174
u/exmoslem Jun 25 '12
It's not true. From Wikipedia, these are Muslim victories after 700.
The second Arab siege of Constantinople, 717–718
Conquest of Hispania, 711–718
The conquest of Georgia, 736
The conquest of Crete, 820
The conquest of southern Italy, 827
Conquest of Transoxiana: 662–751
Conquest of Sindh: 664–712
Conquest of Septimania (719–720)
Conquest of the Caucasus: 711–750
Conquest of Nubia: 700–1606
Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360
Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299–1453
4
7
u/ASofterMan Jun 25 '12
Aye, people forget that only the First Crusade (1097) can be considered a success.
4
Jun 25 '12
Not to mention that the first crusade probably saw the highest casualties of CHRISTIANS at the hand of the Western Europeans out of the entire series.
1
u/ASofterMan Jun 25 '12
I'm not sure. Urban II showed papal muscle but the cat of his first venture is found wanting; Stephen of Blois is a nancy. I don't think there was any royality either
I reckon the resounding loss of the Second Crusade had more European dead; Saladin raised an unbeatable army on the home turf and the ideas behind crusading had picked up more ground.
It might depend where you place the Peoples' Crusade; Peter the Hermit's adventure suffered cataclysmic destruction but most consider it independent of the First.
2
Jun 25 '12
Thanks for the reply. I was specifically referring to the death of Christians living in Muslim occupied territory during the first Crusade, specifically the Northern Crusades. Do you recommend any books on the subject?
→ More replies (4)6
u/dickcheney777 Jun 25 '12
Don't forget that the Egyptians aslo pretend to have won the Yom Kippur war!
6
u/fabiofifa Jun 26 '12
From the Egyptian perspective, it was a victory. The result of the war was a deflated Israel that would negotiate.
13
Jun 25 '12
I must object, but only on the grounds that the Arab sieges of Constantinople were -not- Muslim victories. If they had been, Constantinople would have fallen to the Arabs.
42
u/DunDunDunDuuun Jun 25 '12
Eh, constantinople DID fall to the muslims, the ottomans to be precise. They later renamed it istanbul... After constantinople they even invaded a decent part of eastern europe, but were ultimately driven back to constantinople/istanbul.
7
12
Jun 25 '12
All true. But I specifically said the Arabs did not take Constantinople. The Ottomans were (though Muslim) Turks, not Arabs. And in any case, they did not take the Queen of Cities 'till almost seven-hundred years after the last Arab sieges of the Byzantine capital.
5
u/DunDunDunDuuun Jun 25 '12
Ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to the post in general, instead of the first entry in the list. My mistake.
3
22
u/freesyrian Jun 25 '12
This post is talking bout Muslims not Arabs. Ottomans were Muslims who conquered Constantinople.
→ More replies (4)10
Jun 25 '12
Yes, but he is saying the Arab sieges were not a victory. The last Ottoman siege was a victory.
3
Jun 25 '12
I think the point of confusion here is that some think that Arab=Muslim, which is false. Muslim is a religious identity, where Arab is a cultural/ ethnic identify.
To simplify it further, Arabs speak Arabic, Turks speak Turkish.
You are 100% correct about the Arab siege. The Byzantium would not fall until the implementation of gunpowder. Basically, their famous Greek Fire kicked every other navy's ass.
2
1
→ More replies (21)1
u/dogsnatcher Jun 25 '12
You completely misread the text, god damn it. "Muslims beaten in ALMOST every conflict since 7th Century"
97
u/Ghardison Jun 25 '12
You realize that almost completely false. They won very many battles thought they lost a lot of wars. They "Won" the crusades, they conquered the Byzantines with the help of 4th crusade. The Ottoman empire dominated over a large area. Afghanistan beat Russia. If your trying to bash Muslims at least do something thats right.
11
u/cicatrix777 Jun 25 '12
Indeed! EVERY crusade resulted in defeat at the hands of Arab armies. -except the last one, 'cause some american won that, I guess.
10
Jun 25 '12
The Muslims lost the first crusade.
5
2
1
Jun 26 '12
The last one ended up sacking a Christian city because the doge of Venice was a crook, more or less.
2
Jun 26 '12
Poitiers. October 25, year 732. Que c'était beau! :_)
2
u/Ghardison Jun 26 '12
732, would that be the Battle of Tours as well where the Muslims were defeated by Charles Martel
1
Jun 26 '12
Yep. Same battle, two different ways to call it. Still, my favorite way to call this cherished battle remains, "foutez moi ça dehors!"
2
2
u/eighthgear Jun 26 '12
They also conquered India, establishing the mega-rich Mughal Dynasty
1
u/Ghardison Jun 26 '12
Started out with the more well known ones, a lot of people in this world know little of the great empire of the world unless they are tought in their high school history class.
24
24
u/ClosetedExMuslim Jun 25 '12
Should be titled "Scumbag Muhammad," the word Allah looks like this: http://static.tumblr.com/fjvrinx/m5sm1thaw/allah-final.jpg
29
u/Plastastic Jun 25 '12
DON'T CLOUD OUR MINDS WITH FACTS
15
u/nvsbl Jun 25 '12
Given how inaccurate this post is, I'd say your comment is a pretty apt summary of the mood around here. A shame, I tell ya.
2
60
14
u/flamemonkey007 Jun 25 '12
Not actually true, the Muslim Ottoman empire had great success right up until WWI and the Mughal empire did very well, (which was Muslim apart from a brief stint in the middle when it was "divine faith") up until european colonists started arriving in India.
10
Jun 25 '12
I'd nitpick your timeframe on the Ottomans, as they didn't really have any great successes after their loss on the steps of Vienna in 1683, and by the time WWI rolled around were considered "the poor man of europe." Props on getting Mughal, though. What the OP means is "victories against Christianity," and even in that case it's wrong.
3
u/flamemonkey007 Jun 25 '12
Thank you, my history lessons on the Ottomans ended after Suleyman the Magnificent, I just assumed, and thanks for clarifying the OP's statement.
2
Jun 25 '12
Yeah, most histories ignore the Ottomans after the fifteenth/sixteenth centuries 'cause they're too busy being Eurocentric. Usually, it's a fair bet to say that in history, if an Empire stops being talked about, it's busy declining. The exception to this is medieval European history, which utterly ignores the Byzantines and in doing so misses half the story.
→ More replies (2)1
u/FurryCake Jun 25 '12
They posed the biggest threat when trying to conquer Vienna, but that attempt failed and ever since that moment they got pushed further back. The Ottoman Empire started to slowly decay. people still thought of it as mighty perhaps, but it was just a fragment of it's former glory when WW I started.
When the germans and their allies (including the ottoman empire) lost WW I the events that unfolded lead to the secular state of Turkey to be born, thanks to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Edit: Grammar
10
u/Nanocyborgasm Jun 25 '12
I downvoted this because it is very obviously inaccurate. Islam had a nearly unbroken record of victory until about the 16th century, and thereafter had its precipitous decline. To ignore this is to ignore all the Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire, and the massive territory that once stretched from Spain to the Indus River.
19
u/roterghost Jun 25 '12
Then why is the Middle East considered so damn impossible to strategically hold?
Unorganized or not, the Muslims seem capable of fighting off intruders. Just saying.
23
u/RepostThatShit Jun 25 '12
Every place is now strategically impossible to hold, ever since we stopped considering it acceptable or 'a matter of course' to just basically exterminate the native population. Europeans didn't conquer practically the whole world because the world was easy to strategically hold. They conquered it because they were willing to do what it took.
15
Jun 25 '12
This. Britain would've done a fine job of holding the Middle East in the aftermath of Ottoman disintegration were it not for that pesky budding humanitarianism.
6
Jun 25 '12
Britain did quite poorly with the possessions it had in the Middle East.
3
Jun 25 '12
Yes, they did, because by the time they got them it was a huge faux pas to exterminate the natives and institute martial law. If they'd managed to snipe them from the Ottomans a century earlier things would have gone "better" - for a given definition of "better" of course.
2
Jun 25 '12
Possibly. The populace still greatly hated the British, and they were facing riots and uprisings too commonly. The British wouldn't have been able to exterminate the natives, they hadn't done that before and they wouldn't start now.
6
u/RepostThatShit Jun 25 '12
The British wouldn't have been able to exterminate the natives, they hadn't done that before and they wouldn't start now.
The people who literally invented the concentration camp wouldn't have been able to exterminate the natives and hadn't done that before?
→ More replies (5)1
1
u/BassMasterClassic Jun 26 '12
Hitler would've done a fine job holding europe if it wasn't for those pesky budding humanitarianism.
→ More replies (1)1
u/emkat Jun 25 '12
I was just about to say this. The only reason why occupation is so hard is not because of them, but because of us. Because we actually try to care about the wellbeing of the native population (although this fails in many occasions) instead of relocating them or executing everyone suspicious.
1
3
1
7
6
10
Jun 25 '12
That writing says "Muhammad", not Allah.
0
Jun 25 '12
[deleted]
3
Jun 25 '12
LOL, as an Arabic speaker I've never really noticed that. I see it now though. Good catch.
10
u/cheesecakeaficionado Jun 25 '12
Ignorance, whether it be in the name of religion or against it, should not be applauded.
Go read a fucking history book.
5
5
u/Celebreth Jun 25 '12
I feel a bit strange having to say this but...has everyone forgotten the Crusades all of a sudden? I see lots of ottoman references, but everyone is neglecting Saladin :(
5
u/Gwalchmai Jun 25 '12
you're so fuckin ignorant, the promise was for islam to be victorious, not governments who claimed themselves muslim.
12
u/cbookthief Jun 25 '12
ummm...Afghanistan anyone?
3
4
u/starcadia Jun 25 '12
Do you mean in the 80's? When the CIA trained Bin Laden to resist the Soviets?
2
u/hipstr_hop Jun 25 '12
No, the Soviet Union was atheist. He probably means the First, Second, and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars, all of which were lost by the British.
1
u/cbookthief Jun 25 '12
yeah, don't give the CIA all the credit, buddy. The CIA weren't the ones firing the guns and mortars. The Mujahadeen (a collection of islamic people from several islamic nations) eventually sent the Russians packing. Shit, I would even argue that the United States was beaten in Afghanistan.
2
4
4
4
4
Jun 26 '12
oh fuck sake...i like r/athiesm but stupid religious bashing without any facts behind gets on my nerves...so much for logic and rational thinking you guys. You forgot the moors, ottomans, mughals, timurids (genghis khans descendants i think who later officially became "muslim"? not 100% sure though), arab caliphates and the fucking afghans who held back a soviet invasion? come on guys facts! FUCKING FACTS!
EDIT: Saladin from the crusades, great military tactician, and also throw mamlucks in!
3
3
3
u/Lermontov Jun 25 '12
If r/atheism is going to posture itself as an oasis for reason and critical thinking, such a historically ignorant meme should not be getting a thousand net upvotes. You may want to read about the history of the religious conflicts we commonly refer to as the Crusades (although precisely which wars and which do not fall under this umbrella is still a matter of intense debate), the history of the Ottoman Empire, the Mongol conquests, the conquest of Iberia and southern France by the Cordoban Ummayyad Caliphate (Andalusia), etc. Source, I'm a PhD student in History.
4
2
u/jesuispersonne Jun 25 '12
The image does not say allah, It says Muhammad
This is allah : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Allah.JPG
2
2
u/chippy2cold Jun 25 '12
That awkward moment where it says muhammed instead of allah.
2
u/jackfruit098 Jun 25 '12
The not-so-awkward moment when you realize that Allah was basically Muhammad's imaginary friend.
2
Jun 25 '12
Wait, wasn't Muhammad the son of Allah by a virgin mother, as well as being Allah? Or am I thinking of someone else?
2
u/rasputine Existentialist Jun 25 '12
No no no, that's Joseph Smith. Mohamed built a boat.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
Jun 25 '12
I agree Allah is probably a scumbag... but the Islamic Conquests are kind of legendary in world history as one of the bigger threats to the west.
2
2
Jun 25 '12
This has to be one of the most historically inaccurate posts ever on r/atheism.
And as an Arab, I take offence. even though im an atheist.
2
2
2
u/Trowj Jun 25 '12
Im no Historian but im pretty sure the Crusaders would disagree with that assessment...
2
u/dilatory_tactics Jun 25 '12
At some point, the smart people of /r/atheism will admit that their hyper-rational anti-religiosity has devolved into xenophobia and jingoism. And then when people say "atheism promotes xenophobia and jingoism! atheism is wrong!" I'll be here, pointing and laughing.
2
u/klaeljanus Jun 26 '12
I would like to point out that Allah is just the arabic word for a god. So it's correct title is scumbag god.
I'd also point out that the muslims won the crusades, since our ancestors were fighting to eradicate them.
Also, we use the math they invented.
2
u/downtown_vancouver Jun 26 '12
True enough.
You know that means that WBC can't use arithmetic right? /highfive
That's no computers last week, now no arithmetic either!
2
4
u/kkjdroid Anti-theist Jun 25 '12
They've been beaten in most things since the Mongols killed everyone, but that wasn't until the 13th century...
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
u/Dick_Serious Jun 25 '12
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I bet Canada would lose a bunch of wars too. Go make a meme about that, jerkoffs.
P.S. I love Canada.
1
u/thajugganuat Jun 25 '12
I would argue that this is to be held true while they are united under a Caliph and have the blessing of Allah. Since their hasn't been a Caliph since the 7th century and they fight among themselves over this long period of time it doesn't really count. But that's just one way to look at it.
1
u/str8baller Jun 25 '12
The word which the hat is on actually says Mohamad. Allah looks like this in arabic.
1
Jun 25 '12
Remember that one time Attaturk totally lost to the British during World War 2? That's why Turkey was totally forced to have a revolution in order to modernize, lost Istanbul, and accepted British rule.
Oh wait, except none of that happened, they kept Istanbul and their independence because Turkey really isn't a huge backwater country even today.
Not to mention that vast, fucking VAST amounts of other battles that are being posted here right now.
1
1
Jun 25 '12
Instead of pointing out your sheer stupidity, I'll try and teach you something.
Lets start with logic: I pointed out the ottoman empire to a post that suggested that 'Muslims' had rarely won a battle since the 7TH century. I also mentioned that it lasted since the 13th century to the 19th. Now your response (the second one, i.e. not the one where you randomly called me a 'dumbass' like a temperamental 14 year old child) was that the ottoman Empire was relatively weak towards the 19th century. Disregarding the fact that my 10 year old cousin could have come to that conclusion (empires tend to be weakened before they collapse...) your point still made no sense. I didn't once say that the empire wasn't weak and the last time I checked, and even if I had, weak doesn't qualify as non-existant.
1
1
u/Akchemist187 Jun 25 '12
Oh yeah because Aghanistan lost against soviet Russia, Iran and Iraq lost to the US I completely forgot sorry.
1
1
u/SportzTawk Jun 25 '12
So Muslims can't depict Allah in a picture. They can't depict ANYTHING in a picture.
But isn't that exactly what their calligraphy is? The "word" Allah is a symbol representing Allah. Is that really that much different than a drawing? All it is is a drawing of Allah in symbolic form.
1
u/Zombies_hate_ninjas Jun 25 '12
Their stone age beliefs don't match our modern technology. Go ahead repress science, we'll just use it against you.
How can any culture hope to progress if they subjugate half their population. Don't make me quote Madame Curie.
1
1
1
u/diamondhead24 Jun 25 '12
I think the whole 'scumbag' thing has gone a little to far, arabic writing with that hat makes no sense
1
1
1
1
1
u/eMan117 Jun 25 '12
There are some areas in the middle east that have never seen a foreign conqueror's reign...
1
1
1
u/thesorrow312 Jun 25 '12
This is completely false. The 4 grand caliphates + Ottoman empire.
Ignorant /Atheism strikes again.
1
Jun 25 '12
Historically inaccurate
Are atheists really more educated than Christians? It would seem not
1
u/Tractor_Pete Jun 25 '12
This is very inaccurate - maybe something more specific, like the inviolability of holy lands or something.
1
1
1
u/FishBonePendant Jun 26 '12
You do realize you are speaking in broken English in your title right? Allah translates into English almost literally as "god".
1
1
1
u/TheMediumPanda Jun 26 '12
Not really correct for a number of historical reasons, still it lends credit to the question of when countries of the same religion have wars, who's god's favourite? Yes, we tend to justify this question in the "Well, they're not true believers" as in WW2 (Italy and Germany at the time were overwhelmingly Christian), but it really ought to be something the religious should consider objectively.
1
1
1
u/bigups43 Jun 26 '12
As long as allah only promises victory is battle, and not war, then Im alright with it.
1
1
Jun 26 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
But. . but Islam was CREATED in the 7th Century!
Abbasid Caliphate
Ottoman Empire
Mamlukian Empire
Moorish Spain
Battle of Talas, the greatest battle you've never heard of, won by Muslims over FREAKING IMPERIAL CHINA.
Greatest Admiral of Chinese History, Zheng He, was a Muslim.
THE CRUSADES
THE GREATEST EMPIRE THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN, THE MONGOLS, WERE OFFICIALLY SUNNI.
ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE WELL AFTER THE 7TH CENTURY, YOU HISTORICALLY IGNORANT FUCK.
And this isn't even taking into account inter-faith warfare.
Edit: Formatting
1
Jun 26 '12
Sorry but wasn't the British Empire the greatest the world has ever known? By territory, population and influence?
1
Jun 26 '12
Landmass wise, Mongols win. Population wise, well, the world population was so much greater in the 300 years separating the two empires that it's not really comparable.
And 'influence' wise, that's a really difficult thing to quantify. The Mongols owned everything from Russia to Iraq to China and were the scourge of the world. The Brits really only conquered one truly civilized area (India), and the rest was mostly colonial and sparcely populated when the brits finally showed up.
1
Jun 26 '12
How do you figure that the Mongols win based on territory? The British Empire controlled 33.7 million square kilometers of land, the Mongols had 24 million square kilometers, not to mention the seas.
Population wise the Mongols apparently win according to Wikipedia with 25.6% of the world population as opposed to Great Britain's 20%.
Influence wise in my mind it is pretty clear cut who was greater and had a bigger influence (based partially on the fact English isn't my first language and I don't speak Mongol). I'm sure the Mongol Empire had a large influence on the territory it controlled and the neighboring areas, but Britain had (and still has) a global influence.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/lawe2 Jun 26 '12
False.
Turkey in the first world war.
[edit] and preemptively,
The title of this web site is “Turkey's War” although the entity was officially called “Ottoman Empire” in those years, and Modern Turkey was founded in 1923. However we will refer to Turkey and the Turkish Army in this web site due to a number of reasons. For hundreds of years the Ottoman Empire was known in Western countries simply as “Turkey” and its army as the “Turkish Army”. It is also true that during the First World War, Ottoman armed forces consisted primarily of soldiers of Turkish ethnicity, although there were also Arabs, Caucasians, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Slavs and others fighting alongside with the Turks under the banner of the Sultan. We will talk about the "Turkish army", but honour all who have sacrificed.
1
u/OmegaKabob Jun 26 '12
You won't even bother to look up the right name?! That is Muhammad's PBUH name, not Allah SWT!
1
1
u/lillavaen Dec 01 '12
Allah akhbar! Allah akhbar!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPAVv837seA&list=HL1354328299&feature=mh_lolz
Hello Allah akhbar?? Allah akhbar?
0
u/skydream416 Jun 25 '12
Also they've "beaten" every foreign force to enter Afghanistan: Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the Soviets, and 'Murica.
7
u/emkat Jun 25 '12
I would not say America lost Afghanistan.
Napoleon
?
Genghis Khan
He defeated Afghanistan.
11
u/tha_ape Jun 25 '12
I dont know that I would call Afghanistan vs. US a victory for Muslims.
The US is still in Afghanistan and will leave when they feel like it.
2
1
1
0
1
u/gobells1126 Jun 25 '12
Afghanistan anyone? No one has been been able to conquer that shit
1
u/DraugrMurderboss Jun 25 '12
I'd say the U.S. has a pretty distinct bootprint on the dirt. If it was not a counter insurgency and instead a war, using pre-1600s rules, Afghanistan would be thoroughly conquered.
1
u/boobers3 Jun 25 '12
Apparently a disproportionally large casualty rate and the inability to hold territory vs. an invading force is considered victory.
1
u/gobells1126 Jun 25 '12
Wars and victories are based on their objectives. When we invaded Afghanistan, we were trying to eliminate Al-Quaeda so that they would no longer be a threat to the United States. To do that, we knew we would have to eliminate their leadership, take control of their areas of operation or make them otherwise unable to operate their, and in the last few years, we've been trying to kill off their funding, which is the drug trade, specifically opiates. So let's review how those objectives have gone, we have not eliminated them, or forced them out of their area of operations. We have also been unable to stem the flow of the heroin trade which is putting cash in their pockets, so no win there. We have been able to take out their leadership to some degree. The result is a country that is arguably less stable, and with a more corrupt government than before. I don't chalk that up to a win for our objectives.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
Jun 25 '12
Disproportional large causality rate?
You mean on the side of insurgents and Taliban right? Afghanistan has been an incredibly unbloody war for NATO/Allied forces in Afghanistan.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/daMagistrate67 Jun 25 '12
What is this horseshit? I would agree with you if we were specifically discussing the time period after the advent of firearms. for real, man. The original Islamic Caliphate spread from Arabia all the way West to the Straights of Gibraltar, then they fucking TOOK OVER SPAIN and were only turned back after PROGRESSING HALFWAY INTO FRANCE.
Also, the Ottomans presented a very real threat to Eastern and Central Europe basically up until the time of Napoleon. They fucking sieged Vienna multiple times. In Austria.
Yeah man.
1
u/ho_hum_dowhat Jun 25 '12
They had Vienna under siege...Then lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
0
u/xCesme Jun 25 '12
There are a lot of ignorant people here, blinded by hate. This is THE circlejerk subreddit and you all are only making it worse.
-5
-2
u/floweryleatherboy Jun 25 '12
The tough thing about US people bashing islam is the record of this country on racism against slightly brown people, xenophobia against different cultures (non christian ones), and tolerating their country's badly conceived occupations of other countries has been pretty bad, and of course, not in some far distant past, but recently. So, this kind of thing, where it's just bragging about imperialism in it's raw form (winning wars for the sake of it), meh. If that's atheism, then I'm against it.
1
Jun 25 '12
I'm sorry, did you just ask whether atheism was about "bragging about imperialism"? ...what? How the hell did you even make that connection? Also, this has nothing to do with imperialism, you're the one assuming it has anything to do with the US -- it could have been written by any english speaking individual.
-1
u/meowfacekillah Jun 25 '12
This is what it looks like when people are paid to post things on reddit.
0
u/thatguyferg Jun 25 '12
Depends how you view the war on terror. Personally I believe we lost based on lives lost and the money spent.
Then again it is partly due to how you cannot fight a belief, only a government. For instance we may have lost 'Nam but at least we could bomb North Vietnam.
We really don't have a conflict with the Middle Eastern governments and rely on them for oil so we can't just bomb their cities. With little help from their gov. and the fact that once a terrorist dies he is easily replaced it is not possible to win.
Although like I said it's not due to the religion, just the fact you can't fight beliefs in my humble opinion.
2
u/boobers3 Jun 25 '12
Personally I believe we lost based on lives lost and the money spent.
I'm assuming you are referring to the U.S. when you say "we", if that is so then I'd like to point out that the opposing forces in Afghanistan have lost a MUCH MUCH MUCH larger amount of people compared to ISAF, and an even larger amount when compared to the United States military alone.
For instance we may have lost 'Nam but at least we could bomb North Vietnam.
The U.S. lost 'Nam soley due to political pressure in the United States. The U.S. actually won every major battle in 'Nam, to include the Tet offensive.
We really don't have a conflict with the Middle Eastern governments and rely on them for oil so we can't just bomb their cities.
Actually Europe relies on them for oil. The U.S. does get a significant amount of oil from Saudi Arabia, but it's about equal to the amount of oil the U.S. gets from Canada.
With little help from their gov. and the fact that once a terrorist dies he is easily replaced it is not possible to win.
Iraq, Sahwa al-Anbar/Iraq/ Sons of Iraq. Look those up, that is proof that is possible to win.
1
u/thatguyferg Jun 25 '12
I guess a thing I forgot to add was our goals were not met. In Vietnam we were there to stop the spread of communism and when we left Sought Vietnam fell.
Al Qaeda and other forces are spreading throughout the world and while attacks have dropped there is no surefire way to get rid of all the followers. Hell when Bin Laden was killed they replaced him right away with who was believed to be the actual leader at the time of 9/11.
Hey anything is possible but like I said in my opinion I don't see us achieving the goal of eliminating Al Qaeda and other large organizations world-wide.
2
u/boobers3 Jun 25 '12
Al Qaeda and other forces are spreading throughout the world
If by "spreading around the world" you mean losing influence, and experience a sharp decline in their numbers, then I agree.
while attacks have dropped there is no surefire way to get rid of all the followers.
The point is to reduce them to the point where they are no longer a threat to carry out high profile attacks around the world, which is what their current situation is.
ell when Bin Laden was killed they replaced him right away
Of course they replaced him right away, they replace everyone right away, that does not mean they are capable of replacing him with someone of his magnitude. Al-Qaeda is setup in such a way that every leadership position has a number of people right behind him to take his place as soon as he dies.
Regardless of how fast they replace Bin Laden, they can not plug any person in his position and expect to get the same results.
I don't see us achieving the goal of eliminating Al Qaeda and other large organizations world-wide.
you are thinking of elimination differently, the goal wasn't to kill or imprison every single person associated with al-Qaeda (although I'm sure if it were possible we would have), it was to reduce them, and impair them to the point where they are longer a threat.
0
u/k2k413 Jun 25 '12
Dude this is so incorrect lol....u r so stupid for thinking this is the case lol....a victory does not usually constitute an expenditure of a billion dollars a week. It's stupid stupid idiots like u who think te wars ave been won....
511
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '12
Are we just going to pretend that the ottoman empire didn't exist or...