[Deucaon]

(J m HofMarN, enough with the propaganda slurs, you are sounding worse then a rundown version of Hanoi Hannah‘s broadcasts)

Every single one of those conflicts had to do with imperialism, not religion.

Do you really believe those two things are mutually exclusive?

The parton(sic) of India was done hastily by a failing British empire.

I MADE A SPELLING ERROR! U SHELL MAKE PHUN OF IT BEKUZ U IZ AN DICKHEAD.

You failed to reason why the British partitioned India in the first place.

The war in Vietnam was arranged when the US torpedoed democratic elections that would have brought Vietnam's great liberator, Ho Chi Minh, to power over the whole country and averted a terrible war.

Vietnam's great liberator? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

The Catholic government of the Republic of Vietnam banned Buddhism which radicalized the peasants of Vietnam which caused them to join the "National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam" or the "National Liberation Front."

The Israeli Palestinian problem has jack shit to do with religion, and a lot to do with several million people being expelled from their homes, daily missile raids, and other aggression by the zionists.

Aggression by the zionists? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Jews bought their homes from the Palestinians during the late 1940s and Jews were in Judea/Israel long before Arabs were there. They are can hardly be an aggressor in their own country. Anyway, the lack of freedom for Palestinians in Israel proper and lack of freedom for Jews in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the reason an not your pseudo “aggression” claims.

And the Northern Ireland deal is a centuries old conflict that probably started with the Roman invasion sometime before anyone on the islands knew what a Jesus was.

Yeah well we aren't debating what problems the Celts/Gauls faced 1000 years ago, we are debating why the Irish were at each others throats for the last 100-200 years.

I don't think the troubles in any of those places were about FREEDOM of religion. I can say from some personal experience that the troubles in Northern Ireland were mostly organized crime and personal tragedy mixed with poverty and boredom. Once all that's in plce, you just need an "us" and "them," and bob's your uncle. Religion's an easy "us"/"them" divider, but in a lot of cases you'll find that the religious differences also have national and racial counterparts.

The national/racial differences between Northern and Southern Irishmen is what?

when was the last time you say a Jewish man bomb siomething.

April 19, 1948.

If you count pogroms as terrorist attacks (as I do) then it was May 13, 1948.

[reiner]

I love the "They hate our freedom" argument. Never makes sense.

Riddle me this, Batman. Why wage a secretive guerrila war against highly industrialized nations because you hate their ability to allow certain activities rather than improve your own social situation locally and generally more amicably?

The idea of the lowest common denominator would make the second option more appealing. Also consider that even among radicals, human beings are naturally lazy and would take the easiest route. Hell, even electrons do that.

Trust me, there's more to terrorism than "they jus' jealous".

[Deucaon]

When someone says "they hate our freedom" I am sure they mean "they hate our way of life" which apparently incorporates "freedom." I am certain that a few terrorist cells do hate "our freedom" and would no doubt want to change several "freedoms" which we apparently have.

Riddle me this: since when have terrorists been reasonable enough to not hate something which they have no control over like the laws of their nation or the laws of a foreign nation?

Also, terrorists have a habit of using the mentally retarded as suicide bombers so perhaps it is stupid to reason why "they" blow themselves up.

[reiner]

Logic and human nature have nothing to do with how reasonable they are. Plus laws and freedoms are two separate things as well. I'm fairly sure they hate our government and laws, while I'm not quite as sure they hate our freedom. Since when did "I hate the United States" mean "I hate freedom of speech". Separating the two ideas makes a fine distinction as to what a "terrorist" is motivated by.

And then calling them evil, unreasonable, inhumane, and so forth just makes one dehumanize that person. If you stop applying the fact that they are humans then how do you expect to understand them? It's like refusing to understand them. In that sense, one would not WANT to understand their motives.

As far as mentally retarded suicide bombers not being logical?

You want to blow something up but do not want to be caught or injured. Your best option is to rig a bomb and plant it somewhere. To avoid getting caught, you give it to someone to plant. You convince them to do the job for you. I mean, you're the head of this operation. You have to carry on the fight. So you may even have to use some deception, since most people don't want to die willingly. Now, who would be dispensable and easily persuaded? Possibly someone close to you, but then you endanger friend or ally. Why not someone with the mind of a child? You do so and guess what? No loss on your part. Morally reprehensible, most likely, but it furthers your agenda.

This is how suicide bombers operate in general. When was the last time you saw a report about a radical leader blowing himself up? You don't. He's got a loyal base that has nothing to lose and hopes for false promises. I mean if you wanted to, this logic could be applied to army recruitment. (I don't wanna fight, let's promises money and jobs to young people if they do the dirty work for us)

If you think your opponent is an illogical, nonhuman entity, you're going to lose.

[Deucaon]

Could you sum that up because I have no idea what you are on about.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 08 July 2008 - 02:11 PM

[civilian_number_two]

The national/racial differences between Northern and Southern Irishmen is what?

The folks in Northern Ireland are not Irish. They are British, and they carry UK passports. The folks in Ireland are Irish. I'm sure that you want to make something of the common heritage, background, family histories, etc. Ok. The majority of the Catholics can trace their families to Ireland, while the majority of the Protestants trace to England, Scotland and Wales. So their common "national" heritage simply does not exist. The combatants aligned themselves in terms of Irish versus English.

The historical problems stem from antique laws allowing employment discrimination on the basis of association, eg "you are not an Orangeman, so no government contract for you." Ultimately this is a variant of the absentee landlord scenario that was the cause of the so-called Famine. All of this is the basis of the "poverty drives men desperate" argument for Irish terrorism. Other issues stem from the Civil War in Ireland, as well as to the pre-division period of terrorism before the Civil War. Ultimately the IRA as it came to be commonly known was an organized criminal entity, and the troubles were more about territory and money than they ever could have been about the antique laws that had already been repealed.

For anything else you want to know, I refer you to the Internet.

[Deucaon]

The folks in Northern Ireland are not Irish. They are British, and they carry UK passports. The folks in Ireland are Irish. I'm sure that you want to make something of the common heritage, background, family histories, etc. Ok. The majority of the Catholics can trace their families to Ireland, while the majority of the Protestants trace to England, Scotland and Wales. So their common "national" heritage simply does not exist. The combatants aligned themselves in terms of Irish versus English.

What happened to the Irish that inhabited Northern Ireland before the British came?

The historical problems stem from antique laws allowing employment discrimination on the basis of association, eg "you are not an Orangeman, so no government contract for you." Ultimately this is a variant of the absentee landlord scenario that was the cause of the so-called Famine. All of this is the basis of the "poverty drives men desperate" argument for Irish terrorism. Other issues stem from the Civil War in Ireland, as well as to the pre-division period of terrorism before the Civil War. Ultimately the IRA as it came to be commonly known was an organized criminal entity, and the troubles were more about territory and money than they ever could have been about the antique laws that had already been repealed.

So in short: the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, the Irish Republican Army, the Official IRA, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Orange Volunteers and the various splinter groups of these organizations are all criminal groups vying for money/territory.

[J m HofMarN]

Do you really believe those two things are mutually exclusive?

Yes a country's empire generally includes spreading its religion, I think this was discussed in another thread. But what has that got to do with anything? Religion is not the root cause of imperialism, it's just a cloak for it.

You failed to reason why the British partitioned India in the first place.

The parton(sic) of India was done hastily by a failing British empire.

No I didnt. Their empire was effed and they didnt have the money to hold on to India anymore. What, you think they did it because Gandhi was a cuddly guy?

The Catholic government of the Republic of Vietnam banned Buddhism which radicalized the peasants of Vietnam which caused them to join the "National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam" or the "National Liberation Front."

Yes but how did that catholic government come to be? Imperialism. First of all the French converted the aristocracy to Catholicism, so the fact that there was a catholic government at all is imperialism. Second of all, your time line leaves a few holes. And yes, Ho Chi Minh, whether you talk North or South, liberated Vietnam. But then the US and their buddies realized he was a communist, so they decided instead of letting him have an election, they'd partition Vietnam into North and South and then have a vote a while later. When voting time came around everyone, even the Southern leadership, admitted that Minh would win a democratic vote, so they decided not to have one and broke the partition treaty's terms. You think seeing a few monks get their asses kicked started a revolution? No. It was the total disenfranchisement of the Southern populace to aid US interests.

Jews bought their homes from the Palestinians during the late 1940s and Jews were in Judea/Israel long before Arabs were there. They are can hardly be an aggressor in their own country. Anyway, the lack of freedom for Palestinians in Israel proper and lack of freedom for Jews in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the reason an not your pseudo “aggression” claims.

Your attitude, sir, is akin to that of a holocaust denier. Indeed it IS holocaust denial to claim that Jews didnt flood Palestine after world war two. To claim that a million Palestinians were not driven out. To claim that the West Bank and Gaza strip should have full rights for the Jewish settlers stealing land there and building fortified communities in order to let Isreal claim the West Bank. To claim that Israel has always been a Jewish country, To claim that they in any way fairly purchased that land. You are denying Al Naqba and it is foolishness to attempt to do so.

Yeah well we aren't debating what problems the Celts/Gauls faced 1000 years ago, we are debating why the Irish were at each others throats for the last 100-200 years.

It's relevant because it shows that Ireland, especially Northern Ireland, has often faced invasion. If you've read Westward Ho (Doubtful) there's a few places in there where it says that Ireland was united against the English with the Pope and the Spaniards during the time of the Armada. But it was around then that there were English lords being given land in Northern Island if they could control the area. And also, consider our civil war here in the US. It had nothing to do with religion, and slavery wasnt even the main cause, although people enjoy simplifying it to that. And you're doing the same kind of simplifying with this issue.

When someone says "they hate our freedom" I am sure they mean "they hate our way of life" which apparently incorporates "freedom." I am certain that a few terrorist cells do hate "our freedom" and would no doubt want to change several "freedoms" which we apparently have.

Our way of life? Yeah there you go. Osama Bin Laden sees me walk into a McDonalds and a vein pops on his beardy head. And why is the Western way of life the only one that incorporates freedom? Don't all peoples ways of life involve freedom? I mean, sure, we can cast dispersions on the evil Arabs, and some of their governments are pretty bad, but I don't think that most people in any country spend all their time in fear of the secret police. Believing we're the only country that truly knows about freedom is what got us into this mess trying to sell our freedom to the Iraqis, with guns.

Also, terrorists have a habit of using the mentally retarded as suicide bombers so perhaps it is stupid to reason why "they" blow themselves up.

That is an exception and not the rule. Generally those who go on the missions are reliable recruits, not just unwitting dupes.

since when have terrorists been reasonable enough to not hate something which they have no control over like the laws of their nation or the laws of a foreign nation?

You're really putting way too much importance on the US. You honestly believe that somewhere in Pakistan there is a guy reading the bill of rights and then something clicks in his head that says "These people must die!" I don't like Australia's policies on immigration, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to drive a plane into your house of parliament. And I'm as radical and unreasonable as they come, so how do you explane my unwillingness to blow me and a few Kangaroos to bits because I don't like your country's laws?

What happened to the Irish that inhabited Northern Ireland before the British came?

The assimilation fairy sprinkLed her magic dust on those of them who would stay under British rule. Those she missed went South. It's not that hard to figure out. What did you expect happened, that they were consumed by elves?

[civilian_number_two]

What happened to the Irish that inhabited Northern Ireland before the British came?

By and large they remianed. Hence the religious census showing that about 40% of the population are Catholic while about 46% are Presbyterian. Compare the Catholic population with the roughly 87% in the Republic of Ireland, and it's obvious that Protestant immigration was at play in the North. Before the partition, the ratio of Catholics to Protestant in the North was about the same as it is in the Repubic.

So in short: the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, the Irish Republican Army, the Official IRA, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Orange Volunteers and the various splinter groups of these organizations are all criminal groups vying for money/territory.

In short, "the troubles" as they're called claimed about 3500 lives from 1969 to 2001. That's consistent with organized crime, not a nation-to-nation war. If you wanted to sell heroin in Northern Ireland, you were going to run into one of these paramilitary groups at some point, and they were going to take a cut. You describe it any way you like, and others will agree with you, but I say that the late history of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland had devolved to organized crime.

I don't include the actual British military in this equation. I don't suggest they were involved in organized crime, and they endured their share of the casuaties.

Anyway, I am not sure why this came into the topic, but it appears that you've included it as an example of a terrorist organization making attacks out of disrespect for another nation's freedom, or some version of religious warfare. While the subject of religion is always easy to fall back on in conflicts, the violence was never about religion. Catholics and Protestants have no trouble living side by side all over the world; wherever there's been trouble wrt these religions, it's been instigated by a political entity, eg "To hell or to Connacht." And yes, as JM has suggested, the motive for the political entity has always been one of stealing land and property. For instance, the crusades were about money, not about establishing Christian rule in the Middle East.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 09 July 2008 - 07:15 AM

[reiner]

tl;dr - By saying someone is unreasonable and illogical contradicts your want to understand motives.

[Deucaon]

No I didnt. Their empire was effed and they didnt have the money to hold on to India anymore. What, you think they did it because Gandhi was a cuddly guy?

So the British left India because they wanted to partition India.

WAYTE... WUT?

Yes but how did that catholic government come to be? Imperialism. First of all the French converted the aristocracy to Catholicism, so the fact that there was a catholic government at all is imperialism. Second of all, your time line leaves a few holes. And yes, Ho Chi Minh, whether you talk North or South, liberated Vietnam. But then the US and their buddies realized he was a communist, so they decided instead of letting him have an election, they'd partition Vietnam into North and South and then have a vote a while later. When voting time came around everyone, even the Southern leadership, admitted that Minh would win a democratic vote, so they decided not to have one and broke the partition treaty's terms. You think seeing a few monks get their asses kicked started a revolution? No. It was the total disenfranchisement of the Southern populace to aid US interests.

Catholic minority/aristocracy banned the Buddhist religion in a Buddhist majority country. This led many Buddhist peasants to take up arms against the government.

Mihn only "liberated" a small part of Vietnam which he barely kept "liberated" despite the massive material help from America (1940s), China (1950s) and the USSR (1970s).

Your attitude, sir, is akin to that of a holocaust denier. Indeed it IS holocaust denial to claim that Jews didnt flood Palestine after world war two. To claim that a million Palestinians were not driven out. To claim that the West Bank and Gaza strip should have full rights for the Jewish settlers stealing land there and building fortified communities in order to let Isreal claim the West Bank. To claim that Israel has always been a Jewish country, To claim that they in any way fairly purchased that land. You are denying Al Naqba and it is foolishness to attempt to do so.

Citation needed.

It's relevant because it shows that Ireland, especially Northern Ireland, has often faced invasion. If you've read Westward Ho (Doubtful) there's a few places in there where it says that Ireland was united against the English with the Pope and the Spaniards during the time of the Armada. But it was around then that there were English lords being given land in Northern Island if they could control the area. And also, consider our civil war here in the US. It had nothing to do with religion, and slavery wasnt even the main cause, although people enjoy simplifying it to that. And you're doing the same kind of simplifying with this issue.

Yes a country's empire generally includes spreading its religion, I think this was discussed in another thread. But what has that got to do with anything? Religion is not the root cause of imperialism, it's just a cloak for it.

Stating the "imperialism" is the reason for all the world's troubles doesn't sound like simplifying to you?

Our way of life? Yeah there you go. Osama Bin Laden sees me walk into a McDonalds and a vein pops on his beardy head.

Why were you angry when I stated that America's culture revolves around McDonalds and fear of minorities when you now state McDonalds is part of America's "freedoms" (THE FUCK?)?

And why is the Western way of life the only one that incorporates freedom? Don't all peoples ways of life involve freedom? I mean, sure, we can cast dispersions on the evil Arabs, and some of their governments are pretty bad, but I don't think that most people in any country spend all their time in fear of the secret police. Believing we're the only country that truly knows about freedom is what got us into this mess trying to sell our freedom to the Iraqis, with guns.

1. Where did I single out Arabs?
2. Where did I state "Western way of life"?
3. What is this "Western way of life"?
4. What/which "freedoms" do you believe I was writing about?

That is an exception and not the rule. Generally those who go on the missions are reliable recruits, not just unwitting dupes.

Yes they are reliable (because they always blow themselves up... well... at least when the explosive belts work) but that has nothing to do with them being "unwitting dupes" or not.

You're really putting way too much importance on the US. You honestly believe that somewhere in Pakistan there is a guy reading the bill of rights and then something clicks in his head that says "These people must die!" I don't like Australia's policies on immigration, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to drive a plane into your house of parliament. And I'm as radical and unreasonable as they come, so how do you explane my unwillingness to blow me and a few Kangaroos to bits because I don't like your country's laws?

Because 1) You don't have the means, 2) You're a coward and/or 3) You're not actually a fanatic (you don't believe what you are doing is righteous).

The assimilation fairy sprinkLed her magic dust on those of them who would stay under British rule. Those she missed went South. It's not that hard to figure out. What did you expect happened, that they were consumed by elves?

Your mom, actually.

[Deucaon]

By and large they remianed. Hence the religious census showing that about 40% of the population are Catholic while about 46% are Presbyterian. Compare the Catholic population with the roughly 87% in the Republic of Ireland, and it's obvious that Protestant immigration was at play in the North. Before the partition, the ratio of Catholics to Protestant in the North was about the same as it is in the Repubic.

In short, "the troubles" as they're called claimed about 3500 lives from 1969 to 2001. That's consistent with organized crime, not a nation-to-nation war. If you wanted to sell heroin in Northern Ireland, you were going to run into one of these paramilitary groups at some point, and they were going to take a cut. You describe it any way you like, and others will agree with you, but I say that the late history of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland had devolved to organized crime.

I don't include the actual British military in this equation. I don't suggest they were involved in organized crime, and they endured their share of the casuaties.

Why did 1799 civilians die if this was about money/territory/criminality? What money is gained by blowing up civilians?

http://cain.ulst.ac....les/Status.html

Anyway, I am not sure why this came into the topic, but it appears that you've included it as an example of a terrorist organization making attacks out of disrespect for another nation's freedom, or some version of religious warfare. While the subject of religion is always easy to fall back on in conflicts, the violence was never about religion. Catholics and Protestants have no trouble living side by side all over the world; wherever there's been trouble wrt these religions, it's been instigated by a political entity, eg "To hell or to Connacht." And yes, as JM has suggested, the motive for the political entity has always been one of stealing land and property. For instance, the crusades were about money, not about establishing Christian rule in the Middle East.

So all terrorists want is land and money. Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Here I was thinking the reason why terrorists commit terrorism was because they are crazy with hatred. Apparently they are all reasonable criminals who blow up civilians because they somehow find a profit in that.

tl;dr - By saying someone is unreasonable and illogical contradicts your want to understand motives.

My point exactly. Perhaps there is no "logical" reason. If you are implying that I am trying to give them a logical reason by stating that (the lack of) religious freedoms is a cause then let me answer you with a question: since when was religion ever "logical"?

[Deucaon]

(blame the lack of a prolonged edit feature and the quota on the number of quotes for the triple post)

Your attitude, sir, is akin to that of a holocaust denier. Indeed it IS holocaust denial to claim that Jews didnt flood Palestine after world war two.

Your attitude is akin to that of a bullshit artist. Indeed it IS bullshit to compare Jews to Nazis when the Arab/Muslim population in Israel/Palestine increased by 1,800,000 between 1942 and 2006.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 09 July 2008 - 07:40 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Why did 1799 civilians die if this was about money/territory/criminality? What money is gained by blowing up civilians?

http://cain.ulst.ac....les/Status.html

I said that their efforts "devolved" to organized crime, not that that was the origin nor the end sum. Absentee landlordism, apartheid and police brutality were the origin of the terrorism; tit-for-tat reprisals stoked the fire; and a profit motive became the end result. If you think that terrorist histories worldwide are vastly different then I suspect that you believe that there are no wealthy terrorist leaders, that the Middle East is not a hotspot for terrorism as well as for heroin tarfficking, and that all political struggles can be removed from profit motive and boiled down to idealogical struggles eg "Islam versus Christianity" or "Totalitarianism versus Freedom." I suspect that you are wrong.

So all terrorists want is land and money. Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Here I was thinking the reason why terrorists commit terrorism was because they are crazy with hatred. Apparently they are all reasonable criminals who blow up civilians because they somehow find a profit in that.

So your argument is that ALL TRRORISTS EVERYWHERE are motivated by, and ONLY BY, a crazed hatred. I suspect that you are wrong.

And I for my part was not talking about ALL TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE; I was talking about the organized crime entity popularly called the IRA in Northern Ireland during the period known as "the troubles." As for how blowing up a bar full of civilians along with one or two undercover police officers might aid a criminal organization while still putting on the appearances of a political struggle, I'll leave that to your imagination (I can think of a lot of ways). The claims I am making about the IRA are not unique and they have been made and will continue to be made by others. Further, some of the deaths attributed to the troubles were reprisals for other deaths, and civilian casualties are just a part of that business. So no, it's not all about making money, but again, try selling heroin without running into one side or the other in that struggle and having to pay for your stake. If you think that organized crime in Northern Ireland can be separated from the alleged political struggle, then you haven't read enough about it.

So: READ SOME SHIT AND QUIT ASKING ME FUCKTARDED OPENENDED QUESTIONS. This is a tactic too common in your posts on these forums, and it's a bit irritating if you want an honest opinion. eg "so what do you think is the root cause of all unhappiness in the world? Is it the wolves?" Talking with you is reminiscent of the tedious business of explaining things to a five-year-old. "Why? why? why? why? why? why? why?"

If reading is too much effort, feel free to watch some movies. There are several on the subject with a similar point view.

[J m HofMarN]

So the British left India because they wanted to partition India.

WAYTE... WUT?

For the last time. The British left India because their empire was failing and they lacked the money and will power to hold India in thrawl anymore.

Catholic minority/aristocracy banned the Buddhist religion in a Buddhist majority country. This led many Buddhist peasants to take up arms against the government.

Mihn only "liberated" a small part of Vietnam which he barely kept "liberated" despite the massive material help from America (1940s), China (1950s) and the USSR (1970s).

And the catholics were there because they had been converted under the French imperialist system which ensured the best schools in the country were....... Catholic! So whether the Cong arose because of the budhist issue or because of the total lack of promised democracy, it still traces back to Imperialism. And no, Minh did not liberate a small part of Vietnam. He liberated the entire country. The Imperialist powers forced the North/South split in their efforts to contain communism. That wasnt even necessary since Minh was, first and foremost, a Vietnamese patriot before he was a communist.

citation:

On what claim? And please don't just say everything. One of you lot have already asked me for my sources on "everything" and it was rather embarassing.

Stating the "imperialism" is the reason for all the world's troubles doesn't sound like simplifying to you?

I don't believe I ever stated that. Imperialism may be a reason for the majority of the world's problems, but not all of them.

Why were you angry when I stated that America's culture revolves around McDonalds and fear of minorities when you now state McDonalds is part of America's "freedoms" (THE FUCK?)?

You said way of life, not freedoms. Fast food is a part of the American way of life, and McDonalds is representative of that. And saying "American life revolves around eating at McDonalds and being afraid of minorities" is a lot different than saying that McDonalds is a part of the American way of life. Way of life is different than freedoms, it encompasses a lot more.

"1. Where did I single out Arabs?
2. Where did I state "Western way of life"?
3. What is this "Western way of life"?
4. What/which "freedoms" do you believe I was writing about?"

1: You didnt. That's why I said "we can single out arabs" we meaning the US and especially our media using Arab countries as a picture for backwardness.
2:

When someone says "they hate our freedom" I am sure they mean "they hate our way of life"

3: I havent a clue, you brought it up as a reason that terrorists hate us.
4: I'd imagine you were on about religious freedom and freedom of speech since those are the ones that get tossed around as terrorist motivation most often.

Yes they are reliable (because they always blow themselves up... well... at least when the explosive belts work) but that has nothing to do with them being "unwitting dupes" or not.

That's nice. You presented a scenario of terrorists using the mentally challenged as suicide bombers, and I was pointing out that the vast majority of their operatives are willing recruits. And yes, if they volunteer to do it I'd say that means they are in no way unwittind dupes.

Because 1) You don't have the means, 2) You're a coward and/or 3) You're not actually a fanatic (you don't believe what you are doing is righteous).

1: I have plenty of money saved up for a vacation. 2: I'm going to die some day anyhow. 3: I think it's a glorious thing to die for ones beliefs. So I ask again, why have I not blown up Canberra? I disagree with Australian laws, and you guys have freedom of religion, so terrorists should be streaming in to do you harm by your logic. But since they're not, your logic must be faulty.

Your mom, actually.

That's a rather vague statement. It would have worked better if you'd joined it to an action in my own post such as "No, I think they were consumed by your mom!"

Here I was thinking the reason why terrorists commit terrorism was because they are crazy with hatred. Apparently they are all reasonable criminals who blow up civilians because they somehow find a profit in that.

Your thinking is utter nonsense. How could a sophisticated network like Al Qaeda be formed by people who were crazy with hatred? How could Hizbullah, a group that beat back the greatest war machine in the middle east, have done so if they were just a bunch of people crazy with hatred?

And yes, terrorists are reasonable. Western journalists interview htem and are not skinned and eaten. They have been known to negotiate, form governments, provide community services, etc. And their acts of unconventional warfare are meant to achieve goals, in a word, to profit them. Not necessarily in a monetary way, but by gaining them freedom, or land, or what have you.

Perhaps there is no "logical" reason.

Ok. You're saying terrorists lack logic for blowing up the Pentagon after that building acted as a planning site for half a century of genocide, but the people who wandered into Iraq and initiated a completely pointless war, they're not illogical?

Your attitude is akin to that of a bullshit artist blabla bla:

No, no it is not. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is the holocaust of the 21st century, and it will one day be recognized as such. The reason the Palestinian population of Israel rose in that time is because of the occupation of Palestinian lands filled with Palestinians (and now being filled with Zionist settlements) see: Chebaa farms, East Jerusalem, West Bank.