On January 18 2012 01:12 DoubleReed wrote: Zalz, I highly suggest looking up Robert Pape's study. You are assuming too much about their motivations and demographics which are wrong.
I'll give it a read but judging from what i see it doesn't refute my point.
The lower ranked terrorists (the one's that actually blow themselves up) are not in it for the caliphate but it's leadership is.
Well that's not what I was arguing about. So no it won't. It's not anything propagandaish or anything. It's just a study. I think he gave a presentation on TED and YouTube.
Are you saying we should kill them because they're trying to make a caliphate? What exactly is your position?
On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote: I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
You are an asshole, hopefully you will be poor your entire life.
On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote: I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
You are an asshole, hopefully you will be poor your entire life.
He's being sarcastic. He just didn't put any smileys or /sarcasm in.
On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote: I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
You are an asshole, hopefully you will be poor your entire life.
He's being sarcastic. He just didn't put any smileys or /sarcasm in.
If that is the case I apologize. I don't understand how can you know that though -.-
On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote: I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
You are an asshole, hopefully you will be poor your entire life.
He's being sarcastic. He just didn't put any smileys or /sarcasm in.
If that is the case I apologize. I don't understand how can you know that though -.-
I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
On January 18 2012 01:34 Jibba wrote: zalz, you have never quoted anyone. You have never given a single source in any of your ridiculous, Islamophobic, Geert Wilder-inspired posts.
For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.
The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism'... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. U.S. policymakers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies.
If the United States continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, al Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of U.S. hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.
Anger and hatred toward the United States among Arabs and Muslims is largely driven by Washington’s policies, not by any deep-seated antipathy toward the West. The policies that have generated the most anti-Americanism include Washington’s support for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians; the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War; U.S. support for repressive regimes in countries like Egypt; American sanctions on Baghdad after the First Gulf War, which are estimated to have caused the deaths of about five hundred thousand Iraqi civilians; and the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Not surprisingly, President Bush and his advisers rejected this explanation of 9/11, because accepting it would effectively have been an admission that the United States bore considerable responsibility for the events of that tragic day. We would be acknowledging that it was our Middle East policies that were at the heart of it all.
Even a leading neo-con like Fukuyama wouldn't simplify the impact of US policy on terrorism like you have.
How can the lower level concerns possibly be of little importance? That's their entire foundation. Without those grievances, they have no organization.
He's saying that they will always have grievances. There's a lot of oppression and misallocation of resources in the Middle East, which is a hotbed for recruitment of radical causes. Without the U.S. there, there is still the argument of "look at those fatcats in the west, corrupting our women/country with their media!" There's always a heartstring to be pulled when the average person's life is dreadful, even if we're not physically there.
On January 18 2012 01:34 Jibba wrote: zalz, you have never quoted anyone. You have never given a single source in any of your ridiculous, Islamophobic, Geert Wilder-inspired posts.
For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.
The first is decoupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism'... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
The third step involves ensuring the United States actively works for the promotion of human dignity. U.S. policymakers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for al Qaeda's political aims. Washington conventional wisdom maintains that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things. Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policy makers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies.
If the United States continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, al Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of U.S. hegemony. In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.
Anger and hatred toward the United States among Arabs and Muslims is largely driven by Washington’s policies, not by any deep-seated antipathy toward the West. The policies that have generated the most anti-Americanism include Washington’s support for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians; the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War; U.S. support for repressive regimes in countries like Egypt; American sanctions on Baghdad after the First Gulf War, which are estimated to have caused the deaths of about five hundred thousand Iraqi civilians; and the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Not surprisingly, President Bush and his advisers rejected this explanation of 9/11, because accepting it would effectively have been an admission that the United States bore considerable responsibility for the events of that tragic day. We would be acknowledging that it was our Middle East policies that were at the heart of it all.
Even a leading neo-con like Fukuyama wouldn't simplify the impact of US policy on terrorism like you have.
How can the lower level concerns possibly be of little importance? That's their entire foundation. Without those grievances, they have no organization.
He's saying that they will always have grievances. There's a lot of oppression and misallocation of resources in the Middle East, which is a hotbed for recruitment of radical causes. Without the U.S. there, there is still the argument of "look at those fatcats in the west, corrupting our women/country with their media!" There's always a heartstring to be pulled when the average person's life is dreadful, even if we're not physically there.
Then that motivation becomes significantly weaker. As it is, the "West" is already quite safe from terrorism. The largest growing danger is immigrants, nationalism and multiculturalism in Europe, but nonsense about terrorists seeking to create a dominate caliphate is purely propoganda used to create an emotional resistance towards Islam.
Reactionaries will always exist, but they're significantly strengthened by our negative policies.
On January 18 2012 01:34 Jibba wrote: zalz, you have never quoted anyone. You have never given a single source in any of your ridiculous, Islamophobic, Geert Wilder-inspired posts.
And yet another insult, multiple insults even! Ooh my what class.
Geert Wilders-inspired? Islamophobic? I never voted for Geert Wilders, i said nothing "islamophobic" either.
You are degrading the level of debate like no other in this topic. Get a grip on your emotions.
I never quoted anyone, i never gave any source. Why should I?
If there is a requirement for certain facts i will gladly provide links to those facts but so far this has been a discussion on human nature, one can hardly provide stone cold facts as if this was a discussion on economic growth in certain regions.
We could engage in name dropping and pretend that famous names = right but i would prefer if we actually discussed person to person. You can learn from people but you shouldn't imagine that because a famous name is atached to something, that it becomes fact.
Even a leading neo-con like Fukuyama wouldn't simplify the impact of US policy on terrorism like you have.
I am not a neo-con. Even if i was i don't see how another neo-con's opinion would somehow make my own invalid.
How can the lower level concerns possibly be of little importance? That's their entire foundation. Without those grievances, they have no organization.
Because anti-Americanism is hardly their only trick in the recruitment bag. The leadership has their eyes on a caliphate and they will use whatever works to recruit people to their cause. Anti-Americanism is the big one now, who knows what comes after that. Anti-zionism? When it comes to convincing youths to blow themselves up, they are rather resourcefull.
The leadership of these groups want to get rid of America as the first step towards that pure caliphate, purged of non-religious influences. Why would they stop after achieving the first step towards that goal? Their road is a long one.
Well that's not what I was arguing about. So no it won't. It's not anything propagandaish or anything. It's just a study. I think he gave a presentation on TED and YouTube.
Are you saying we should kill them because they're trying to make a caliphate? What exactly is your position?
Them wanting to form a caliphate is not by definition a reason to be executed. Afterall, any and all ideas should be tolerated.
The problem is that they consider it valid to target civillians in both the middle-east and across the world in their campaign for this caliphate. Freedom of speech and democracy mean nothing to them and they will work to subvert any country that stands in their way.
If all the countries in the middle-east had freedom of speech and a democracy and decided together to form a caliphate, I wouldn't care.
But people that believe violence and oppression are justified in pursuing their goals need to be fought at every corner. Dictators and totalitarians of any kind should be diminishing.
Freedom of speech and democracy should exist in all countries in the world. As long as those two things exist then the people can decide their own path. If they all vote and decide to go down a Taliban-esque road, I would say, do as you like. But i don't believe that will happen in a country where people can freely speak against totalitarian ideas and take part in honest elections to influence their country.
So the reason these terrorist groups need to be hunted down is not because they desire to establish a caliphate but because in their pursuit of one, they destabilize the region and work against people's right to control their own destiny.
On January 18 2012 01:34 Jibba wrote: zalz, you have never quoted anyone. You have never given a single source in any of your ridiculous, Islamophobic, Geert Wilder-inspired posts.
And yet another insult, multiple insults even! Ooh my what class.
Geert Wilders-inspired? Islamophobic? I never voted for Geert Wilders, i said nothing "islamophobic" either.
You are degrading the level of debate like no other in this topic. Get a grip on your emotions.
I never quoted anyone, i never gave any source. Why should I?
If there is a requirement for certain facts i will gladly provide links to those facts but so far this has been a discussion on human nature, one can hardly provide stone cold facts as if this was a discussion on economic growth in certain regions.
We could engage in name dropping and pretend that famous names = right but i would prefer if we actually discussed person to person. You can learn from people but you shouldn't imagine that because a famous name is atached to something, that it becomes fact.
How can the lower level concerns possibly be of little importance? That's their entire foundation. Without those grievances, they have no organization.
Because anti-Americanism is hardly their only trick in the recruitment bag. The leadership has their eyes on a caliphate and they will use whatever works to recruit people to their cause. Anti-Americanism is the big one now, who knows what comes after that. Anti-zionism? When it comes to convincing youths to blow themselves up, they are rather resourcefull.
The leadership of these groups want to get rid of America as the first step towards that pure caliphate, purged of non-religious influences. Why would they stop after achieving the first step towards that goal? Their road is a long one.
Well that's not what I was arguing about. So no it won't. It's not anything propagandaish or anything. It's just a study. I think he gave a presentation on TED and YouTube.
Are you saying we should kill them because they're trying to make a caliphate? What exactly is your position?
Them wanting to form a caliphate is not by definition a reason to be executed. Afterall, any and all ideas should be tolerated.
The problem is that they consider it valid to target civillians in both the middle-east and across the world in their campaign for this caliphate. Freedom of speech and democracy mean nothing to them and they will work to subvert any country that stands in their way.
If all the countries in the middle-east had freedom of speech and a democracy and decided together to form a caliphate, I wouldn't care.
But people that believe violence and oppression are justified in pursuing their goals need to be fought at every corner. Dictators and totalitarians of any kind should be diminishing.
Freedom of speech and democracy should exist in all countries in the world. As long as those two things exist then the people can decide their own path. If they all vote and decide to go down a Taliban-esque road, I would say, do as you like. But i don't believe that will happen in a country where people can freely speak against totalitarian ideas and take part in honest elections to influence their country.
So the reason these terrorist groups need to be hunted down is not because they desire to establish a caliphate but because in their pursuit of one, they destabilize the region and work against people's right to control their own destiny.
On January 18 2012 01:34 Jibba wrote: zalz, you have never quoted anyone. You have never given a single source in any of your ridiculous, Islamophobic, Geert Wilder-inspired posts.
And yet another insult, multiple insults even! Ooh my what class.
Geert Wilders-inspired? Islamophobic? I never voted for Geert Wilders, i said nothing "islamophobic" either.
You are degrading the level of debate like no other in this topic. Get a grip on your emotions.
I never quoted anyone, i never gave any source. Why should I?
If there is a requirement for certain facts i will gladly provide links to those facts but so far this has been a discussion on human nature, one can hardly provide stone cold facts as if this was a discussion on economic growth in certain regions.
We could engage in name dropping and pretend that famous names = right but i would prefer if we actually discussed person to person. You can learn from people but you shouldn't imagine that because a famous name is atached to something, that it becomes fact.
How can the lower level concerns possibly be of little importance? That's their entire foundation. Without those grievances, they have no organization.
Because anti-Americanism is hardly their only trick in the recruitment bag. The leadership has their eyes on a caliphate and they will use whatever works to recruit people to their cause. Anti-Americanism is the big one now, who knows what comes after that. Anti-zionism? When it comes to convincing youths to blow themselves up, they are rather resourcefull.
The leadership of these groups want to get rid of America as the first step towards that pure caliphate, purged of non-religious influences. Why would they stop after achieving the first step towards that goal? Their road is a long one.
I think the point is that you have crazy people with crazy ideas on pretty much every continent, and the fact that (to cut some corners) only in the Middle-East large groups of people should be telling us something about why that situation is unique. Anti-americanism can only take a hold when there's grievances in the first place, and the same thing goes for anti-zionism.
Luckily, we've fucked the Middle-East up to an extent where they'll have endless grievances, but trying to diminish the importance of the really obvious ones (US support for dictators, US invasions, Israel slowly taking over more and more of Palestine) can only be good. Actively hunting the 'average' terrorist down on the other hand only creates a worsening situation (excluding leadership that fills ideological/logistical roles).
That said, I don't actually see what this has to do with the Republican nomination, except for Ron Paul wanting to abolish foreign policy in general, which I think anyone who has ever thought seriously about foreign affairs disagrees with.
On January 17 2012 23:41 Zalithian wrote: I don't know about you guys personally, but if I ever see a rich man on TV that I've never met in my life.. I get a strong urge to throw my life away to kill him. Now if that same rich guy came over to my house and took it over, then killed my daughter, well, that wouldn't change anything. I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
You are an asshole, hopefully you will be poor your entire life.
He's being sarcastic. He just didn't put any smileys or /sarcasm in.
If that is the case I apologize. I don't understand how can you know that though -.-
I have an innately strong hatred for rich people who live thousands of miles away that have little to no impact on my life.
It's still kinda hard to read the sarcasm here. I'm sure there really are thousands of people who legitimately hate rich people in other countries that have no influence on them. Envy is a basic human emotion.
@zalz So, are you going to tell me that intellectuals like chomsky are wrong in foreign policy? What about the three generals from the USA saying the same thing as Ron Paul in regards to his foreign policy. Are they wrong too? What about the ex CIA guy who went after Bin Laden too...
So, tell us why we should believe your foreign policy is whats best for the whole world? Forcing your beliefs onto others~
On January 18 2012 04:57 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @zalz So, are you going to tell me that intellectuals like chomsky are wrong in foreign policy? What about the three generals from the USA saying the same thing as Ron Paul in regards to his foreign policy. Are they wrong too? What about the ex CIA guy who went after Bin Laden too...
So, tell us why we should believe your foreign policy is whats best for the whole world? Forcing your beliefs onto others~
Yet intellectuals like Chomsky still disagree with the entire political philosophy behind all of Ron Paul's idea's, but that part of his argument gets conveniently ignored by the Paul fanatics.
On January 18 2012 04:18 zalz wrote: But people that believe violence and oppression are justified in pursuing their goals need to be fought at every corner.
Your position, as I understand it, justifies Western violence and oppression in order to stop other people's violence and oppression. Or have I misunderstood?
I don't know Zalz, I think you're ascribing too much importance to the long term goals of Al Qaeda's leadership.
Do you think the attacks on Americans would be as widespread and damaging without any US intervention in the past or as a consequence of their recent (and somewhat ongoing) occupation of middle-eastern countries?
Al Qaeda may have a long term goal in mind, but that doesn't mean that the people joining their cause also believe in that vision. They may simply see Al Qaeda as a means towards removing any perceived negative foreign intervention in the area (and Noam Chomsky would say there's a lot).
You seem to believe that Al Qaeda could just drum up a reason besides anti-Americanism to sustain their attacks/recruitment levels. But this is a pretty big assumption, to be frank I don't think you can say that. Also looking at the motives for 9/11 page on Wikipedia I'd say a lot of it is due to American involvement in the region. Technically that's also a part of forming an Islamic caliphate for the Muslim world, to remove foreign influence, but in a very large way its a legitimate grievance that scholars like Chomsky would share (just not the violent response).
On January 18 2012 01:05 billy5000 wrote: as i'm not really into politics or anything about it as a matter of fact, i found this ron paul ad to be jaw dropping (to me at least).
i would have never thought that our foreign policy seemed so invasive till now
Wow O.O
This is a pretty awesome ad. I think it paints an awesome picture.
On January 18 2012 04:57 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @zalz So, are you going to tell me that intellectuals like chomsky are wrong in foreign policy? What about the three generals from the USA saying the same thing as Ron Paul in regards to his foreign policy. Are they wrong too? What about the ex CIA guy who went after Bin Laden too...
So, tell us why we should believe your foreign policy is whats best for the whole world? Forcing your beliefs onto others~
Yet intellectuals like Chomsky still disagree with the entire political philosophy behind all of Ron Paul's idea's, but that part of his argument gets conveniently ignored by the Paul fanatics.
zalz, you have a long history of Islamophobic posting. And you still haven't provided any sort of refutation or expert backing of your claims. Show me a statement from a general and then a series of actions, plans or instigation that lean towards the establishment of an Islamist caliphate, by Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or anyone else you deem a terrorist organization. All you do is make unsupported declarative statements and pretend others, whose ideas support and recognize the work of every major personality working in IR these days, are being folly, but you won't give any proof as to why. This is how all of your arguments go, in nearly every thread you enter.
Al Qaeda is building some sort of empire? Proof? Because they allowed a small off branch of radicals with a minority share of power in Somalia to do some work under their name? Because they've been active... no where else.
You know who claim they're trying to build an anti-US caliphate by force? Cheney. Rove. Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld. Random neo-con bloggers. It is the exact same slippery slope argument that was made about communism in exactly the same regions of the world in the 1970s. Their beliefs never grew up.
The only evidence there is is circumstantial statements by Bin Laden and Al-Zawari, except those two said a lot of propaganda like that, which had no correspondence to reality or what AQ's actual activities were. It's like Bush saying we'll win the war against terrorism or drugs or anything else. There's been open concerns about their activity in Egypt since the revolution began and to date, has anything happen? Is there any evidence anywhere that they've become more active in Egypt than they were before, or they're interfering in elections? They're ailing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no one in Egypt cares when Israel bombs AQ leaders. So where is a caliphate coming from?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PdkJ2.jpg)
