On January 18 2012 06:01 Jibba wrote: 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?
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 04:57 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~
I already adressed this. If you want to have a name throwing competition then i am not interested.
If you want to have a real debate you are going to have to actually enage on the points brought forth. Actually adress the points.
Giving (yet another) youtube clip of [input famous name] is not in the least bit interesting. I can flood this topic with Christopher Hitchens clips, you flood them with another intellectuall of your choice.
You don't really believe that is what a debate looks like do you? You will have to argue your own points, refute my points, stop thinking that because a famous person said something it goes from opinion to fact.
I don't know Zalz, I think you're ascribing too much importance to the long term goals of Al Qaeda's leadership.
See, this man is an honest debater. He doesn't attempt to deny facts like the stated objective of Al-Qaeda, he proposes that i ascribe more importance to their goal then is perhaps valid.
I believe that the most important factor here is how much of the old guard is still alive. If you read up on Osama Bin Laden then you realize that he is the real deal. He truly believes in the religious aspect, the forming of a caliphate. He doesn't masquerade as a religious zealot, he is a religious zealot.
But Osama is dead. When he first formed Al-Qaeda, he formed it with like minded people. How much of this brain is still alive? How many of the new leadership are as devout as Osama and his core was? It is indeed possible that the focus on a caliphate has shifted as a result of the inner circle members being killed off and replaced with people whom are exclusively occupied with the rejection of American influence in the middle-east.
Still, i find it doubtfull that people who's main motivation is sovereignty would flock towards a group that was founded on such an imperialist concept. I would think they would flock to other terrorist groups or focus on insurgency groups.
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?
The US hasn't actually suffered all that much from terrorism since 9/11. Most of it's victims are muslims in the middle-east.
I believe that for their goal of forming a caliphate that has no non-muslim influences, they need to remove the largest non-muslim influence from the region. Anti-Americanism can certainly be fuel for the suicide bombers but the intellectuall layer of these groups are just interested in step 1 of their goal.
A lot of terrorist atacks only or mostly claim muslims lives. It's hard to motivate that as anti-American.
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).
I would argue that those people would have chosen to join up with something like the insurgency in Iraq. There are alternatives to Al-Qaeda that are much more nationalistic in nature.
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).
Let's assume America gave in to the terrorist demands and withdrew any and all influences from the region. Complete and utter isolation. Remember, they will have to shut down their embasies to appease these people.
Would the attacks really stop? The Danish embasy in Pakistan was attacked over the cartoons of the prophet. Al-Qaeda claimed that attack.
These people want to push America from the middle-east, but it's beyond naive to think that it ends there. They managed to get people to commit a suicide attack over a cartoon.
You can't not offend these people. The only way you stop offending them is if you surrender completely.
On January 18 2012 06:01 Jibba wrote: 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?
If you read up on Osama Bin Laden then you realize that he is the real deal. He truly believes in the religious aspect, the forming of a caliphate. He doesn't masquerade as a religious zealot, he is a religious zealot.
Proof?
Research has even shown that high levels of religiosity and fundamentalism makes people more resistant towards joining terrorist organizations. The idea of the ultra religious terrorist zealot is a myth, it's usually people who haven't explored religion at all.
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.
You can't have your cake and eat it too :/.
Oh really?
Yes, really.
Well Apparently you haven't read any of chomsky's books.
@zalz I didn't say you were one. I just said that if you have been posting Islamaphobe rhetoric then you might be considered one especially calling everyone in the middle east religious zealots...
He also makes other cool statements like getting paid 'little' for speaking engagements when he was getting 40k per speech ;p. I understand he's rich, and I don't blame him for that, but he is so absolutely out of touch with people that make under several million a year. It's only by virtue of how fragmented the republicans are that he's first.
If you read up on Osama Bin Laden then you realize that he is the real deal. He truly believes in the religious aspect, the forming of a caliphate. He doesn't masquerade as a religious zealot, he is a religious zealot.
Proof?
Osama Bin Laden was born into Bin Laden family. The Bin Laden family is one of the wealthiest families in the world and is in deep with the Saudi royal family.
Being born into this family means not just having all the money you could ever want, it means being able to live whatever way you like. Being close with the Saudi family in Saudi-Arabia means being immune to the law. It's the kind of living even Bill Gates can't buy.
(http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/12/051212fa_fact) Like any priviliged member of society in the middle-east he got to go to the good schools. Despite attending a secular school (By Saudi standards) he displayed an affection for religion.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm) Osama proved to be willing to actually fight for his religion. Ready to throw away a life of easy living for fighting for what he believed in. The fact that he fought in Afghanistan shows a purely ideological motivation rather then a nationalistic motivation.
The final split between the Saudi's and Osama took place when Saudi-Arabia allowed the USA to station troops in it's country.
Osama was born into an easy life. He could have lived any life he wanted, he didn't have to care for law or money. But he didn't. He threw it all to the wind to go fight in another country.
Despite having many chances to turn away from islam he actually embraced it like no other. He didn't just talk the talk as one could have done from his position, he walked the walk by going out and fighting for his beliefs.
After fighting in Afghanistan he went on to form Al-Qaeda. We already established his conviction in his religion. He had al the connections, he had all the money. He formed Al-Qaeda and he was the leader of Al-Qaeda. He chose the formation of a new caliphate dedicated to hardline islam as the primary objective of his newly formed organisation.
We know he did not need to put that on there to appease anyone and we know he had the religious conviction to truly believe in this goal. With nobody to tell him otherwise he could pick any goal he most desired and that was the formation of a caliphate.
Over the following years he only grew more and more devout and went against not just his country of origin but even his own family. This man threw away his nation of birth, his family and his fortune, just so he could pursue his ideology.
Everything in the man's life shows that he is a true believer. As the founder of Al-Qaeda his view is most clearly expressed. The formation of a caliphate is that view.
Research has even shown that high levels of religiosity and fundamentalism makes people more resistant towards joining terrorist organizations. The idea of the ultra religious terrorist zealot is a myth, it's usually people who haven't explored religion at all.
* Demand proof for widely acknowledged fact
* Fail to provide proof on a research that shows a non-mainstream view after citing "research" in general as evidence for a point
If you read up on Osama Bin Laden then you realize that he is the real deal. He truly believes in the religious aspect, the forming of a caliphate. He doesn't masquerade as a religious zealot, he is a religious zealot.
Proof?
Research has even shown that high levels of religiosity and fundamentalism makes people more resistant towards joining terrorist organizations. The idea of the ultra religious terrorist zealot is a myth, it's usually people who haven't explored religion at all.
I see, so religion makes people behave.. where was this research published btw? hopefully some reputable, secular journal. I'd like to read that. For full disclosure, I must side with Hitchens in pretty much all his opinions on religion, the effects of religion in regular people, and islam in particular.
@zalz I didn't say you were one. I just said that if you have been posting Islamaphobe rhetoric then you might be considered one especially calling everyone in the middle east religious zealots...
Aah, you didn't say i was. You just said you thought i was.
His rhetoric makes me think he might be a Zionist or one of these guys
Would you also point to where i was posting "islamophobic" content or "calling everyone in the middle-east religious zealots".
You and Jibba need to start reading my posts instead of commenting on what you think is in them. Argue against what i say, not what the imaginary version of the me that you created says.
Osama proved to be willing to actually fight for his religion. Ready to throw away a life of easy living for fighting for what he believed in. The fact that he fought in Afghanistan shows a purely ideological motivation rather then a nationalistic motivation.
His training and fighting in Afghanistan had completely secular origins, pushing back against an aspiring hegemony with the help of its competitor. He turned to an Islamic friend/expert for help with recruitment but he never lived a devout life at all. Look at the porn and other crap they found in his room. He was a poor student of Islam and while it might've fascinated him, he was never active in his religion. He never lived a particularly devout life, he just had people in place to capitalize on the vitriol religion creates.
Wiktorowicz is on Obama's national security council and he specializes in social movements and terrorism. It's his work that debunked the stereotypes about religious terrorists and found that religiosity is usually not a primary factor, and may actually be a detriment to joining a terrorist movement. There are very few works dealing with actual terrorists and potential terrorists as comprehensive as Wiktorowicz's. The research done by Jurgensmeyers and other majors is fairly in line with that.
This isn't a Huntington-esque essay based on conjecture and inklings. It's thorough qualitative data that shows this.
Blurb from an NPR article about him
"A number of years ago, before he went into government, he did some of the most path-breaking work not only on who was susceptible to being radicalized, but most importantly, who was the most resistant to being radicalized," says Christine Fair, an expert on terrorism and radicalization at Georgetown University. "And the findings that he came up with based upon his work really shattered some of the stereotypes we have about Muslims and radicalization."
As part of his research, Wiktorowicz interviewed hundreds of Islamists in the United Kingdom. After compiling his interviews he came to the conclusion that — contrary to popular belief — very religious Muslims were in fact the people who ended up being the most resistant to radicalization.
Fair, who has done a great deal of work on radicalization in Pakistan, said Wiktorowicz's work stayed with her forever. "It really was revelatory for me," she says.
Revelatory because, as it turns out, Wiktorowicz found that it was people who did not have a good grounding in the religion who were the most likely to be attracted by radical Islam.
On January 18 2012 08:22 Br3ezy wrote: Why aren't there any democratic elections or whatever goign on right now? im noob about this so don't be mean
Obama already has the nomination for his party wrapped up, right now the republicans are having voting primaries to see who will face him in the general election.
I assume it because Obama will be the candidate? I think that is what you were asking. They did have a convention with something like 80% of the vote going to Obama. Is that what you wanted to know?
On January 18 2012 08:09 Jibba wrote:His training and fighting in Afghanistan had completely secular origins, pushing back against an aspiring hegemony with the help of its competitor.
I would actually like a "show of hands" on this statement. Who in this topic actually believes this?
He turned to an Islamic friend/expert for help with recruitment but he never lived a devout life at all. Look at the porn and other crap they found in his room. He was a poor student of Islam and while it might've fascinated him, he was never active in his religion. He never lived a particularly devout life, he just had people in place to capitalize on the vitriol religion creates.
He believes in a form of islam where it is justified to murder muslims that aren't devout enough.
You seem to confuse what devout means. It simply means he adheres closely to his faith. You seem to have this notion that there is one absolute true version of islam which dictates everything that is and is not true.
Osama breaks the simple code of killing muslims. But his particular stream of islam states that only muslims that strictly adhere to the quran are muslims so it's oke to kill those that aren't as serious about islam as you want them to be because they aren't "real" muslims.
Within his own sect of islam he was perfectly in line.
What you are doing is like blaming a catholic for not living like a protestant. Different sect, different rules.
Not sure what you base him being a poor student of islam on or the idea that he wasn't active with his religion
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
A fantastic advert, and one that raises Paul in my eyes. Most Americans never think about the way their country is perceived by other countries, and if they do, they dismiss the anger and resentments there as petty jealousies. These resentments do come from somewhere, and US policy abroad has long been ignored by the voter, but felt by citizens in other countries. Just imagine, as the ad said, if US leaders were routinely killed for not being friendly enough to a foreign power, or deposed, or if rebel elements were promoted (just remember the Taliban were put there by the US and the UK...) simply to try and increase the control a foreign power had over the US. Picture a dictator controlling the US, tolerated and suppoerted by other countries because he gave them favourable trade rights.
A show of hands is absolutely worthless, especially when there's so few people here studying terrorism at a high level.
Bin Laden's beliefs didn't even coincide with Azzam, his friend and co-creator of AQ. It wasn't until the Gulf War and Kuwait and Bin Laden was really set off and angered towards the US. It was an anti-Soviet movement in the beginning, after the Soviets had killed thousands of Afghans. Then it became commingled with the Muslim Brotherhood and a few other Egyptian groups and sought to fight against imperialism and perceived injustices, mostly from Israel, but it only became anti-US in the late 80s and early 90s.
His motivation was simply not grounded in religion. There's just no evidence of that. The only attributes of his sect are those that conformed to his geopolitical aspirations. The closest he ever came to being religious was when he was with Azzam and he split from that, and probably had Azzam killed. He only used religion as a tool. The fatwas issued were messy and usually after the fact. His grievance was attacks against Muslims and then foreign occupation in SA and other countries.
On January 18 2012 08:22 Br3ezy wrote: Why aren't there any democratic elections or whatever goign on right now? im noob about this so don't be mean
It's rare for an incumbent President to have people in his own party try to campaign against him, but it does happen. Usually it's when the President is so unpopular the party doesn't thinkhe can win the general election, so they support a different candidate. This happened to Ford - he faced a challenge from Reagan as the Republicans thought he was too unpopular to win the presidency (they were right, it turns out).
EPT
