Political Theory

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

wilderness — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:26:06 GMT

JonBostwick:

sam.burton:
Hmm...having taken extensive courses in American history in college I must say I disagree with you liberty_student.

lol-i-pop

don't ask me why, but when i read that immediately Shirley Temple singing "Good ship Lolipop" popped into my head...

and then it fit my perspective on what you responded to, not so much what you said, what you responded to...

all in good fun

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

wilderness — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:22:03 GMT

on Hamilton:

- at the Constitution Convention he brought up how the states shouldn't have sovereignty and the federal "governor" (his term; which became known as President thus his concept wasn't accepted) and senators should serve for a lifetime. states not having sovereignty thus federal government would have absolute control over entire territory.

- at first Hamilton wanted the "president" to be a king, but after some other states submitted their plan he pulled back to "governor".

obviously his ambitions were not picked up. now I've heard rumors, but I'm not sure if this is true or not. I've heard that he wanted to take an army while John Adams was President and establish an American Empire to the tip of South America and this was if not the main reason, but a reason John Adams dissolved the army. It had been formed for a war happening at the time, but again, I'm not even sure what war it was.

the first two comments I made I've confirmed to be true. that last one about the army, I'm not readily sure.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

Bostwick — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:10:12 GMT

sam.burton:
Hmm...having taken extensive courses in American history in college I must say I disagree with you liberty_student.

lol-i-pop

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

sam.burton — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:24:21 GMT

liberty student. Let me read up on what ou said about Hamilton. :) I am open minded.AS with war being immoral and your idea that I'll entrap myself. I think the basis of your logic will make any argument from me entrapment. You believe that anything that is against individualism, etc is immoral. With that in mind you give a very limited definition in which you define your terms/arguments. With that in mind, Ill give an alternate defintion and argue from there. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

ama gi — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:17:35 GMT

Well, the American Revolutionaries never hijacked a civilian airline and crashed it into a British skyscraper, killing everybody onboard.

That's a bit of a difference.....

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

scineram — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:56:28 GMT

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
All "evidence of planes flying into buildings, including network and cable TV "live" footage, was faked via crude computer animations, as was all evidence of arab hijackers etc., even the flight records for the alleged planes.

Thus we came full circle.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:23:14 GMT

haha, i see what you did there

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

liberty student — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:20:09 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
my roots are in the middle east.

So you're familiar with the lunatic islamists, the american interventionists and the zionist fascists.

nirgrahamUK:
9/11 wasn't the first time I heard of the lunatic islamic fringe, unlike for many other people.

Nor I.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

onebornfree — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:17:19 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:

Al Qaeda does not exist.

It's an idea based on a very weak premise that there is a linked network of international terror - a government-sponsored conspiracy theory. If you are a skeptic and believe in evidence, you will not find much evidence for Al Qaeda. I am sorry.

Even people closest to bin Laden and turncoats to him have no idea about the Kenyan embassy blasts or other such isolated incidents which are mystically tagged to this evil international conspiracy network. The remnants of mujahideen which fought in the Soviet-Afghan wars have absolutely no organization whatsoever.

Tony Blair once even foolishly thought that Chechens are also part of this international Islamic terror network, when Chechens are just anti-Russian dissidents and have absolutely no connection to Islamists in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

Even the people involved in 9/11 attacks were sons of wealthy and secular Arab families, several of whom lived and studied in the West. They hardly strike me as Islamic fundamentalists. I seriously think it is more likely that a group of brilliant aeronautical engineers and pilots simply got frustrated with US/Israel policies and their own life, and took out their hatred on this long-sketched out plan to do this. None of them strike me as people with religious motivation, so much as just sporadically violent youth. I doubt they had any connection to some international terror organization.

"Al Qaeda does not exist." Yes. I believe the term is actually Arabic for "toilet".

AQ is just another convenient CIA created bogeyman to focus hate on Muslims- effectively a brand new "Emmanuel Goldstein" to replace the failed Russian state bogeymen and to ensure the continued massive funding for the US military state.

"Even the people involved in 9/11 attacks were sons of wealthy and secular Arab families, several of whom lived and studied in the West."

There were no arabs flying planes into the Pentagon or the WTC complex on 911,wealthy or otherwise, simply because no planes flew into buildings that day.

All "evidence of planes flying into buildings, including network and cable TV "live" footage, was faked via crude computer animations, as was all evidence of arab hijackers etc., even the flight records for the alleged planes.

You bin had .Have a nice day!

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

Tukaram — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:06:22 GMT

We won't know if they are terrorist or revolutionary heroes until the winners write the history later. If the colonist lost the war I'm sure the Brits would have called them terrorist (or whatever word they used back then).

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:04:55 GMT

my roots are in the middle east. 9/11 wasn't the first time I heard of the lunatic islamic fringe, unlike for many other people.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

liberty student — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:55:22 GMT

Nir, are you still believing the TV?

Cavemen from Afghanistan coming to take away your guitar and your blue jeans?

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:50:04 GMT

just because its an excuse doesn't mean its not real. a good portion of your text is made up of non-sequitusr. you make lots of statements i agree with, particularly when you stick to facts, and then you launch of to dubious conclusions from them....

unfortunately some of your facts are incorrect also. 'Al Qaeda' terrorist organisation affiliated with Bin Laden were 'heard about' prior to 9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Islamic_Front

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

Bostwick — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:36:25 GMT

Marko:

Shouldn`t conflate Al Qaeda with the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Meh. Al Qaeda is an American created term used for ideologically similar but unaffiliated groups and includes whoever Washintgon wants it to include at that moment.

Re: Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

auctionguy10 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:32:12 GMT

The idea of "Al-Qaeda" as some international network of terror is absolutely ridiculous. Its just a nice excuse for the US or any other country to use anytime they want to interevene in other countries affairs and cause more pain and death. Hey we need a reason to go to Somalia...Al-QAEDA is over there! Hey we need to go to Pakistan, HEY LOOK ITS AL-QAEDA! No one ever heard of anything called Al-Qaeda until after 9/11, why? because it doesn't exist as a group. Are there rebel fighters and miscreants around the world who have in common the hatred of imperialist powers? Yes of course.

The "taliban" are all severely poor tribesmen- they don't give a godamn about the "American way of life" or American culture, and they certainly don't hate us "For our freedoms" or some nonsense like that. The idea that they want to control the entire globe is the funniest thing I've ever heard, and if you take it seriously you have no critical thinking skills- they just want everyone to leave them alone and do their thing. There is no reason for all the american intervention around the world- there is no just reason for the occupation of ANY country by the US. Occupying afghanistan because the taliban had bin laden is nonsense- Bin Laden didn't carry out the attacks, whoever controlled the planes did, and they're dead now.

For some reason no one ever makes the other comparison- if a village in afghanistan is destroyed by American airstrikes- is it ok to invade and occupy the hometown of the American who gave the go-ahead for the airstrike?