Why do people think the military is "fighting for our freedoms"?
I have to commend you on your spunk. You're the first person I've seen that has the balls to say what the rest are afraid to. We haven't fought "for our freedom" since WWII. And even then, it took place in Europe after the Pearl Harbor attack. People have this idea that just because we're over there in a war, fighting for our lives, that it's for their freedom. In today's agenda, it's all political. The war in Kuwait, we butted in because they're allies. The war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.....same thing. We haven't had our freedom challenged in a very long time and I hope that day never comes again. The terrorist attacks on 911 were just that....terrorism. They did just that...terrorized the country. Now the stock market took a hit, the dollar took a hit, oil prices rose, and there's a department in the federal government.....Department of Homeland Security. We also fall just short of cavity searches at the airport now due to terrorism. It worked!! However, it never really challenged our freedom, just our sense of security. I'm sick of my military men & women dying in a country that will neither change nor allow us to truly leave. There'll always be American soldiers over there now, whether they're in force or reduced in numbers as security details. I think America needs to regroup, come back home, and do what the other countries have done for ages....look out for themselves!! Kudos to you!!
Were Israel and the Jews responsible for the Iraq war?
Good God in heaven!! STOP! I can sit here and type out a thesis debunking this whole conspiracy theory but conspiracy theorists don't get it. So why should I waste my time? Conspiracy theories are moronic in nature and can always be proven to be moronic in nature yet there's no reasoning with people like this. So all I can tell you is if you choose to believe in garbage that's your business but please, please, please don't subject the rest of us to it. You guys need a section all your own. Mustafa I am a Muslim and it's reasoning like your's and every other person who plays the "blame game" that gets people no where. Iraq had nothing to do with Jews, but had everything to do with your lunatic leader. Why aren't more Muslims standing up to their oppressors? Instead they blame Jews. Stop being the victim and be a victor. This is one of the reasons Islam is in such a mess today. You can give me a thumbs down to save face if you want to, but you know it's true.
How would the real German Nazis view the modern-day neo-Nazis, such as "Nazi skinheads" and their ilk, whether in Europe or America?
Many of the more violent and visible nazi-skins and such I've come across would have wound up in labour camps, and quickly, as alcoholic, work-shy troublemakers. Some might have been able to fit in with the SA, but even the SA (the Nazis thug squad before they came to power) enforced a certain standard of discipline that most of those would be hard-pressed to adhere to.The fuckers who steer those idiots? They'd have fit in beautifully. As they tend to do in almost any society.
Do the Turks miss the Ottoman Empire?
There are people who miss though most of people don't.Back in 1920 Ottomans were partitioned too harshly we were even losing Turkish majority lands in Balkans and Asia. The reason of this harshness is…They didn't consider us European but a state now weak and happened to hold huge swaths of land. Ottomans were not a nation state. It was a religion based state. You are muslim or christian, thats all.With the establishment of Republic of Turkey we succesfully created a nation state, westernized, and accepted as a state by Europeans. This would not have been possible with the Ottomans. But…Our people didn't even wanted war in 1914. We had catastrophic Balkan Wars and more serious result was wave of muslim refugees fleeing to Anatolia. We had like 2 million bosniaks, and a few million people coming from Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania. Entry of the war was done by three idiot pashas (Enver, Talat, Cemal) who staged coup. Not the will of people or sultan.Before them Abdulhamid II, although percieved Ruthless held the country together more than 30 years. Also an innovate person he had lots of ambitious ideas and projects being revealed to the world in present decade. Islamist miss him and admire him.With the Republic we are no longer a Great Power, no longer head of Muslims of the world. It was we who abolished caliphate, leadership of Islam. I think people do know how dangerous a religion with a shaken authority can be (Lollards, Hussites, 30years war, Inquisition). Europeans had their problem 400 years ago. And it is just that we are having them now. But we are to blame for islamic terrorism.As i said Ataturk wanted to create a nation state, not a religious one. We wanted to be accepted as equals. This was impossible while we were carrying the mantle of Islam. So we got rid of it.With the Ottomans middle east today wouldn't have become cradle of terrorism. Iraq, Syria, Balkans. All the regions with huge post ww1–2 problems were previous Ottoman lands.Neo-Ottomanists think that it is our historical responsibility to take care the problems of middle east. And our politicians playing to that.Personally i can't decide which is better. If Ottomans remained it would have made the world a better place thats given. No-terrorism, lesser wars. But we wouldn't have westernized and still were a backwards Islamists country. Prior to republic we had like %3 literacy rate, after republic it skyrocketed.
If Assad knew from prior experience that a gas attack could lead to serious military intervention, why would he order such an attack on Khan Sheikhoun?
I see an awful lot of answers here trying to undermine the central assertion of the question. Well, let’s marshal the facts:http://www.politifact.com/truth-...We know that the regime has used chemical weapons in the past. That was the trigger in 2013, two years after the civil war started, for talk of western intervention. It was agreed that a red line had been crossed. Thanks to the political climate of the time, first the UK and then the US backed down from intervention while Russia offered to oversee the destruction of the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons. As the fact-check page linked above demonstrates, that’s not exactly what happened. The regime has continued to intermittently make use of chemical weapons and in the meantime the Russian armed forces have backed their campaign against the rebel forces.So, to answer the question, because they got complacent and thought they could get away with it. The new president has made positive noises about Russia and has in the past made numerous statements against intervention in Syria, most notably in 2013. The West has made clear these last few years that it isn’t interested in enforcing the supposed red line. The regime’s aim is simple: to crush all armed resistance to their rule using whatever means necessary.What they didn’t reckon with is that the US president is actually a volatile narcissist who makes up policy as he goes along based on what he sees on the TV. In this case it just so happens that he’s done precisely what ought to have been done four years ago.