Militants infiltrate Israel from Gaza & over 5,000 rockets fired towards Israel

[Meat 18,962]

 

[TaylorSwift 162,478]

self-defence?

[Meat 18,962]

1 minute ago, Teletubby said:

self-defence?

How is this even allowed? And that too in a western country

[Dennis 8,391]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

The US was hit hard on 9/11 just like Israel was hit hard by Hamas. Both terrible tragedies born out of an extreme reaction to both nations' insistence on being imperial monsters.

How was the U.S imperialist in the Middle East where AlQaida was located though? Prior to 9/11, U.S was involved only in one war waged by NATO to liberate NATO citizens taken hostage by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. And that war concluded without taking any territory or removing Saddam from power. Not to mention, that was one of the most justifiable wars ever waged. Saddam basically invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, make them forgive his debt and took NATO citizens hostage in the process.

Let's not rewrite history. U.S misguided involvement in the middle east started AFTER 9/11, not before.

So no, there were absolutely no valid grievances to even remotely justify or serve as a reasoning for 9/11 attack. AlQaida sympathizers always tried to portray America as oppressor of mulsims, except that none of the historical examples you can point to are muslim countries (Vietnam, Cuba, latin America etc..)  and actually one of the most controversial U.S involvement (in Serbia) was to save the muslim population there (now Kosovo).

 

[Meat 18,962]

It appears that some Muslim countries have started to condemn Hamas attacks

 

[Bambino 24,321]

10 minutes ago, Meat said:

It appears that some Muslim countries have started to condemn Hamas attacks

 

And turning a blind eye on the victims in Gaza. The UAE is a joke.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

It's no surprise Iran was behind the funding for Hamas's attack. 

Now watch closely how the US responds.

Another war the US will be sending money to every week just like Ukraine. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,169]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

How was the U.S imperialist in the Middle East where AlQaida was located though? Prior to 9/11, U.S was involved only in one war waged by NATO to liberate NATO citizens taken hostage by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. And that war concluded without taking any territory or removing Saddam from power. Not to mention, that was one of the most justifiable wars ever waged. Saddam basically invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, make them forgive his debt and took NATO citizens hostage in the process.

Let's not rewrite history. U.S misguided involvement in the middle east started AFTER 9/11, not before.

So no, there were absolutely no valid grievances to even remotely justify or serve as a reasoning for 9/11 attack. AlQaida sympathizers always tried to portray America as oppressor of mulsims, except that none of the historical examples you can point to are muslim countries (Vietnam, Cuba, latin America etc..)  and actually one of the most controversial U.S involvement (in Serbia) was to save the muslim population there (now Kosovo).

 

Osama Bin Laden explicitly said that American imperialism was the rationale behind 9/11.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[Dennis 8,391]

49 minutes ago, deactivated001 said:

Osama Bin Laden explicitly said that American imperialism was the rationale behind 9/11.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Oh yea and we should take his word for it or what? What a wonderful compelling argument you got here. When I said "there were absolutely no valid grievances to even remotely justify or serve as a reasoning for 9/11 attack", that doesn't include the personal feelings of a terrorist. I meant from an objective/factual standpoint there were no valid grievances that could be used as justification for Islamic Jihad to wage a "defensive war" (as they claim) against America, because America was simply not hostile to muslims in any way shape or form. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,169]

11 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Oh yea and we should take his word for it or what? What a wonderful compelling argument you got here. When I said "there were absolutely no valid grievances to even remotely justify or serve as a reasoning for 9/11 attack", that doesn't include the personal feelings of a terrorist. I meant from an objective/factual standpoint there were no valid grievances that could be used as justification for Islamic Jihad to wage a defensive war against America, because America was simply not hostile to muslims in any way shape or form. 

Girl, nobody is trying to *justify* 9/11. You corrected @PartySick, who was explaining Al Queda’s rationale behind the attack and I was simply reinforcing that. Why do you think anyone on here would be trying to say 9/11 was justified? You can disagree with Bin Laden and Al Queda’s rationale all you want, but that doesn’t change that that’s *why* they did it.  

[Dennis 8,391]

4 minutes ago, deactivated001 said:

Girl, nobody is trying to *justify* 9/11. You corrected @PartySick, who was explaining Al Queda’s rationale behind the attack and I was simply reinforcing that. Why do you think anyone on here would be trying to say 9/11 was justified? 

Well then, you should let them clarify their own position, because if you missed what I quoted and I was responding to, it was this: "Both terrible tragedies born out of an extreme reaction to both nations' insistence on being imperial monsters."

I explained to them that objectively, there was nothing that the U.S did to the muslim world at the time that could serve as a reason or justification (even if remote/far-fetched) for 9/11. 

[PartySick 172,545]

16 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Oh yea and we should take his word for it or what? What a wonderful compelling argument you got here. When I said "there were absolutely no valid grievances to even remotely justify or serve as a reasoning for 9/11 attack", that doesn't include the personal feelings of a terrorist. I meant from an objective/factual standpoint there were no valid grievances that could be used as justification for Islamic Jihad to wage a "defensive war" (as they claim) against America, because America was simply not hostile to muslims in any way shape or form. 

All due respect, I really need some of y'all to understand the difference between explaining why something happened and justifying it happening

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,614]

Edit: nevermind. My comment isn't worth whatever comes from it. Sorry mods. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,169]

7 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Well then, you should let them clarify their own position, because if you missed what I quoted and I was responding to, it was this: "Both terrible tragedies born out of an extreme reaction to both nations' insistence on being imperial monsters."

I explained to them that objectively, there was nothing that the U.S did to the muslim world at the time that could serve as a reason or justification (even if remote/far-fetched) for 9/11. 

You know that imperialism isn’t only played out in direct warfare, right? Bin Laden specifically said the U.S. sending military aide to Israel, thus, in their eyes, propagating the oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the U.S. engaging in proxy warfare in Somalia via Russian aide were two incidents they viewed as imperialistic. But, more significantly: how are you neglecting to mention that the US literally lead the charge in the Gulf War in the 90s?

[Dennis 8,391]

Just now, PartySick said:

All due respect, I really need some of y'all to understand the difference between explaining why something happened and justifying it happening

Which is precisely what I'm trying to understand. You said "extreme reaction to America's imperialism". A reaction usually means there's something you're reacting to. So we gotta be precise, we can't say oh well maybe AlQaida was avenging slavery. That'd be silly. AlQaida's ideology revolves around the idea that America is the enemy of muslims, except that there's literally nothing that America did that could be argued as a catalyst for this "extreme reaction".