And yet you are hitting all the usual propaganda bullet-points. Historical claims and grievances are always brought up to justify wars and invasions. Crimea was not Russian land before it was absorbed by the Russian Empire (with help from Ukrainian Cossacks), and it was not majority Russian until Stalin's ethnic cleansings. We could go back and forth like this endlessly - but what's the point? None of this justifies Russian aggression in this particular instance. Taking advantage of the turmoil in a neighboring country to stealthily invade part of its territory with troops, special forces and civilian thugs, overthrow the local government, close down or take over non-compliant media, intimidate or kidnap dissidents, hastily stage a "referendum" with fabricated results - I say that is wrong, whatever else may have been the case historically or contemporaneously. — SophistiCat
So you cannot talk about Russia without also addressing the US.It's just you actually. You and your mates who can point the finger at Russia all they like and not look back at the West and say, "perhaps they have done something wrong as well".
I think all people who are critical of the U.S here are also critical of Russia. Of course Russia has done things wrong. Political assassinations, war on Georgia and Ukraine, etc. But we cannot just look at Russia without also addressing the U,S who s doing the blaming in the first place. — René Descartes
Is English not your first language? — andrewk
I assumed no such thing. As a native English speaker you should understand the difference between asking whether X is the case and assuming X is the case.Yes it is actually, and that you assume it isn't shocks me — René Descartes
... to somebody that is not American.This is a typical American Imperialist view — René Descartes
And that is not the way the word 'typical' is used in English. How many examples do you know of somebody saying to someone that is not in group X, in a derogatory way, 'What you've just said/done is typical of group X'?I said "this is a typical American Imperialist view." — René Descartes
Sorry, but you are referring to the wrong war.The world would be a better place without IS which was a result of the war in Iraq. — CuddlyHedgehog
Would be interested for your argument just where it lack's credibility.Interesting conspiracy theory but bears no more credibility than that of the Bush administration being behind the twin towers’s attack. — CuddlyHedgehog
After all, the whole idea of the terrorist attack was to piss off America to hopefully bomb Mecca and Medinah (or something as stupid). These muslim loonies couldn't before instill an islamic revolution themselves their countries, so they thought to use the US. Hence the terrorists indeed got what they wanted. With the invasion of Iraq it was even better. — ssu
Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 Strategy ExplainedShahzad, who had been the Pakistan bureau chief for the Hong Kong- based Asia Times, had unique access to senior Al-Qaeda commanders and cadres, as well as those of the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban organizations.
His account of Al-Qaeda strategy is particularly valuable because of the overall ideological system and strategic thinking that emerged from many encounters Shahzad had with senior officials over several years.
Shahzad writes that Al-Qaeda strategists believed its terrorist attacks on 9/11 would lead to a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan which would in turn cause a worldwide “Muslim backlash.” That “backlash” was particularly important to what emerges in Shahzad’s account as the primary Al-Qaeda aim of stimulating revolts against regimes in Muslim countries.
The Many Faces of Al QaedaAl Qaeda knew its limited numbers precluded it from defeating these governments, so it sought to provoke the Muslim masses into overthrowing them. Al Qaeda also knew it lacked the strength to do this provoking by itself so it sought to trick someone more powerful into doing it. By al Qaeda's logic, an attack of sufficient force against the Americans would lure the United States to slam sideways into the Middle East on a mission of revenge, leading to direct and deep U.S. collaboration with those same secular, corrupt local governments. Al Qaeda's hope was that such collaboration with the Americans would lead to outrage — and outrage would lead to revolution. Note that the 9/11 attacks were not al Qaeda's first attempt to light this flame. The 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing were also the work of this same al Qaeda cell, but the attacks lacked the strength to trigger what al Qaeda thought of as a sufficient U.S. response.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.