador sailed home from Boston in September.16

When Jefferson received "an uncommonly friendly letter from the Bey," dated February 27, 1807,17 he concluded that the ambassador's report had been accepted favorably in Tunis.18

While Mellimelli's visit did pique cross-cultural curiosity and avert the immediate threat of war with Tunis, cultural differences would continue to intrude upon the relationship between the United States and the Barbary world.

Tunisian Envoy | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to host a Ramadan dinner for his Muslim guest Mr Mellimelli.. So yes there was friendship and Comradery between American representatives and Barbary representatives in a meeting between the two sides in 1805 in the USA.
 
Aug 2009
5,340
Londinium
The point about The British Empire fighting the USA is a undeniable point about Christians fighting a violent war against fellow Christians. Not only this, but in the early 19th century some American men and Barbary men supported slavery. Therefore the Barbary States were on a similar level compared to the United States in the early 19th century. But there was also honor and dignity on both sides.
Nope, not even close. Please provide a source that the US/BE war was driven by religion. If you continue with the thoughts above then every single war is essentially a religious war, which is obviously not true.

Religious people fighting a war doesn’t make it a religious war, unless religion is express a driver/cause for the war or violent actions as per my previous example of the Babary states.

Why are you responding with what amounts to numerous personal attacks. No need btw for you my friend to say Are you serious?! in the lead in your response, that is going against gentlemanly and lady like conduct. And yes I am 100% serious, and I back my posts up with fact.

Where to start here, because your above post is so filled with emotion and personal attacks that it is indeed difficult;t to respond to you. Please my friend if you have a disagreement disagree politely. You may be best off not responding to folks whom are not bigots, because anti Muslim bigotry is not only rude its anti historical.
Not a single source in your last post, just lots of wishful thinking which was far removed from any historical grounding (while trying to pass it off as accurate), hence my consternation. It’s hard to temper thoughts when met with such a post as I described, accurately, in our last exchange. I stand by what I said and my reactions to your previous post.

I’m only responding to folks who try to distort the past to suit their own agenda or desires in the present.

Yes, the USA and Barbary States of the 19th century both practiced slavery. Everyone whom studies history knows this. That is indeed a direct similarity between the American merchants/privateers and Barbary Corsairs whom were involved in the Slave trade in the 19th century.
Well it could be argued that the US largely, AFAIK, purchased slaves in a slave market (as was common at the time, this isn’t to condone the action) – whereas the Babary states would sail around the med and beyond in kidnap of entire villages + ships. These actions also outlasted those of the US, and preceded, so give your analysis some more context.


Yes it is undeniable that not all Muslims think alike. You can note that the Ottoman Empire had alliances with various Christian nations such as the Kingdom of France throughout history.
You conflate Islam with Muslims. Not all Muslims think alike, Islam, the doctrines and practices set down by Mohammed are clear, as is the actions of the rightly guided Caliphs and the leaders that have come since, such as dhimmi status.

The UK was allied to the USSR at one point. Geopolitics at the state level does not mean equal state legal systems or societies, past, present and future.


As for the point about Thomas Jefferson meeting with a Barbary Representative in 1805 during the Barbary Wars.... Yes indeed Thomas Jefferson took interest in Islam, Jefferson admired Islam and treated with respect the Tunisian Envoy Mr Mellimelli.
Ok, please stop these tactics of distraction and conflation (purposeful or accidental). Clearly I never said nor implied that Jefferson met with these people as he took an interest in Islam.

My point related to the justifications the Barbary Rep made regarding the religious backing, indeed a call for such actions. Please directly address what no others in this thread have – the clear justification for the kidnap and acts of aggression against the US being the Quran/Islam and long before the US was involved in ANY actions within Muslim nations.

Thanks in advance.


This talk of Muslims extorting money, the use of the word dhimmi, and payoffs to Muslims by Americans wrt the Barbary Wars is all just ridiculous and a disgrace to history. In reality, in the early 19th century men enslaved other men, the Americans did this, and the Barbary Corsairs did this. And the United States had plenty of money to toss around, and Mr Jefferson entertained the idea of paying the Barbary Corsairs so the American merchant ships could operate safely in North African waters.
All – everything – I’ve said is supported historically and within the faith of Islam/their legal code. Are you saying that Dhimmi status didn’t exist at the time in Islamic societies? Please confirm.

It is a crime for a country to just allow foreign merchants to operate whereever they want. Again, the USA would not have allowed Barbary or English, or French ships to do w/e they wanted on US waters, the Barbary Corsaris did the same wrt the American merchant ships operating in North Africa.
You know full well that they weren’t just conducting slave raids in their own waters, plus their numerous other activities. During their brief treaty with Portugal they were no longer blocked from entering the Atlantic and conducting raids, far, far from their own waters.

They were sailing though international water and foreign waters also – you know that they would raid Corsica, as but one example of many, so the locals had to build defensive

Just to confirm the Barbary states were not – not – engaged in a defensive war or piracy in their own territory.

Mellimelli and his retinue left Washington in May 1806 and traveled up the east coast to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, raising many eyebrows along the way.15 The ambassador sailed home from Boston in September.16

When Jefferson received "an uncommonly friendly letter from the Bey," dated February 27, 1807,17 he concluded that the ambassador's report had been accepted favorably in Tunis.18

While Mellimelli's visit did pique cross-cultural curiosity and avert the immediate threat of war with Tunis, cultural differences would continue to intrude upon the relationship between the United States and the Barbary world.

Tunisian Envoy | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson went out of his way to host a Ramadan dinner for his Muslim guest Mr Mellimelli.. So yes there was friendship and Comradery between American representatives and Barbary representatives in a meeting between the two sides in 1805 in the USA.
Really? Again you making this point? This is called diplomacy, this is how diplomats receive guests and are expect to be received.

I can show you examples of dinners between Soviet and US diplomats during the Cold War, this would therefore be proof they were in fact close friends, no?

I shall repeat; my point related to the justifications the Barbary Rep made regarding the religious backing, indeed a call for such actions. Please directly address what no others in this thread have – the clear justification for the kidnap and acts of aggression against the US being the Quran/Islam and long before the US was involved in ANY actions within Muslim nations. No more distractions please.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,990
Lisbon, Portugal
While many others have addressed your points well, I will add in my response also.

Islamic fundamentalists attempting to and being successful in their attempts to take over governments have occurred long, long before c.2013 when ISIS was established.

While its true that ISIS were able to establish themselves as there was no local nation/central government with the power to stop them, these events have not *created* ISIS nor underpin their ideology - Islam does, they say it themselves, over and over again. Similar to various parts of SE Asia where certain islands of Indonesia (as one example) have groups also like ISIS. Same in west Africa also. Very common trait it would seem.

Ask yourself, how the hell did ISIS even begin to exist? What underpins, drives and provides ground for their establishment? Islam and the Muslim communities have been corrupted/made pure Muslims (depending on your viewpoint) by them using the avenue of Islam itself, the teachings/sayings of the prophet as their complete guide - no secular or outside authority whatsoever.
This post summarizes very well some of the problems Westerners (unless he is an expert) generally have when trying to explain the problems in the Middle East and the Muslim World in general.

Consider this analogy:
Look at Europe from 16th to the 17th centuries: Reformation rocked Europe. Major political, religious and social crisis is ensued. New sects, religious institutions and churches appear bringing a new kind of religious fervor, zealotry and devotion. Protestantism actively acts against the religious establishment and act in hostility to it.
Consequently major violence takes place - Protestant movements and newly converted polities that joined the reformation commit actions of organized violence, the Catholic Church, against this wave of this apparent "heresy", launches a new campaign of violence and new religious fervor of its own - the Counter-reformation.
I assume you know the story: Europe is embroiled in the largest episode of violence and war since the end of the Roman Empire - the violence clearly had a religious character and it was made in the name of religion.

Now, do you think that any serious scholar, academic or historian studying this period and trying to come up with an assessment of the wars and religious violence that took place, will just put a single and crude blame on Christianity as all?
You really think a serious scholar of that period will ever characterize the religious violence during the reformation as being driven by Christian doctrine as its core? Do they ever say what underpinned, drove and provided ground for the inquisition, the witch-hunt and the massacres against Huguenot communities in France was the very core nature of Western Christendom? Do they will ever say that Christianity and Christendom in the early modern period have been corrupted/made pure Christians (that's what the puritans described themselves to be) by them using the avenue of Christianity itself, the teachings/sayings described in the Holy Bible - no secular or outside whatsoever?
The big answer is no. They will never describe this period in a such way, it would be utterly absurd, uneducated, simplistic and certainly grossly inaccurate. The same analogy can be described with the current Islamist movement spreading throughout the Muslim world since the 19th century or so.
 
Likes: Arminius

Similar History Discussions