|
|
On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it...
|
On October 17 2012 04:19 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens But what matters? That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often. They go together.
The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do.
I don't believe that there would be anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do. I believe there is anti-American sentiment because of what we do.
However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings.
You are separating out phenomena in a totally illegitimate fashion. The religious part is not a separate phenomenon from the rest of it. Right, and you're rationale for this is.... your gut?
History, established research, etc probably. All those liberal biased facts.
|
On October 17 2012 04:25 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:21 xDaunt wrote:However, what I am saying is that the US did not take over Iraq's oil production, despite what some people here are arguing. Yes, but the WEST did edit: how does one find out an answer to a question like "who controls Iraqi oil production"?
The issue of who "controls" oil production is the wrong the question. The way that the business works is this: Iraq owns the land and the mineral rights to the oil. Iraq then contracts with third-parties (oil companies) to facilitate the extraction of that oil. In exchange for extracting the oil, the oil companies are granted a share of the revenue stream from each oil well that they are managing/drilling. The oil companies may then sub-contract with other companies and further divide their in their interests in the revenue stream. Basically, what you get is a gigantic shared interest.
|
On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it...
Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed.
for example:
H = Hate
R = Religion
BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism)
T = Terrorism
You are arguing that H = T.
I'm arguing that H + BR = T.
H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem.
|
|
|
On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq'
I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government.
|
On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem.
Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion.
Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point.
|
On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government.
Established and controlled by whom?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens But what matters? That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often. The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do. However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings. Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far. But don't take it from me. On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote:A couple excerpts: Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence. Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised. Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime. Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight. ... As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region". The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests. Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291391347458863.html You're skipping the logic behind my statements. You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might". --- HOWEVER --- Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common? In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem.
How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium!
Let's put it this way: A foreign aggressor invades Wisconsin, deposes your Governor, and installs a tyrant that stands for everything you're against (in this case, let's say he's against freedom of speech) who slaughters your friends, family, and neighbors. Do you honestly think the people of Wisconsin are just gonna sit back and take it up the ass because they're Christian? Hell no! Some people might cling to God as a means to get them through the rough times. Others will cling to democracy and our freedomz as we treat that stuff like a religion as well. Anyway, it's all just a distraction to the more devastating underlying problem.
|
On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom?
Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory.
|
On October 17 2012 04:47 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens But what matters? That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often. The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do. However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings. Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far. But don't take it from me. On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote:A couple excerpts: Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence. Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised. Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime. Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight. ... As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region". The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests. Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291391347458863.html You're skipping the logic behind my statements. You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might". --- HOWEVER --- Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common? In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium! Let's put it this way: A foreign aggressor invades Wisconsin, deposes your Governor, and installs a tyrant that stands for everything you're against (in this case, let's say he's against freedom of speech) who slaughters your friends, family, and neighbors. Do you honestly think the people of Wisconsin are just gonna sit back and take it up the ass because they're Christian? Hell no!
This is an unfair analogy because they aren't in conflict with their own government, they/re in conflict with the foreign aggressor.
|
On October 17 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom? Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory.
What? It's not a conspiracy theory.
The Iraqi government was set up by the West to support Western interests in the region. Explicitly.
Conspiracy is not necessary to explain self-interested action on the part of international financial class (and Western gov't, which amounts to the same thing)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 04:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:47 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens But what matters? That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often. The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do. However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings. Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far. But don't take it from me. On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote:A couple excerpts: Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence. Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised. Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime. Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight. ... As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region". The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests. Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291391347458863.html You're skipping the logic behind my statements. You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might". --- HOWEVER --- Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common? In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium! Let's put it this way: A foreign aggressor invades Wisconsin, deposes your Governor, and installs a tyrant that stands for everything you're against (in this case, let's say he's against freedom of speech) who slaughters your friends, family, and neighbors. Do you honestly think the people of Wisconsin are just gonna sit back and take it up the ass because they're Christian? Hell no! This is an unfair analogy because they aren't in conflict with their own government, they/re in conflict with the foreign aggressor.
Eh? What do you mean it's an unfair analogy? It's exactly what's happened. o_O
|
On October 17 2012 04:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom? Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory. What? It's not a conspiracy theory. The Iraqi government was set up by the West to support Western interests in the region. Explicitly. Conspiracy is not necessary to explain self-interested action on the part of international financial class (and Western gov't, which amounts to the same thing)
Except...well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#2009_Oil_services_contracts
Those shares don't really support Western interests particularly well, do they? Surely we could have done a bit, just a bit, better for ourselves.
|
On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point.
I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you.
And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H, and BR is the lynchpin for that.
|
@BluePanther: I would recommend you to watch this. Not that I necessarily agree with all his points, but I think it would be a lot more fruitful than your discussion with sam!zdat (for both parties). If you are really interested in this subject that is, I know that asking someone to view a long lecture is a bit much for a discussion.
|
United States6277 Posts
On October 17 2012 04:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom? Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory. What? It's not a conspiracy theory. The Iraqi government was set up by the West to support Western interests in the region. Explicitly. Conspiracy is not necessary to explain self-interested action on the part of international financial class (and Western gov't, which amounts to the same thing)
I believe Iraq's Oil Ministry controls the oil and awards service contracts.
The US / West does not need to control or profit from Iraq's oil to benefit from Iraq's oil.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H.
There's a difference between 'hate' and the shit that the Middle East has endured throughout the years. But as we are already seeing, that 'hate' is gradually declining, and as long as we don't continue doing extremely horrendous things we should be in a decent place 50 years from now. Education is important, but so is not being an oppressive brute.
|
On October 17 2012 04:56 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:52 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom? Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory. What? It's not a conspiracy theory. The Iraqi government was set up by the West to support Western interests in the region. Explicitly. Conspiracy is not necessary to explain self-interested action on the part of international financial class (and Western gov't, which amounts to the same thing) Except...well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#2009_Oil_services_contractsThose shares don't really support Western interests particularly well, do they? Surely we could have done a bit, just a bit, better for ourselves.
idk, that's 41% from US/UK/EU. Seems pretty good. Anyway, I don't think just looking at a wiki chart of nationalities of the companies is the way to do it - the money flows have to be more complicated than that and I'm not the right person to try to tell what's what.
this is a question for some other leftist. I'd rather talk about ideology. not going to go around picking numbers from random internets and pretend like I have any context for them.
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital.
(edit: at any rate, I don't see any Iraqi companies on that list)
On October 17 2012 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:52 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:47 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Ah but who is 'Iraq' I'm pretty sure that the oil fields are owned by the state. So "Iraq" would be the Iraqi government. Established and controlled by whom? Now, now, don't venture into the realm of conspiracy theory. What? It's not a conspiracy theory. The Iraqi government was set up by the West to support Western interests in the region. Explicitly. Conspiracy is not necessary to explain self-interested action on the part of international financial class (and Western gov't, which amounts to the same thing) I believe Iraq's Oil Ministry controls the oil and awards service contracts. The US / West does not need to control or profit from Iraq's oil to benefit from Iraq's oil.
Sure, but they have to open it up to globalization, which wasn't happening under Saddam
edit: they don't have to "control" things directly so much as keep the country from controlling its own resources. Open it up to global capital and sure, the market does the rest.
|
On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H, and BR is the lynchpin for that.
Yes, sometimes you can treat symptoms. This is at best a tactical solution, at worst simply makes things worse (gets perceived as an attack on Islam).
I'd rather get at the 'H'. Will that mean the US has to radically reconsider its place in the world? Sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
