When will you guys realise you're fighting on the wrong side? Atheism is our only path to a free society...

He became an anarchist m8

It's neoconservative imperialist foreign policy like Hitchens supported that caused islamic terrorism (in the west) in the first place you stupid fuck.

It already existed, or 9/11 wouldn't have happened in the first place. But Bush made a colossal blunder by invading Iraq, and a lesser (though still big) one when he rejected the Taliban's offer to work together against al-Qaeda, and demanded that they step down instead.

rily nigga?

...

You do realize we didn't start seeing most of this "le suicide bomber kill da USA" till after they interfered the first time in Afghanistan and left it to become a theocracy right?

Or how about the Shah regime? But wait there's more……

I meant Islamic terrorism already existed, you fucks. Guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

No you're dumb for thinking that the original spur of terrorism still wasn't mostly a reaction to U.S. interventionist police.

You have no idea what you're saying. Western interventionism began long before Wahabism was even a thing, and indeed it can be postulated that wahabism arises as a direct response to the new dominating role of the West.

So again, no conservative interventionism, no terrorism.

The original World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the embassy in Africa, the bombing of that nightclub in Germany. Islamic terrorism was definitely already a thing.
The US war on terror inflamed the conflict drastically, though, that's true.

Reread my post, I wasn't referring to Western interventionism.

you dont know what the fuck you are talking about, fundie Islam would barely be a factor were it not for certain anglo actors going back at least a hundred years.

talking about saddam is starting somewhere at the end of the story, you are being buttmad about one specific flavor of crazy when the cunts that rolled this shit out are basically Baskin Robbins nigger, you need to read a little, specifically about the House of Saud, the reason this kind of savagery still exists is because its good for business

All way after Western intervention had already taken place. Again, it can be said that those attacks were mostly a reaction to said intervention, You can go Holla Forums and think that all these Muslims started engaging in behaviour that was largely unseen in their own communities( blowing yourself up and martyrdom to the extent they do it) on their accord, or you can look into the history of Western interventionism and realize it is more of a reaction to one side or another.

Go fuck yourself, this bigotry of low expectations is what enables moderates and retards to excuse terrorism and theocracy.

...

You're arguing with a point I wasn't making. I thought he was saying that Islamic terrorism was caused by the "war on terror." You can continue arguing with phantoms, but that's not what I was trying to say.

Well, sure the totally unfair and predatory conditions enforced upon the Germans lead to the rise of Nazism.
I completely agree with that statement.

The sharp increase in it and ISIS is directly caused by the war on terror.

Hitchen's last words were "capitalism downfall".

Oh, I agree. The war on terror increased the breadth of the confrontation. I'm trying to think of other similar examples, but the only one I can come up with off the top of my head is kind of dumb: This SJW shit wasn't really an issue, even though it's been around for years and years. When it becomes a fixture in most people's consciousness, though, it causes people to choose sides and leads to more disagreement and confrontation.
That's not necessarily always a bad thing, and you could even look at it as a dialectical process. But yeah, confrontation can (and does) lead to more intensive confrontation, as the ideas and forces behind the conflicting parties become more apparent.

No I understand why the Nazi's rose to power and I think the treaty of versailles was unfair. It wasn't a one sided thing, though the Germans were the original aggressor in WW1.

However, there's a bit of a difference between the Germans facing repercussions for being an aggressor in the biggest war ever at that time( though as I said, the treaty was unfair and was a mistake on the allies part) and Western countries overthrowing Democratically elected leaders decade after decade and allowing these theocracies to take place.

dont put words in my mouth faggot, people are very much responsible for their actions although i certainly wouldnt discount exogenic factors.

im not saying crazy ass muslims arent responsible for their actions, im saying they were enabled, they were armed, funded and the entire organizational structure of the various radical organizations that have existed since Russia/afghanistan has been completely infiltrated/run by intelligence agencies.

Islam in itself is pretty fucking crazy, which is why its so goddamned useful and has been kept alive

this is not a hypothesis, it is fact at this point, name a terrorist and I will point you to a watchlist he was on or a nebulous handler that was orbiting him.

It was a hypothesis 100 years ago, when Joseph Conrad was writing about it, anyone that denys it in our day and age is downright delusional

Its funny how you think im protecting Haj when in reality im saying they could never pull off something like IS without foreign help

Hi Holla Forums

I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that.

Except for the OP.

Oh my gosh. Fedoras are well and truly still in fashion.

Glass houses.

>>>/christian/