Quote:
Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?
Funny dlish. You must see we are all just playing a game. Any transformations are given unless they are taken. Are we not equivalently fair?
|
i dont quite understand your post OCM. define 'fair'.
The article suggests that had the US limited its response to those that actually carried out attacks instead of going into 2 fullblown wars, it would have done a better job at keeping moderates from being radicalised. the collateral damage as a result of these wars as well as personal family tragedies where his family was targetted suggest that it was this that turned the tide.
comparing awlakis two statements in 2001..
Quote:
|
Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America. So the guilty would be tried and only them would be punished rather than bombing an already destroyed country. I do not restrict myself to US media. I check out Aljazeerah and European media such as the BBC. I am seeing something that you are not seeing because of the one-sidedness of the US media. I see the carnage of Afghanistan. I see the innocent civilian deaths. That is why my opinion is different.
|
and this one in 2009
Quote:
|
I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than 60 years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, US missiles have killed 17 women and 23 children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a US civil jet after all this. The 300 Americans are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed.
|
In hindsight its easy to see the path that sent him on his way to becoming marginalised. Its also easy to transform into a radical and justify the killing of innocent women and children when relatives of yours have been killed innocently. Of course forgiveness is the ultimate human gesture, but if my own family was killed, id find it hard to forgive those that killed my family also.
its interesting to note that he also mentioned aljazeera as an alternative news source. anyone who's watched aljazeera will tell you how much more graphic their news reporting is compared to the american news channels. Had aljazeera not existed, would awlaki have found an excuse to turn his back on the country where he was raised? are alterative news sources to blame for radicalising muslim youth by showing pictures of dead men, women and children while other US sources feed airbrushed stories to their populace?
the question is, was awlaki marginalised by his own predisposition to radical islam or did the US help him on his way with the help of the media?