58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 05:02 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
There are plenty of investigative journalists who disagree with you.

Well, they're wrong. The US had nothing to do with the creation of al-Qa'ida.

We had a program to send aid to Afghan resistance fighters, and because we did not want to be tied too closely to the program, we just gave the money to Pakistan and let them decide who to arm and train.

Pakistan decided to arm and train religious extremists, and thus created the Taliban.

It could be said therefore that our aid created the Taliban, though a truthful account will note that the US was not involved with Pakistan's decision to give the aid to religious extremists.

al-Qa'ida is an entirely different group from the Taliban. They received their aid and funding from wealthy Saudis, not from the aid that the US was funneling through Pakistan.



vikorr wrote:
Further, the 'histories' listed are very consistent with US foreign policy actions, economic motivations, and political fears & motivations that the US has engaged in over the last century (if you also read from other sources)

-----------------------------------------------

One of the difficulties in engaging in such discussions is that to be properly informed, you need to be prepared to look into both sides of the histories. This is because:
- politicians have a vested interested in painting themselves and their legacy in the best possible light
- to that end, political sectors to manipulate what news reaches the populace and the slant that news takes (govt's PR departments) is an area that has grown exponentially. In Australia at least, between 1992-2007 they grew 10 times in size.
- multinationals have a similar vested interest, because it reduces oversight and facilitates profit when they are viewed favourably by their main clientele, even if what they do in 3rd world countries is extremely corrupt / undermines those local industry etc
- newspapers self interest is in generating emotion. To do this, they otherwise generate a scandal, or they play on peoples prejudices, preconceptions and fears...writing things from those perspectives. They steer away from stories that make the populace uncomfortable, or that could damage their brand / reputaton. This means distorted reporting, or non reporting of many events.

Now, whether or not you agree with the above tactics or not is beside the point. The point is that such things above lead to very one sided report, and often non reporting of many events.

Basically, you can't get both sides of history from the mainstream western sources (ie TV news, Newspapers). Without properly looking into such, all you are doing is allowing yourself to be brainwashed. Of course, when you look into both sides, the main question for both sides (the for & against) is

- 'does this make sense fit coherently into the bigger picture?'

The follow up question is to test it's veracity:

- does this hold true for historical, and future events

If the answer is 'yes', then you have something you can use as a guide...

That can be useful as a way of filtering out untrue claims. But it can't positively confirm that something is true.

For instance, the US has acted in the past to ensure stable oil supplies. The 1991 gulf war for instance. Or any military effort to keep shipping flowing through the Straits of Hormuz.

But there are claims that our actions against Assad are because we want to force some sort of oil pipeline. And the same claim was made regarding our invasion of Afghanistan.

Both claims are clearly nonsense, but if someone merely checked to see if the US had been militarily involved over oil before, they might mistakenly conclude that these claims were true.

Also, an accurate understanding of history is necessary. If someone wrongly believes anti-American propaganda, then they might give credence to new anti-American propaganda simply because it aligns with the claims of older propaganda.

So it can be a useful tool if it is used correctly. But as with all tools it is important to use it correctly and to recognize its limits.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 05:03 pm
@sky123,
sky123 wrote:
Whatever that coup was, Dr. Mosaddeq was, is, and will be a very popular and beloved character in the heart of Iranians. His legacy is nationalization of our oil.

I'd be ashamed of having an oil thief for a past leader.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 06:04 pm
@oralloy,
Says the fella from the biggest oil thieves the world has ever known, the US of A. Oil thieves, diamond thieves, gold thieves, silver thieves, rapists, murderers, war criminals, terrorists par excellent, child killers, ... .
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 06:29 pm
@camlok,
You should get the world court to make those charges and the responsible people for those crimes pay the ultimate price.

Or, are you just shouting fire without even smelling smoke.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 06:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You should, Cicerone. You are the ones supporting the equals of the Nazis. How is it that the German people can make amends for their one Holocaust and you all don't do squat about your many holocausts?

You just keep on letting the propaganda salve your not at all guilty consciences.
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 09:11 pm
@oralloy,
When people talk about the united states's role in Iran they aren't claiming the US was the driving force. They are simply admonishing the US for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. i for sure never claimed the Us was the driving force of the coup just that it played an integral part which again is evidenced by the primary sources on the matter.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 09:24 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Well, they're wrong. The US had nothing to do with the creation of al-Qa'ida.

We had a program to send aid to Afghan resistance fighters, and because we did not want to be tied too closely to the program, we just gave the money to Pakistan and let them decide who to arm and train.

Pakistan decided to arm and train religious extremists, and thus created the Taliban.

It could be said therefore that our aid created the Taliban, though a truthful account will note that the US was not involved with Pakistan's decision to give the aid to religious extremists.

al-Qa'ida is an entirely different group from the Taliban. They received their aid and funding from wealthy Saudis, not from the aid that the US was funneling through Pakistan.


It's hard to know whether this is oralloy lying or oralloy being his usual ignorant [not knowing the subject meaning] self.

But he is wrong. The US made and supported both groups, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The US always provides support to the most evil of groups but neither of these groups are close to the levels of evil that is the USA.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 11:29 pm
@camlok,
Ahh, the US didn't 'make' either group - Afhganistan is a nominal country, with a history of being ruled mostly by warlords. What the US did was set up funding for mujadeen/jihadis from the world over to come and fight against the Russians, while having the funds to buy US weapons. That road lead to the eventual existence of both groups (as entities).

Because Afghanistan is ruled by warlords, there is argument over when the Taliban truly started.

In any event, the entity known as the Taliban:
- Iran plays it's own part in the creation of the Taliban, training & supporting warlords as a buffer between itself & Russia,
- Pakistan did similar, training around 90,000 Afghani's to fight Russia
- So to say the US made the Taliban, is misleading, though they certainly contributed to what it became.

In terms of Al Qeida, the US played the biggest part, setting up systems to encourage 'holy warriors' from the world over to come and fight in Afghanistan, with funding. After the war ended, countries from which the Jihadi's originated, quickly blocked them from returning. History shows those who returned to their countries were still a problem for their countries up until 20 years later.
--------------------------------------------------------

Of course, saying they didn't make either group is the same as saying they didn't make ISIS...but putting a whole heap of the worst Jihadi's in jail together...and then eventually letting them go...is the height of stupidity.

Seriously, did they not think that they would not all join up together afterwards?
--------------------------------------------------------
Make is the wrong word - they put in place the pieces that eventually became ####

Make implies planned intent, whereas I would call the decisions short sighted and stupid (considering how many times such actions have returned to bite them).

vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 11:58 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That can be useful as a way of filtering out untrue claims. But it can't positively confirm that something is true.
I never said it could - which is why there is a test to check veracity...and even that doesn't imply certainty, hence why I said you can use it as a guide.

And you'll also notice that what I said, applies to both sides of any event (in fact, any given perspective), not just one.

Quote:
For instance, the US has acted in the past to ensure stable oil supplies. The 1991 gulf war for instance.
Saddam used to be the US' poster boy. He had no history of not supplying oil, and a long history of doing what the US wanted. In the Iraq-Iran war, the US supplied aid and weapons to Iraq. Afterwards, there are two slightly different records of Saddam's meeting with the Amercan Consul afterward that war, including one obtained by the Washtington Post (one of the few investigative newspapers left) where the Consul says 'We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.'.

The leadup to the war 'Saddam's going to invade Saudi Arabia' was an obvious lie (seriously...6 month buildup, and Saddam was stupendously, moronically, idiotic enough to wait for such? ...Independent satellite photos showed no Iraqi buildup on the Saudi border).

The possible motivations for that war are fascinating, but long winded. It's certainly clearer than the 2003 Iraq war, which has no clear motivations (I've found a few coherent theories, but nothing with strong evidence)

Quote:
But there are claims that our actions against Assad are because we want to force some sort of oil pipeline. And the same claim was made regarding our invasion of Afghanistan.
I would agree that they are nonsense, although I would point out that the US just about only becomes outraged enough to act, when such acts are done by government in oil rich countries...where actions are destabalising (as opposed to atrocious)

For in general comparison, in Africa, the US has almost no interest, despite the attrocities committed there. The Clinton era was the only time it differed.

To show the difference between destabalising and attrocious in economically important countries - Indonesia is important as a country to prevent piracy in the shipping channels. The US had no interest in Indonesia's Suharto murdering 500,000 on his rise to power, nor the genocide in East Timor (up until independence), nor the ongoing Genocide in West Papua. This is because Indonesia was still fairly stable, and therefore beneficial to the US.

There are a few other 'wars' that the US has entered with minor nations, that have been very economically beneficial to the US.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 06:04 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
the 2003 Iraq war, which has no clear motivations (I've found a few coherent theories, but nothing with strong evidence)


Try this:
Quote:
Sunday September 23, 2001

Press Release
SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010924113109/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 06:05 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
In terms of Al Qeida, the US played the biggest part, setting up systems to encourage 'holy warriors' from the world over to come and fight in Afghanistan, with funding. After the war ended, countries from which the Jihadi's originated, quickly blocked them from returning. History shows those who returned to their countries were still a problem for their countries up until 20 years later.

What systems are these, and how did the US set up the systems (or help to set them up)?
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 07:09 pm
@oralloy,
Start reading. There are a LOT of books on the subject. Reading both sides claims to history is always needed (too many vested interests on both sides). If you've read the 'for' side, then after you read the negative side of this, and other US 'conflicts' ...and 'against' journalists always cover motivations as well as actions...then you can make an informed decision on which 'facts' best match the individual conflict, and the overall patterns in current & historical conflicts.

In terms of motivation for the Afghan-Russia war, at the time of that war, Oil was necessary to the the balance of power between the superpowers of Russia and the US (and still is).

If Russia had taken Afghanistan, then there were beliefs that they would effectively control / have undue influence over Iran (already possessing significant influence in the country at that time). If they 'controlled' Iran, they could focus on influencing the rest of the ME. If they managed that, they could controlled oil, and so have become the ascendant superpower.

Of lesser but still significant magnitude - a Russian win would also likely have cancelled out US influence in Pakistan, which had been the US' balance to Russian influence in India.

In the face of that, (short of direct confrontation) do you think the US would not have done everything it could, to stop Russia from gaining control?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 07:37 pm
@vikorr,
The price of oil is now at a low point - almost down to 2009 prices, even though demand for oil can only increase.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 07:49 pm
@oralloy,
That is one of the possible theories that I read. It went along the lines that in order to show the world that they couldn't mess with the US, they needed a country that was:
- strategically / economically important
- had a large military
- that military wasn't advanced
- had a leader they could easily demonise
- and a couple of other criteria that I don't remember off the top of my head

And Iraq, unluckily for Iraq, ticked off all the boxes. However, if you buy this story, then you also accept that the US invaded an innocent country (as in it had nothing to do with 9-11) for it's own benefit.
----------------------------------------
I've also read credible theories about Iraq having moved to selling Oil in Euro's in 2000, and Iran was considering doing so (and still is)...and that if Iran followed suit, then the rest of the ME could follow suit.

Then:
- Libya proposed the Gold Dinar (rather than US dollars),
- Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela started considering switching to the Euro
- China in 2003 moving some of it's reserve from US dollars to Euro's

If that happened, it could trigger a domino effect that could see US lose Reserve Currency status to the Euro. There are plenty of economists who believe that if that happens, there's a 50% chance of the US going into recession.

If you accept this reason, you also accept that the US invaded a country for it's own benefit.
-----------------------------------------

The Euro v Dollar argument as being the cause for the war, has since become much more popular (I only found the one reference when I first went searching for the 'why?')

There was also another credible theory that I read, that I no longer recall the details of. But the' reason' is probably a combination.

Certainly the lie of WoMD (which phrase I don't recall ever having heard being used politically before that war) wasn't the reason.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 11:22 pm
You can say anything you want to about the history of American involvement in Iran... The basic bottom line as I see it is that you can look at images of Iran from the 1960s and 70s, and for all the world it appears as if you are seeing a civilized country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

https://boudicabpi.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/baconandmuslim-fairy.jpg




0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 11:30 pm
In the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, I still believe that the trigger for what happened involved the anthrax attacks which followed 9/11. There are only four nations which have ever had a military anthrax program: the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Iraq. Of the four, the only one which ever would have provided that stuff to Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 hijackers was Iraq. And, as far as I know, the Czechs have always stuck with their story of Mohammed Otto meeting with one of Saddam Hussein spy-masters in Prague, shortly prior to 9/11.

That means that we absolutely had to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The question of staying in Iraq for 16 years and making an industry out of it, is another question.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 11:59 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
In terms of motivation for the Afghan-Russia war, at the time of that war, Oil was necessary to the the balance of power between the superpowers of Russia and the US (and still is).

If Russia had taken Afghanistan, then there were beliefs that they would effectively control / have undue influence over Iran (already possessing significant influence in the country at that time). If they 'controlled' Iran, they could focus on influencing the rest of the ME. If they managed that, they could controlled oil, and so have become the ascendant superpower.

Of lesser but still significant magnitude - a Russian win would also likely have cancelled out US influence in Pakistan, which had been the US' balance to Russian influence in India.

In the face of that, (short of direct confrontation) do you think the US would not have done everything it could, to stop Russia from gaining control?

We did do everything we could. We turned a huge amount of money over to Pakistan and gave them a free hand to distribute it however they felt was best. They used that money to create the Taliban.

But that had nothing to do with al-Qa'ida. Pakistan did not distribute any of our money to al-Qa'ida.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 12:00 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I've also read credible theories about Iraq having moved to selling Oil in Euro's in 2000,

Not credible. The United States *does not care* if anyone sells oil in denominations other than the dollar.

If someone tries to do it and fails, it is not because we sabotaged them. Their failure will be due to lack of interest in the marketplace.


vikorr wrote:
it could trigger a domino effect that could see US lose Reserve Currency status to the Euro.

The US dollar is used as a reserve currency because we are a strong and reputable economy. There is no danger whatsoever of this alleged domino effect harming the dollar's status as a reserve currency.

And if the dollar did lose its status as a reserve currency, that would not harm us much either (not that there is any danger of it happening).

Although we would have to become a much weaker economy before the dollar lost its reserve status. Whatever hypothetical future event makes us so much weaker will likely be harmful in nature in order to weaken us so much.


vikorr wrote:
There are plenty of economists who believe that if that happens, there's a 50% chance of the US going into recession.

If someone actually believes any of the petrodollar conspiracy nonsense, I strongly question their credentials as an economist.


vikorr wrote:
Certainly the lie of WoMD (which phrase I don't recall ever having heard being used politically before that war) wasn't the reason.

It may have been the first time politicians had much cause to refer to such weapons in their speeches.

There was no lie. People genuinely believed that Saddam possessed chemical weapons.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 12:08 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The question of staying in Iraq for 16 years and making an industry out of it, is another question.

Can you imagine what Iraq would have been like for us if we had simply killed Saddam upon capturing him and then immediately pulled out of the country and left them alone?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 12:28 am
@gungasnake,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta%27s_alleged_Prague_connection
Quote:
Quote:
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April 2001. This alleged connection is notable because it was a key claim used by the Bush administration to justify the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.[1] Czech counterintelligence service claimed that Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, a September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani, the consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, in a cafe in Prague. This claim, sometimes known as the "Prague connection", is generally considered to be false and has been said to be unsubstantiated by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the United States.[2]


Meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks There were suspects within the US itself for Anthrax attacks.

In any event, the question remains...why not poor countries where atrocities occur? Why only oil rich countries?

Or countries where it's loss of influence/power fears (like Vietnam), or in other cases, minor countries whose invasion is highly beneficial to the US.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 03:03:44