Knowing human kind, Yes it would have, people are greedy and for most of the humans stupid by nature. Sadly not everyone is a saint who want to help other people around them even tho it might not pay $$$.
Poll
If religion didn't exist, would 9-11 have happened?
| yes | 65% | 65% - 49 | ||||
| no | 34% | 34% - 26 | ||||
| Total: 75 | ||||||
The French played a huge part. If you really think the British crown couldn't have put down a group of rebellious colonies at the time you are being completely naive. It's laughable that you would even attempt to play down the role. There were willing and unwilling participants in both Afghanistan and colonial America. The idea of supporting someone and leaving after the conflict remains.No, it does not work. In the Revolutionary War the French were a relatively minor willing third party participants between the two major parties. In the Cold War case Afghanistan was an unwilling major participant, forced into a war. The U.S. in that case was the minor third party participant that should have been the one taking casualties.
Of course Afghanistan wanted their independence and was going to fight for it. That does not mean they should have had to.
I don't think that would help. Obvious things like providing the means to fight off Soviet occupation elude you.I would however love to have all these Afghan advantages in a neat little bulleted list.
Der.. Not exactly late breaking news. They intentionally wanted us in the ME to play the victim while at the same time bitching about American involvement. I know that. It doesn't play well for your poor innocent neglected afghan mentality though.And that right there is the thinking that has screwed us over in the Middle East. These people are not stupid by any sense of the word, and are probably smarter than the average American, and certainly the average American politician. They wanted us to attack the Middle East. We are not some badass biker that can invincibly pound on everyone we want. They catch us with our pants down to show everyone how vulnerable we can be, leaving us no choice but be made a fool of or come fight. So they get us to pick a fight across the world, out of our element, and further proceed to embarrass us both because of our incompetent leadership and the monumental task we took on. The only way for us to win was to have a quick, decisive victory in the ME, and they know that. They didn't have to beat us militarily, which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell at, all they have to do is prolong the engagement, which they have done very well. That achieved A
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good lord are you trying to miss the point? The French were willing to help us out because they didn't like Britain. That is a big difference from Afghanistan, who got caught in the middle of a conflict they would rather not have been in. You're calling rape and consensual sex the same thing.Kmarion wrote:
The French played a huge part. If you really think the British crown couldn't have put down a group of rebellious colonies at the time you are being completely naive. It's laughable that you would even attempt to play down the role. There were willing and unwilling participants in both Afghanistan and colonial America. The idea of supporting someone and leaving after the conflict remains.No, it does not work. In the Revolutionary War the French were a relatively minor willing third party participants between the two major parties. In the Cold War case Afghanistan was an unwilling major participant, forced into a war. The U.S. in that case was the minor third party participant that should have been the one taking casualties.
Of course Afghanistan wanted their independence and was going to fight for it. That does not mean they should have had to.
Awwww, list too short?Kmarion wrote:
I don't think that would help. Obvious things like providing the means to fight off Soviet occupation elude you.I would however love to have all these Afghan advantages in a neat little bulleted list.
What is this innocent neglected afghan mentality you're talking about? Treating them like children is what put us in this situation in the first place, it's not the solution. Building a trusting relationship was the mature thing to do, but apparently the U.S. wasn't up to that task.Kmarion wrote:
Der.. Not exactly late breaking news. They intentionally wanted us in the ME to play the victim while at the same time bitching about American involvement. I know that. It doesn't play well for your poor innocent neglected afghan mentality though.And that right there is the thinking that has screwed us over in the Middle East. These people are not stupid by any sense of the word, and are probably smarter than the average American, and certainly the average American politician. They wanted us to attack the Middle East. We are not some badass biker that can invincibly pound on everyone we want. They catch us with our pants down to show everyone how vulnerable we can be, leaving us no choice but be made a fool of or come fight. So they get us to pick a fight across the world, out of our element, and further proceed to embarrass us both because of our incompetent leadership and the monumental task we took on. The only way for us to win was to have a quick, decisive victory in the ME, and they know that. They didn't have to beat us militarily, which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell at, all they have to do is prolong the engagement, which they have done very well. That achieved A
Yes because the government(s) would still hate their people and want to hurt them with or without religion.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
The Mujahideen wanted the fight, and when the soviets didn't leave the rest of Afghanistan did. These intelligent warlords sure did get duped rather easily. That's if you buy into the idea that they didn't want a fight . Of course you'd have to ignore a couple thousand years of violent tendencies to believe that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Good lord are you trying to miss the point? The French were willing to help us out because they didn't like Britain. That is a big difference from Afghanistan, who got caught in the middle of a conflict they would rather not have been in. You're calling rape and consensual sex the same thing.Kmarion wrote:
The French played a huge part. If you really think the British crown couldn't have put down a group of rebellious colonies at the time you are being completely naive. It's laughable that you would even attempt to play down the role. There were willing and unwilling participants in both Afghanistan and colonial America. The idea of supporting someone and leaving after the conflict remains.No, it does not work. In the Revolutionary War the French were a relatively minor willing third party participants between the two major parties. In the Cold War case Afghanistan was an unwilling major participant, forced into a war. The U.S. in that case was the minor third party participant that should have been the one taking casualties.
Of course Afghanistan wanted their independence and was going to fight for it. That does not mean they should have had to.
Speaking of missing the point. It is short but it exist. The couple that are there are very important. I've never said that the Afghans shouldn't have felt wronged. I'll remind you that I said we should have left it alone. I stop just shy of justifying their actions though.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Awwww, list too short?Kmarion wrote:
I don't think that would help. Obvious things like providing the means to fight off Soviet occupation elude you.I would however love to have all these Afghan advantages in a neat little bulleted list.
You talk about building a trusting relationship with people who intentionally and openly target innocent people. Keep up the good work champ. You've almost got me sold.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What is this innocent neglected afghan mentality you're talking about? Treating them like children is what put us in this situation in the first place, it's not the solution. Building a trusting relationship was the mature thing to do, but apparently the U.S. wasn't up to that task.Kmarion wrote:
Der.. Not exactly late breaking news. They intentionally wanted us in the ME to play the victim while at the same time bitching about American involvement. I know that. It doesn't play well for your poor innocent neglected afghan mentality though.And that right there is the thinking that has screwed us over in the Middle East. These people are not stupid by any sense of the word, and are probably smarter than the average American, and certainly the average American politician. They wanted us to attack the Middle East. We are not some badass biker that can invincibly pound on everyone we want. They catch us with our pants down to show everyone how vulnerable we can be, leaving us no choice but be made a fool of or come fight. So they get us to pick a fight across the world, out of our element, and further proceed to embarrass us both because of our incompetent leadership and the monumental task we took on. The only way for us to win was to have a quick, decisive victory in the ME, and they know that. They didn't have to beat us militarily, which they don't have a snowball's chance in hell at, all they have to do is prolong the engagement, which they have done very well. That achieved A
Xbone Stormsurgezz
QFTCameronPoe wrote:
Yes. Because ultimately it's all about rich v poor, landed class v disenfranchised, oppressor v oppressed, culture 1 v culture 2.
@op
if there was no religion we would likely still be a few hundred years back, so...
yeah, it would not have happened IMO
edit: and to the post above me
QFE
if there was no religion we would likely still be a few hundred years back, so...
yeah, it would not have happened IMO
edit: and to the post above me
QFE
Last edited by Blehm98 (2008-08-07 17:54:03)
Huh? What do you mean a few hundred years back?Blehm98 wrote:
@op
if there was no religion we would likely still be a few hundred years back, so...
Lastly, I voted yes. If a world without religion existed in the state that the world was in during the years 1980-2001 and similar social, economic and political conditions were in effect, then yes, some sort of large scale terrorist attack would have probably been attempted by a disenfranchised, desperate group of people aimed at a symbol of the wealthy and powerful. More than likely in this alternate reality where religion does not exist the attack would have been launched under the banner of some sort of political, economic or philosophical ideology.
That's just my theory anyway.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
That's bullshit. Religion is the reason science hasn't advanced as it should. AKA stem cell research, cloning...Blehm98 wrote:
@op
if there was no religion we would likely still be a few hundred years back, so...
This will probably surprise you, but... I actually sort of agree with Blehm.Poseidon wrote:
That's bullshit. Religion is the reason science hasn't advanced as it should. AKA stem cell research, cloning...Blehm98 wrote:
@op
if there was no religion we would likely still be a few hundred years back, so...
In the modern age, religion has mostly been a hindrance to science. In the Dark and Middle Ages, however, it was mostly religious people who preserved science.
If it wasn't religion it would be something else. Peace is impossible.
What's the connection between those conflicts and murdering innocent people? If I went out on the street and killed a random rich person, it wouldn't be because I am poor. It would be because I am a homicidal psycho.CameronPoe wrote:
Yes. Because ultimately it's all about rich v poor, landed class v disenfranchised, oppressor v oppressed, culture 1 v culture 2.
Oh of course, Afghanistan wanted to pick a fight with the Soviet Union! How could I have been so stupid.Kmarion wrote:
The Mujahideen wanted the fight, and when the soviets didn't leave the rest of Afghanistan did. These intelligent warlords sure did get duped rather easily. That's if you buy into the idea that they didn't want a fight :rolleyes:. Of course you'd have to ignore a couple thousand years of violent tendencies to believe that.
A few important points that did not mean our debt to them had been paid. Are you going to put a price on the lives they paid in the name of "democracy"?Kmarion wrote:
Speaking of missing the point. It is short but it exist. The couple that are there are very important. I've never said that the Afghans shouldn't have felt wronged. I'll remind you that I said we should have left it alone. I stop just shy of justifying their actions though.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Awwww, list too short?Kmarion wrote:
I don't think that would help. Obvious things like providing the means to fight off Soviet occupation elude you.
Oh don't be so naive. The U.S. has built relationships with drug lords and dictators in the past, and the ones they have right now we just don't know about. The leaders that we were dealing with in Afghanistan were reasonable people, as reasonable as the politicians of any world government. Writing them off as murderers before they have even attacked us is stupid and ignorant.Kmarion wrote:
You talk about building a trusting relationship with people who intentionally and openly target innocent people. Keep up the good work champ. You've almost got me sold.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What is this innocent neglected afghan mentality you're talking about? Treating them like children is what put us in this situation in the first place, it's not the solution. Building a trusting relationship was the mature thing to do, but apparently the U.S. wasn't up to that task.Kmarion wrote:
Der.. Not exactly late breaking news. They intentionally wanted us in the ME to play the victim while at the same time bitching about American involvement. I know that. It doesn't play well for your poor innocent neglected afghan mentality though.
You keep talking post 1993 because then they fall into the murdering primitives idea that you so love to imagine them in. The problem needed to have been solved before then.
Because financial desperation can lead to insane behavior. It doesn't justify killing the rich guy, but it's not hard to figure out why it happened.san4 wrote:
What's the connection between those conflicts and murdering innocent people? If I went out on the street and killed a random rich person, it wouldn't be because I am poor. It would be because I am a homicidal psycho.CameronPoe wrote:
Yes. Because ultimately it's all about rich v poor, landed class v disenfranchised, oppressor v oppressed, culture 1 v culture 2.
Most conflicts are about class rather than race or religion, but both of the latter function well as excuses. For example, it's easier to justify killing someone because it's "God's will" rather than just saying, "I'm going to kill you because I'm sick of being oppressed by your stranglehold on the government."
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-07 19:34:30)
No just the United States. How could you be that stupid?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh of course, Afghanistan wanted to pick a fight with the Soviet Union! How could I have been so stupid.Kmarion wrote:
The Mujahideen wanted the fight, and when the soviets didn't leave the rest of Afghanistan did. These intelligent warlords sure did get duped rather easily. That's if you buy into the idea that they didn't want a fight . Of course you'd have to ignore a couple thousand years of violent tendencies to believe that.
I didn't say anything about repaying a debt. Again you miss the key things I'm saying.. stuff like being wronged.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A few important points that did not mean our debt to them had been paid. Are you going to put a price on the lives they paid in the name of "democracy"?Kmarion wrote:
Speaking of missing the point. It is short but it exist. The couple that are there are very important. I've never said that the Afghans shouldn't have felt wronged. I'll remind you that I said we should have left it alone. I stop just shy of justifying their actions though.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Awwww, list too short?
Right they never engaged in that sort of behavior until after 1993. Who is being naive? Also don't make the assumption that I condone making friends with these shady people (Drug lords etc). How many more times do I need to say we should have stayed out before you get it?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh don't be so naive. The U.S. has built relationships with drug lords and dictators in the past, and the ones they have right now we just don't know about. The leaders that we were dealing with in Afghanistan were reasonable people, as reasonable as the politicians of any world government. Writing them off as murderers before they have even attacked us is stupid and ignorant.
You keep talking post 1993 because then they fall into the murdering primitives idea that you so love to imagine them in. The problem needed to have been solved before then.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Oh you're right, I was thinking they were picking a fight with someone they can and are beating, instead of someone they would be crushed by.Kmarion wrote:
No just the United States. How could you be that stupid?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh of course, Afghanistan wanted to pick a fight with the Soviet Union! How could I have been so stupid.Kmarion wrote:
The Mujahideen wanted the fight, and when the soviets didn't leave the rest of Afghanistan did. These intelligent warlords sure did get duped rather easily. That's if you buy into the idea that they didn't want a fight . Of course you'd have to ignore a couple thousand years of violent tendencies to believe that.
Like being abandoned by a far away country that spilled your blood on your land for their cause?Kmarion wrote:
I didn't say anything about repaying a debt. Again you miss the key things I'm saying.. stuff like being wronged.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A few important points that did not mean our debt to them had been paid. Are you going to put a price on the lives they paid in the name of "democracy"?Kmarion wrote:
Speaking of missing the point. It is short but it exist. The couple that are there are very important. I've never said that the Afghans shouldn't have felt wronged. I'll remind you that I said we should have left it alone. I stop just shy of justifying their actions though.
Great, we should have stayed out of Afghanistan, I believe I already said I agreed with you on that point. Making one mistake does not excuse compounding the problem by making more mistakes.Kmarion wrote:
Right they never engaged in that sort of behavior until after 1993. Who is being naive? Also don't make the assumption that I condone making friends with these shady people (Drug lords etc). How many more times do I need to say we should have stayed out before you get it?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Oh don't be so naive. The U.S. has built relationships with drug lords and dictators in the past, and the ones they have right now we just don't know about. The leaders that we were dealing with in Afghanistan were reasonable people, as reasonable as the politicians of any world government. Writing them off as murderers before they have even attacked us is stupid and ignorant.
You keep talking post 1993 because then they fall into the murdering primitives idea that you so love to imagine them in. The problem needed to have been solved before then.
...and this was a very avoidable circumstance.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the U.S. cultivated AQ from its brutish foreign policy in Afghanistan from the late 70s and 80s...
Yes; maybe not 9-11 exactly, but a large scale terrorist attack of some sort. Even if religion didn't exist, we'd all still find something else to fight about. It's the inherent nature of man.
science is the new religion. the concept of objectivity is used, whether in popular religions or modern science to integrate the initially disparate views of people. its a VERY old method of control. establish common beliefs that are in your interests and the people will willingly serve.
There isn't an evil cabal of villains who rules the world. I'm sorry.Marinejuana wrote:
science is the new religion. the concept of objectivity is used, whether in popular religions or modern science to integrate the initially disparate views of people. its a VERY old method of control. establish common beliefs that are in your interests and the people will willingly serve.
Yes, because they were attacking the american way of life which is capitalism, or at least what the amercian way of life was.
There isn't . It's mostly platitudes designed to 'level the moral playing field', or IMO, excuse heinous acts.san4 wrote:
What's the connection between those conflicts and murdering innocent people? If I went out on the street and killed a random rich person, it wouldn't be because I am poor. It would be because I am a homicidal psycho.CameronPoe wrote:
Yes. Because ultimately it's all about rich v poor, landed class v disenfranchised, oppressor v oppressed, culture 1 v culture 2.
The topic was about the terrorist attacks
rich v poor --nothing to do with 9/11
landed class v disenfranchised--nothing to do with 9/11
oppressor v oppressed--little to do with it except for bent perception, the usa was not oppressing those people, we were merely dealing with our "allies" and trading partners, who happen to be some of their shitty oppressors..it's misguided blame
culture 1 v culture 2--this one actually applies. And religion does come into it.
I'm curious where you get this, you seem really sure about it, but it does not come up in what I have researched. In the 80's the US was de facto allies with the mujahideen, vs the Soviets. We were not really on the front lines, we fed it through Pakistan's ISI. We didn't instigate the war, the SU invaded...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...and this was a very avoidable circumstance.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the U.S. cultivated AQ from its brutish foreign policy in Afghanistan from the late 70s and 80s...
Osama bin Laden was a SAUDI dissident, and everything I read about AQ suggests that his 'rage' at the US was not started by anything to do with afghanistan anti soviet operations. It started later and had to do with US - saudi relations, and the first gulf war.
Last edited by Vax (2008-08-07 21:14:23)
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-W … 0385512457Vax wrote:
I'm curious where you get this, you seem really sure about it, but it does not come up in what I have researched. In the 80's the US was de facto allies with the mujahideen, vs the Soviets. We were not really on the front lines, we fed it through Pakistan's ISI. We didn't instigate the war, the SU invaded...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...and this was a very avoidable circumstance.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the U.S. cultivated AQ from its brutish foreign policy in Afghanistan from the late 70s and 80s...
Osama bin Laden was a SAUDI dissident, and everything I read about AQ suggests that his 'rage' at the US was not started by anything to do with afghanistan anti soviet operations. It started later and had to do with US - saudi relations, and the first gulf war.
good book
yeah mankind does always have a reason to terrorize others will find something else that differs one group of people from another.Sup wrote:
If theres no religion differences something else is. Mankind always has a reason to terrorize others. It might not be 9-11 but it would be a different date under different circumstances.
Yeah, maybe not the exact same events as 9/11, but we'd still kill each other and call killers that don't come from our country 'terrorists'.
The events of 9/11 may be loosely connected to an age old rift in the judao-christian-mohamidan religo-plex, but it wasn't caused by 'religion'.
The events of 9/11 may be loosely connected to an age old rift in the judao-christian-mohamidan religo-plex, but it wasn't caused by 'religion'.