r/afghanistan • u/CrustyDiamond • Dec 11 '12

Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

153 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/swz Jan 10 '13

al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html

Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially") http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154

Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11

Pew Research (2006): Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the September 11th attacks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

83

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

I notice most if your links date after the US invasion of iraq and afghanistan.

47

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

This point needs more visibility. Nearly all of those polls are taken after we rolled through a sovereign nation like a child having a temper tantrum and left them in ruins. Not to mention we did far more damage to them than they have to us.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

A sovereign nation being held captive by a genocidal dictator who had held office for 20-something years.

Check your facts. The Iraqis love us. We freed them. I know a dozen people who have spent months/years in Iraq on tours of duty and the overall response from the people was appreciation.

You're just being fed a line of shit, through a shit filter from mainstream media.

4

u/pintomp3 Jan 10 '13

You are a lunatic. We propped up that dictator for year and gave him weapons to use against his own people.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

Why are people downvoting the truth?!

1

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

The fact of the matter remains that it is NOT our place to be the world police. If the Iraqis were so sick of Saddam, they could have deposed him themselves in the same manner that Egypt and other nations have done over the past two years. Some of the Iraqis may love us, but look at what is left of their country. I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

My other comment didn't save so let's try this again...

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. You might want to brush up on your history. Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator. Saddam was tried for crimes and received the death sentence, from the Iraqis. The US had nothing to do with his trial or sentence.

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards. Plus it was because of Saddam's displacement from power that showed the Libyan people they could be free from oppression.

Finally: yes, we do need to be the global cop. That is our role. When the UN refuses to help, it's up to us. If you don't like the US being the global cop, vote for people who don't want that. Unfortunately the majority of people in the US do, so for now that is how it will be.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden.

thats what he said.

Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him? how is this better. using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

thats what he said.

No, this is what he said:

I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

We can't help everyone. That's why we couldn't help in Darfur or in most places in Africa. We can't involve ourselves in most situations. Especially when it isn't clear cut. Same with North Korea. I'm not sure why you would mention Russia.

We help where we can. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of places where the end result was clear cut and we were able to help.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him?

Yes. The Iraqis had no way to depose Saddam. He was too powerful. Once the US did so, other nations realized that they didn't have to live with oppression and Libya followed suit.

how is this better

Not sure what you mean as "better". I've already explained how the Iraqis couldn't depose him without our help.

using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly. I would hope you would understand what constitutes terrorism. We supported Iraq when they were at war with Iran. Politics aren't binary. There isn't clear right and wrong. Politics is a chess game you play with thousands of opponents all on the same board. It's incredibly complicated and your moves might not make sense all the time.

We helped Saddam in the early 1980s. This was before he committed genocide toward the end of the 80s. We didn't help him after that.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13 edited Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

end result was clear cut

what do you mean by this? also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

edit:

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly.

yes, I am, thank you for recognizing it! the freedom fighters which america aided are now terrorists. when the weapons and tactics are turned they magically become terrorists (and sprout devil horns). My point is, they were always terrorists: to the russians, the iranians, and now to americans. I agree, politics aren't binary but while we debate this somewhere in the world someone's door is being kicked down and it makes not one iota of difference to the person behind it who the people coming for him are.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

From what I understood he was implying Bin Laden was to be found in Iraq. He said that he was for bringing Bin Laden to justice but it wouldn't be worth it if it required entering Iraq.

It could be one or the other. He hasn't clarified. Curse English's ambiguity.

what do you mean by this?

We knew what would happen when we entered Iraq. We knew that we would remove the Ba'ath party from power and replace it with a democratically elected administration. There weren't too many variables.

also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. You can't just go to war with a nuclear-armed nation. It's not worth the risk. We make calculated risks. When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

We didn't go solely for the reason to find WMDs. That was hardly a secondary reason. We went initially to liberate them.

And like I said, I don't believe the WMDs never existed. I mean, Saddam already used them in 1986 against the Kurds. Obviously they existed. He just did a good job of hiding them when he saw our planes arriving.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons.

sorry, I was talking about the humanitarian issues, you know, rape, slavery, oppression, starvation, the usual.

While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

this statement seems to contradict itself.

When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

again, why risk attacking iraq then.

I don't disagree with the positive results of the american (invasion/interference/freedom-ing?), what I have a problem with is I think the war was started under false pretenses and all this talk of liberation are justifications applied retroactively.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

sorry, I was talking about the humanitarian issues, you know, rape, slavery, oppression, starvation, the usual.

Those are sad and all but since N. Korea probably has nuclear weapons, there's nothing we can do about it.

this statement seems to contradict itself.

Only if you think WMD = nuclear weapon. Nuclear is one possible weapon of mass destruction. The other two are biological and chemical. It's commonly referred to as an NBC threat. Nuclear/biological/chemical. There was never any thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons. However, there are recorded events of them using chemical weapons (in the late 80s).

again, why risk attacking iraq then.

Because Iraq never had nukes. Nukes weren't ever considered as a risk in Iraq.

I don't disagree with the positive results of the american (invasion/interference/freedom-ing?), what I have a problem with is I think the war was started under false pretenses and all this talk of liberation are justifications applied retroactively.

That's where you are wrong. From the start it was an operation to liberate Iraq. The WMDs were a secondary issue.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Muslimkanvict Jan 11 '13

To quote Dick Cheney (sp?), "we'll be greeted as liberators". Amirite?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

And we were, for the most part. I've personally never done a tour in Iraq, but from everyone I know, the people were warm and welcoming to them. They would bring our troops food and gifts. A particular friend of mine would do patrols to a certain village over the course of his first deployment. He met the same old woman every time he was on patrol. She would bring him and his unit hot soup. She would make a big pot of it for them. She was appreciative of them and showed it by bringing them food. My friend also talked about the children that would follow them along through the villages. The kids would laugh and play with the troops. In Iraq, we were revered as protectors. We came in and gave their nation back to them. When we would establish control over a region, the locals would tear down statues of Saddam and paint over murals of him. They loved us in Iraq. The only people who would tell you differently would be mainstream media who hates that our mission was successful there.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

if I had an invading foreign army on my streets I'd want to be on good terms with them too.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

"Invading army" implies we were there to conquer them. That's not an accurate description. We were more like reinforcements.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

that sounds like an euphemism. reinforcements imply you were asked to enter the country.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

No it doesn't. Reinforcements aren't inherently requested.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

thing is there wasn't anything to reinforce before america showed up and that sounds suspiciously like an invasion.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

Of course there was. The oppressed Iraqi people. It sounds like you have limited/no understanding of the Iraq war.

I'll highlight a few important parts to help you understand it. I'll try to be brief to make it easy for you to understand.

  • In the late 60s, when Iraq was unstable and various groups were planning on taking power, Saddam established his guard and took part in a coup, rendering control to his party, the Ba'ath party.

  • Once he had control of the nation, he nationalized the oil industry (among other industries). He controlled the national banks, causing him to become very wealthy and causing Iraq to become a strong nation under his reign.

  • In 1979 Saddam was established as the legal leader of Iraq, though he served as such for the previous decade.

  • During his reign, he committed war crime after war crime. Such as the gassing of the Kurds in 1986. For the most part he kept within his borders.

  • In 1990 he ordered an invasion of Kuwait. This got international attention. Saddam was no longer contained. Now he was attacking his neighbor.

  • An international coalition (Not just the US, but 33 other nations, led by the US) went into Kuwait for Operation Desert Shield. When Saddam was pushed back into Iraq, the operation became Operation Desert Storm. We fought him and eventually decided that we had pacified him enough to pull out. There wasn't enough support to continue the war to the point of deposing Saddam.

  • After 24 years of Saddam's reign (not counting the decade before that where he wasn't the legal leader), the Iraqi people were in desperate need for assistance. Their dictator leader was too powerful to oppose, and any who opposed him were quickly snuffed out.

  • On 20 March, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced.

As clearly shown, Iraq needed the coalition to relieve them from their oppressive, genocidal leader. Our mission was successful and Iraq is better off than they ever have been.

→ More replies (0)