|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
I actually really like this Krugman piece, which echoes the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself" quote by FDR>
NYTimes
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen.
i've read more than that on the subject. i suggest you do the same.
|
On November 17 2015 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:I actually really like this Krugman piece, which echoes the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself" quote by FDR> NYTimes
quite right indeed.
Best to not make too much of the attack.
|
On November 17 2015 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. Taliban actually developed from students at very radical schools in the Kandahar area just after the Soviets left Afghanistan, the muhajideen created the environment where such a movement could be born and flourish but most of the non-Afghan muhajideen went back home after the war against the USSR ended. A lot of the ones the US had the most contact with ended up in the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Zbigniew Brzezinski has some controversial opinions in the eyes of the larger ex-intelligence/semi-retired 'advisor' community, he's in the the US is really much more powerful and pulling many more strings than most people think camp. The idea that he and Jimmy Carter 'started' the muhajideen (which may just be Counterpunch putting that eye-catching language in the link to get clicks) is pretty silly. The US did not buy weapons to send to the muhajideen until after the Soviets invaded. Even at the height of the war the CIA almost always used Pakistani intelligence as a middleman to send weapons and money to muhajideen. There was basically no prep work done by the CIA or anyone else American to have this network of fighters ready to go from day one when the Soviets invaded (according to American plan, if you believe this). If anyone started the muhajideen other than themselves, it was Pakistani intelligence. Since independence one of Pakistan's main foreign policy goals has always been to have Afghanistan either in alliance with Pakistan or controlled by Pakistan or neutralized by Pakistan, to make sure nothing crazy could happen with Afghanistan somehow ending up on the other side in the always expected next war with India. Now that that war is a little less expected they want to control as many of the armed groups as they can and keep Afghanistan on the edge but never quite going over. That keeps Afghanistan from ever presenting a possible strategic threat to Pakistan's rear and it helps occupy the attention of the armed groups along the border (most of them fighting under the umbrella of the Pakistani Taliban) that also really don't like the Pakistani government. Anything that happens in Afghanistan that Pakistan can take advantage of to make Afghan groups friendly towards and dependent on Pakistan, Pakistan is going to take advantage of. The US took advantage of the muhajideen, create them? No. Which is why the Afghan Taliban is headquartered in Pakistan now and why there are significant Afghanistan/Pakistani Taliban presences in a lot of Pakistani cities nowhere near the border. And why groups like the Haqqanis on the border were basically left alone by Pakistan for around ten years because they were fighting Americans in Afghanistan and not attacking Pakistan. Until they started attacking Pakistan too. The Haqqanis are kind of a bad example because they've always kept their main focus on Afghanistan but they are fully allied with other Pakistani Taliban groups that do spend their effort on fighting Pakistan instead of in Afghanistan. Pakistan tried playing a game on the border the way it has before and it lost this time. Pakistan has way more responsibility for the existence of a large network of armed and violent jihadi revolutionaries on its territory than you want to admit. It wasn't US meddling that kept the ISI riddled with more and more Islamists who turned a blind eye or actively helped groups that now fight against Pakistan the entire time from the 80s to the present and the rot definitely hasn't all been cleaned up.
That is not an islamization policy. If that is the case then the US has been following islamization policies when it suits them for decades before that. Yes Pakistan is just as much to blame. I didnt deny that but turning a blind eye, offering clandestine support and tacit approval by intelligence agencies is not an Islamization policy.
Otherwise the US is just as much to blame for these things as are the Saudi's and Qatar, India is involved aswell, there are people doing bad things everywhere and all of them are involved in Islamizaton Policies and the US has been pretty good at it. IS has more US weapons and millitary logistics than the Taliban does thats for sure.
But saying that these countries do all these terrible things do all this and the US and friends arent heavily to blame is a lie,
On another note, Its also a juvenile argument to say "they started it". It doesnt matter, just for gods sake stop meddling and killing people in the name of freedom.
That its normal, acceptable and not newsworthy for dozens people to die everyday because somehow we did this to ourselves is a terrible callous, cynical and racist line of thought. I hope you realise this.
The rot wont be cleaned up for decades. But atleast we have our northern areas back, the last time I was able to visit was 15 years ago just before 9/11, they are well and truly thrashed out of our borders. Most of it is cross border now. they have local cells but they dont control territory like they used to.
I am not absolving any of our failings. Quit with the double standard its sickening. Meddling is just as much to blame, or do you find that everytime there is some form of meddling and shit hits the fan is just coincidence and these things were going to happen anyway?
Please dont quote single lines in isolation and then address them and pretend everything else I mentioned doesnt exist. Its in poor taste.
Oh and news flash, none of them are headquarterd there now, sure they tried to deal with them and be diplomatic, diplomacy as Obama likes to peddle is the preferred option, but that didnt work out, it took longer than it should have for the people in charge to accept that and thats that.
|
On November 17 2015 05:32 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:12 frazzle wrote:On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. This is all taking a very simplistic view on a complex subject. First of all, the Taliban aren't really the Mujahadeen. The Taliban were a reaction to the Mujahadeen and years of instability in Afghanistan, albeit comprised in part by former members of the Mujahadeen. As for Zbiginew Brzezinski, he has since dialed back the certainty of those claims. Some in the Carter administration could foresee a Soviet intervention and hoped the Soviets would get their own Vietnam, but many others saw the non-lethal aide provided as simply a means to support legitimate opposition, and they actually hoped to avoid a Soviet intervention.
Clearly with hindsight there are things the US could have done differently to achieve their goals and minimize the rise of islamist fundamentalism, and some things never needed hindsight, like choosing not to invade Iraq. But many people seem to assume the US is always some kind of puppetmaster when it is not. Pakistan had already been supporting opposition elements in Afghanistan when the US got involved. Pakistan had been pursuing a policy of islamisation in its own country for awhile already. The US had limited leverage over Pakistan, and made what in retrospect seems a mistake in assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Woaoo hold on. The fuck are you talking about ? Pakistan didnt have the resources to do the things it did to help the Mujahideen on its own. Sure they did alot, they totally trained and supported the Mujahideen but that was primarily because the US pretty much baited a millitary general into causing a coup against Bhutto who was the most popularly elected democratic leader Pakistan has ever had and told the US to fuck off with meddling in the subcontinent. He had his own failings and problems but atleast he was a democratic leader. This is what Bhutto used to do to Western powers And this is the kind of society we had. Super liberal and super chill. And a few years later Afghanistan happened, the fucking cancer Zia ul Huq pretty much took over the country, funded by recycled petro dollars and direct US aid, he paid off all high ranking generals and bureaucrats with said money and then your islamization took over for the next decade and is generally accepted as the darkest period in our country. Pakistan is in no way pursuing an Islamization policy, there was no Islamization whatsoever in the 90s post Zia at all, and then 9/11 happened and the same dictator shit and peddling US dollars to prop up dictators. Neither Zia nor Musharraf would have have survived more than a couple of years if they hadnt gotten the copious amounts of foreign funding that they did. And it got us stuck with a couple million refugees (Pakistan is a bit larger than texas), mujahideen that had been left with nothing to do and a radiclized society in certain areas where the salafist teachings had been festering. Doesnt help that its easier for the common guy to agree with the salafist cunts as opposed to american cunts when drones and shit are killing innocents all the time. At the end of the day we cleaned up most of the shit ourselves when the army realised they had to take down its own monster baby, and its still not even close to finished. Granted we are party to this in terms of the fact that we could do nothing to stop Millitary dictators from taking over and then playing America's bitch. Nor have we been able to effectively curtail Islamization in madrassahs but at the end of the day the political mismanagement has meant that heavily funded salafist/wahabist propaganda and teaching is rampant and difficult to control because we are so fucked no one even knows where to start. Im not saying we arent responsible for some of the clusterfuck, our army tried to control the Taliban and used the Mujahideen to fuck with India in Kashmir + Show Spoiler +(mostly because they are assholes, but also because these fighters needed to do something) our intelligence played both sides after 9/11 ( + Show Spoiler +mostly because of the distrust after the post Soviet "aight guys goodjob, take care we gonna bounce") but "pursuing an islamization policy" is not one of them. I would suggest you not offhandedly say things that are flat out wrong and may give people the wrong idea. Im sorry but even if the US hasnt been puppet master they have been pretty good at arm twisting and preying on vulnerabilities. Its fair to say that these countrieshave themselves to blame (mainly Iran during Mussadaq and Pakistan), but Iraq, and Afghanistan is all on the US and friends and there really isnt any other way about it, nor does it absolve their involvement in meddling with Pakistan and Iran. Heck Iran had the most adverse possible reaction and you got stuck with the Ayatollahs. I usually dont like pointing this stuff out because it sounds like anti american hysteria and the US has been great to me (up until they told me to leave after 10 years anyway, yay Canada) but its really annoying to see people just offhandedly peddle bullshit because of some second hand knowledge and talk so carelessly about things they have no idea about.
What the US did in Iran to Mossadegh was a US driven coup.That is well documented. What happened in Pakistan to Bhutto in '77 was far from a US led coup. This is the puppet-master BS that I am alluding to. Did the US ultimately support Zia and maybe encourage him? Sure. But it was more or less an internally driven coup.
Later Reagan certainly did consider Zia an ally and turned a blind eye to Zia's islamization policies. And yes US dollars, funneled through the ISI, were the dominant lifeline for the mujahadeen. But Pakistan had its own motives and complex internal politics and those drove the matter at hand just as much, if not more, than the US's fuzzy desires.
I don't get why you have such a negative reaction to my comment. Of course the US is involved in, and sometimes is directing, stuff like this that happens. The US was one of two, and is now really the only superpower. But there usually isn't some well orchestrated sinister plan at work. Elements in these countries often court the US to get involved. Sometimes Great Power power positioning drives choices, the need to check your opponent, and sometimes those are valid concerns, very often times (especially with hindsight) they are not. But it is from a fog of war that policy makers make their choices. And in the US you have succeeding administrations changing their focus. You have some policy makers genuinely trying to do the right thing, others swayed by personal ambition or vendetta. My point is that all this stuff is way more f'ing complicated than drawing a simple line from "US did x in 1953 -> Paris shootings".
|
On November 17 2015 07:52 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 05:32 Rebs wrote:On November 17 2015 05:12 frazzle wrote:On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. This is all taking a very simplistic view on a complex subject. First of all, the Taliban aren't really the Mujahadeen. The Taliban were a reaction to the Mujahadeen and years of instability in Afghanistan, albeit comprised in part by former members of the Mujahadeen. As for Zbiginew Brzezinski, he has since dialed back the certainty of those claims. Some in the Carter administration could foresee a Soviet intervention and hoped the Soviets would get their own Vietnam, but many others saw the non-lethal aide provided as simply a means to support legitimate opposition, and they actually hoped to avoid a Soviet intervention.
Clearly with hindsight there are things the US could have done differently to achieve their goals and minimize the rise of islamist fundamentalism, and some things never needed hindsight, like choosing not to invade Iraq. But many people seem to assume the US is always some kind of puppetmaster when it is not. Pakistan had already been supporting opposition elements in Afghanistan when the US got involved. Pakistan had been pursuing a policy of islamisation in its own country for awhile already. The US had limited leverage over Pakistan, and made what in retrospect seems a mistake in assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Woaoo hold on. The fuck are you talking about ? Pakistan didnt have the resources to do the things it did to help the Mujahideen on its own. Sure they did alot, they totally trained and supported the Mujahideen but that was primarily because the US pretty much baited a millitary general into causing a coup against Bhutto who was the most popularly elected democratic leader Pakistan has ever had and told the US to fuck off with meddling in the subcontinent. He had his own failings and problems but atleast he was a democratic leader. This is what Bhutto used to do to Western powers And this is the kind of society we had. Super liberal and super chill. And a few years later Afghanistan happened, the fucking cancer Zia ul Huq pretty much took over the country, funded by recycled petro dollars and direct US aid, he paid off all high ranking generals and bureaucrats with said money and then your islamization took over for the next decade and is generally accepted as the darkest period in our country. Pakistan is in no way pursuing an Islamization policy, there was no Islamization whatsoever in the 90s post Zia at all, and then 9/11 happened and the same dictator shit and peddling US dollars to prop up dictators. Neither Zia nor Musharraf would have have survived more than a couple of years if they hadnt gotten the copious amounts of foreign funding that they did. And it got us stuck with a couple million refugees (Pakistan is a bit larger than texas), mujahideen that had been left with nothing to do and a radiclized society in certain areas where the salafist teachings had been festering. Doesnt help that its easier for the common guy to agree with the salafist cunts as opposed to american cunts when drones and shit are killing innocents all the time. At the end of the day we cleaned up most of the shit ourselves when the army realised they had to take down its own monster baby, and its still not even close to finished. Granted we are party to this in terms of the fact that we could do nothing to stop Millitary dictators from taking over and then playing America's bitch. Nor have we been able to effectively curtail Islamization in madrassahs but at the end of the day the political mismanagement has meant that heavily funded salafist/wahabist propaganda and teaching is rampant and difficult to control because we are so fucked no one even knows where to start. Im not saying we arent responsible for some of the clusterfuck, our army tried to control the Taliban and used the Mujahideen to fuck with India in Kashmir + Show Spoiler +(mostly because they are assholes, but also because these fighters needed to do something) our intelligence played both sides after 9/11 ( + Show Spoiler +mostly because of the distrust after the post Soviet "aight guys goodjob, take care we gonna bounce") but "pursuing an islamization policy" is not one of them. I would suggest you not offhandedly say things that are flat out wrong and may give people the wrong idea. Im sorry but even if the US hasnt been puppet master they have been pretty good at arm twisting and preying on vulnerabilities. Its fair to say that these countrieshave themselves to blame (mainly Iran during Mussadaq and Pakistan), but Iraq, and Afghanistan is all on the US and friends and there really isnt any other way about it, nor does it absolve their involvement in meddling with Pakistan and Iran. Heck Iran had the most adverse possible reaction and you got stuck with the Ayatollahs. I usually dont like pointing this stuff out because it sounds like anti american hysteria and the US has been great to me (up until they told me to leave after 10 years anyway, yay Canada) but its really annoying to see people just offhandedly peddle bullshit because of some second hand knowledge and talk so carelessly about things they have no idea about. What the US did in Iran to Mossadegh was a US driven coup.That is well documented. What happened in Pakistan to Bhutto in '77 was far from a US led coup. This is the puppet-master BS that I am alluding to. Did the US ultimately support Zia and maybe encourage him? Sure. But it was more or less an internally driven coup. Later Reagan certainly did consider Zia an ally and turned a blind eye to Zia's islamization policies. And yes US dollars, funneled through the ISI, were the dominant lifeline for the mujahadeen. But Pakistan had its own motives and complex internal politics and those drove the matter at hand just as much, if not more, than the US's fuzzy desires. I don't get why you have such a negative reaction to my comment. Of course the US is involved in, and sometimes is directing, stuff like this that happens. The US was one of two, and is now really the only superpower. But there usually isn't some well orchestrated sinister plan at work. Elements in these countries often court the US to get involved. Sometimes Great Power power positioning drives choices, the need to check your opponent, and sometimes those are valid concerns, very often times (especially with hindsight) they are not. But it is from a fog of war that policy makers make their choices. And in the US you have succeeding administrations changing their focus. You have some policy makers genuinely trying to do the right thing, others swayed by personal ambition or vendetta. My point is that all this stuff is way more f'ing complicated than drawing a simple line from "US did x in 1953 -> Paris shootings".
Sure, its way more complicated but pointing out that Pakistan was going to do the things it did "anyway" because Islamization isnt really a supporting argument to its "complicated". You dont get to say that because thats not how the history worked out. Its a hypothetical what if that you have no way of assessing correctly.
Not sure where I linked Musadeq to Paris, but oohkkay. Point is when you make points like that in isolation and mentioned a country then I have to give a slightly bigger picture because otherwise it just fits the narrative of some nice little circlejerk that the people of the region had it coming. Whether you mean it like that or not is irrelevant because thats how it comes off.
+ Show Spoiler [ rant] +I am well aware of the internal politics and the history of my country thanks. Hence my consistently pointing out that we have our own internal demons aswell. And I get it dictators are convenient allies, I accept that but helping to prop them up when it suits your agenda and then trying to get rid of them when it doesnt fucks other countries politics, their evolution as nations and their ideological progression. And then look what happened, the North Africans started using the guns and money the US gave them to start killing their people when they got tired of them and now the US had to let them go because of the bad PR it was going to cause. I mean interests and policy decision making aside is the lack of humanity not even a little bit infuriating ? Look you can try to say these countries are terrible all you want but the fact is that there is a huge element of self reflection involved before you can start calling other people out for "their policies"
It doesnt mean that you can then sit there and say, oh well oops fog of war. I didnt say there was any sinister plan either, but the problem is you cant say that failed foreign policy is just an oops moment and we didnt mean it or that we got some bad apples, it happens. Thats fucking stupid own it then. You dont fuck another mans wife and say "well not my fault she was totally begging for it and I was kinda horny"
These are nations that are getting ruined and your actively helping or tacitly allowing them to be destabilized to suit your agenda's that amount to little more than powerplays you dont really even need and have continued to burden yourself. It was really in everyones benefit to just let these countries sort out their Saddams and Gaddafi's themselves but no its become the worlds shithole, literally and ideologically.
TL:DR Puppet master or not, taking your big stick to the playground and helping the other bully's is just as bad as being the bully.
|
On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:
[quote]
EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate 
This argument is so useless. If you break the human condition down to it's basics you basically arrive at Descartes. Aside from the fact of your own existence you can't know anything. We might be brains in water tanks, or in the matrix etc. So basically everything is based on "belief" and nothing is provable, because we can't even trust our own perceptions.
Congratulations, by that definition everybody believes in basically anything. Now lets just call this "god" and humanity can come together and build churches to the gods of perception, or rights or values because clearly it makes sense to equate these things to the belief in a supernatural (the clue is in the title word) being, based on 2000 year old texts (or rather translations of fragments over several different languages) full of contradictions, fallacies and accounts that directly oppose the observable (laws of) nature.
|
On November 17 2015 08:01 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 07:52 frazzle wrote:On November 17 2015 05:32 Rebs wrote:On November 17 2015 05:12 frazzle wrote:On November 17 2015 04:04 Banaora wrote:On November 17 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. never directly trained talibans during the soviet invasion. it was a case of proxy turned rogue, like all the situations in the ME are. the long term consideration is still try to get out of the area for the u.s.
but given the population mobility this is not a choice that the EU can make.
it is also important to not ignore the independent and quite meaningful political and social movements of the 'victim states.' islamicism is not a direct and inevitable product of u.s. or western moves. it has active state and private enterprising individuals leading the movement.
this tendency to treat 'problematic' states and people as infants is just not going to work. there is some reflexive desire to not blame the 'oriental' but this in turn leads to simplification.
the core motivation or drive may be quasi-nationalistic etc and that plays into the logic of regional imbalances, but there is absolutely no credence to the notion that, if only we leave them alone, terrorist acts would not happen. at least not after the whole mvoement has alraedy been started. The U.S. led the Soviet Union into a trap in Afghanistan. They wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to weaken them significantly. The whole operation was a success from U.S. point of view. That's what Zbigniew Brzezinski said 1998 (Januar) in Nouvel Observateur in an interview. He was security advisor to Jimmy Carter and various other presidents. English translation of the interview in French: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/Read the interview! There is also some info on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#AfghanistanThe Taliban developed from the mujahideen. This is all taking a very simplistic view on a complex subject. First of all, the Taliban aren't really the Mujahadeen. The Taliban were a reaction to the Mujahadeen and years of instability in Afghanistan, albeit comprised in part by former members of the Mujahadeen. As for Zbiginew Brzezinski, he has since dialed back the certainty of those claims. Some in the Carter administration could foresee a Soviet intervention and hoped the Soviets would get their own Vietnam, but many others saw the non-lethal aide provided as simply a means to support legitimate opposition, and they actually hoped to avoid a Soviet intervention.
Clearly with hindsight there are things the US could have done differently to achieve their goals and minimize the rise of islamist fundamentalism, and some things never needed hindsight, like choosing not to invade Iraq. But many people seem to assume the US is always some kind of puppetmaster when it is not. Pakistan had already been supporting opposition elements in Afghanistan when the US got involved. Pakistan had been pursuing a policy of islamisation in its own country for awhile already. The US had limited leverage over Pakistan, and made what in retrospect seems a mistake in assuming that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Woaoo hold on. The fuck are you talking about ? Pakistan didnt have the resources to do the things it did to help the Mujahideen on its own. Sure they did alot, they totally trained and supported the Mujahideen but that was primarily because the US pretty much baited a millitary general into causing a coup against Bhutto who was the most popularly elected democratic leader Pakistan has ever had and told the US to fuck off with meddling in the subcontinent. He had his own failings and problems but atleast he was a democratic leader. This is what Bhutto used to do to Western powers And this is the kind of society we had. Super liberal and super chill. And a few years later Afghanistan happened, the fucking cancer Zia ul Huq pretty much took over the country, funded by recycled petro dollars and direct US aid, he paid off all high ranking generals and bureaucrats with said money and then your islamization took over for the next decade and is generally accepted as the darkest period in our country. Pakistan is in no way pursuing an Islamization policy, there was no Islamization whatsoever in the 90s post Zia at all, and then 9/11 happened and the same dictator shit and peddling US dollars to prop up dictators. Neither Zia nor Musharraf would have have survived more than a couple of years if they hadnt gotten the copious amounts of foreign funding that they did. And it got us stuck with a couple million refugees (Pakistan is a bit larger than texas), mujahideen that had been left with nothing to do and a radiclized society in certain areas where the salafist teachings had been festering. Doesnt help that its easier for the common guy to agree with the salafist cunts as opposed to american cunts when drones and shit are killing innocents all the time. At the end of the day we cleaned up most of the shit ourselves when the army realised they had to take down its own monster baby, and its still not even close to finished. Granted we are party to this in terms of the fact that we could do nothing to stop Millitary dictators from taking over and then playing America's bitch. Nor have we been able to effectively curtail Islamization in madrassahs but at the end of the day the political mismanagement has meant that heavily funded salafist/wahabist propaganda and teaching is rampant and difficult to control because we are so fucked no one even knows where to start. Im not saying we arent responsible for some of the clusterfuck, our army tried to control the Taliban and used the Mujahideen to fuck with India in Kashmir + Show Spoiler +(mostly because they are assholes, but also because these fighters needed to do something) our intelligence played both sides after 9/11 ( + Show Spoiler +mostly because of the distrust after the post Soviet "aight guys goodjob, take care we gonna bounce") but "pursuing an islamization policy" is not one of them. I would suggest you not offhandedly say things that are flat out wrong and may give people the wrong idea. Im sorry but even if the US hasnt been puppet master they have been pretty good at arm twisting and preying on vulnerabilities. Its fair to say that these countrieshave themselves to blame (mainly Iran during Mussadaq and Pakistan), but Iraq, and Afghanistan is all on the US and friends and there really isnt any other way about it, nor does it absolve their involvement in meddling with Pakistan and Iran. Heck Iran had the most adverse possible reaction and you got stuck with the Ayatollahs. I usually dont like pointing this stuff out because it sounds like anti american hysteria and the US has been great to me (up until they told me to leave after 10 years anyway, yay Canada) but its really annoying to see people just offhandedly peddle bullshit because of some second hand knowledge and talk so carelessly about things they have no idea about. What the US did in Iran to Mossadegh was a US driven coup.That is well documented. What happened in Pakistan to Bhutto in '77 was far from a US led coup. This is the puppet-master BS that I am alluding to. Did the US ultimately support Zia and maybe encourage him? Sure. But it was more or less an internally driven coup. Later Reagan certainly did consider Zia an ally and turned a blind eye to Zia's islamization policies. And yes US dollars, funneled through the ISI, were the dominant lifeline for the mujahadeen. But Pakistan had its own motives and complex internal politics and those drove the matter at hand just as much, if not more, than the US's fuzzy desires. I don't get why you have such a negative reaction to my comment. Of course the US is involved in, and sometimes is directing, stuff like this that happens. The US was one of two, and is now really the only superpower. But there usually isn't some well orchestrated sinister plan at work. Elements in these countries often court the US to get involved. Sometimes Great Power power positioning drives choices, the need to check your opponent, and sometimes those are valid concerns, very often times (especially with hindsight) they are not. But it is from a fog of war that policy makers make their choices. And in the US you have succeeding administrations changing their focus. You have some policy makers genuinely trying to do the right thing, others swayed by personal ambition or vendetta. My point is that all this stuff is way more f'ing complicated than drawing a simple line from "US did x in 1953 -> Paris shootings". Sure, its way more complicated but pointing out that Pakistan was going to do the things it did "anyway" because Islamization isnt really a supporting argument to its "complicated". You dont get to say that because thats not how the history worked out. Its a hypothetical what if that you have no way of assessing correctly. + Show Spoiler [ rant] +I am well aware of the internal politics and the history of my country thanks. Hence my consistently pointing out that we have our own internal demons aswell. And I get it dictators are convenient allies, I accept that but helping to prop them up when it suits your agenda and then trying to get rid of them when it doesnt fucks other countries politics, their evolution as nations and their ideological progression. And then look what happened, the North Africans started using the guns and money the US gave them to start killing their people when they got tired of them and now the US had to let them go because of the bad PR it was going to cause. I mean interests and policy decision making aside is the lack of humanity not even a little bit infuriating ? Look you can try to say these countries are terrible all you want but the fact is that there is a huge element of self reflection involved before you can start calling other people out for "their policies"
It doesnt mean that you can then sit there and say, oh well oops fog of war. I didnt say there was any sinister plan either, but the problem is you cant say that failed foreign policy is just an oops moment and we didnt mean it or that we got some bad apples, it happens. Thats fucking stupid own it then. You dont fuck another mans wife and say "well not my fault she was totally begging for it and I was kinda horny"
These are nations that are getting ruined and your actively helping or tacitly allowing them to be destabilized to suit your agenda's that amount to little more than powerplays you dont really even need and have continued to burden yourself. It was really in everyones benefit to just let these countries sort out their Saddams and Gaddafi's themselves but no its become the worlds shithole, literally and ideologically.
TL:DR Puppet master or not, taking your big stick to the playground and helping the other bully's is just as bad as being the bully.
Mk.
My original response was to Banaora in which he basically made what happened in Afghanistan sound like a well planned US move and that the US knew how it would turn out in advance. My point was there is way more to it than that, there were more players, and no one really fully understood what would happen. Looking at what has happened in Afghanistan and pointing fingers at the US isn't nearly as fair as the finger pointing would be in other situations. Pakistan, the USSR and Saudi Arabia all played as big if not bigger roles in what transpired there.
If you want to call out the US on Mossadeq and how it lead to the Ayatollahs, go ahead. I totally agree. Huge fuck up and the US should never gotten involved. Same with Vietnam, the US totally misread what was happening there, backed the wrong people and messed up millions of lives because of really bad policy and an inability to stop inertia. Also probably some racism mixed in there. Same goes for Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. And Iraq? Hell yeah. Huge fuck up. I was on the streets protesting that move.
A good chunk of the US's f-ups are really with no justification. People in the govt realize they CAN do something without properly determining if the SHOULD. But many thorny situations the US gets into are a consequence of being one of, or the only, superpower in the world. Some situations are damned if you do, damned if you don't for the US. And Afghanistan seems to lie in between these two to my eyes.
|
The wide ranging success of the 150 raids in France is so telling. It's essentially the nail in the coffin regarding the idea that these Muslim ghettos in France are mis-characterized. What an unbelievable amount of weapons found. Truly repulsive. I can't believe people try to paint these ghettos as misunderstood.
|
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism?
|
On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism?
Just about every American and EU-centric liberal attempts to paint them differently whenever they aren't faced with the reality of a recent attack.
Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood.
|
On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism?
Guns in ghettos. Who wouldve guessed.
|
On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood.
Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said.
|
On November 17 2015 11:28 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Guns in ghettos. Who wouldve guessed.
Shocking, I know? And raids specifically targeted to arrest people who helped with that attack. What a shocker that they found more guns in 150 raids across a number of cities. I would be more worried if they found no weapons.
|
Ahh yes, how dare those pesky liberals introduce some measure of skepticism in the face of broad condemnations of "populations" brought about by reactionary politics. I know, it's hard to believe that militants might dwell among peaceful, well-meaning muslims relegated to destitution all the same, but that doesn't make it any less true.
|
On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said.
Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush.
On November 17 2015 11:37 farvacola wrote:
Ahh yes, how dare those pesky liberals introduce some measure of skepticism in the face of broad condemnations of "populations" brought about by reactionary politics. I know, it's hard to believe that militants might dwell among peaceful, well-meaning muslims relegated to destitution all the same, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Yes, reactionary (even though people were saying these facts long before the attacks). The reality is that this form of Islamic terrorism is not caused by any of the things liberals claim it is, it is caused by a % of the Muslim population who are incapable of accepting that the Muslim world is not ascendant, and find this as their preferred method of making it ascendant.
|
On November 17 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said. Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush.
All of the above mentioned qualify to a varying degree, so whether you believe it or not, you really did learn something.
Also interesting take on the issue, I know little to nothing about the Algerian community in France, except that they have alot of them. It is Fisk though and dude doesnt fuck around.
Might be worth learning more about.
|
On November 17 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said. Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush.
And I learned that the leading Republican candidate for President thinks Joseph, from the Bible, built the Pyramids to store grain. And the theory of evolution was given to Darwin by the Devil himself. Who, may I ask, would get along better with ISIS at a party?
|
On November 17 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said. Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush.
First, that's irrelevant to your original statement that I was disputing, second you're obviously caricaturing the arguments that were made, and third, like Rebs said, you apparently did learn something.
|
On November 17 2015 12:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2015 11:42 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:33 kwizach wrote:On November 17 2015 11:26 cLutZ wrote:On November 17 2015 11:15 farvacola wrote:
If authorities having found multitudes of firearms in ghettos changes your understanding of ghettos, perhaps you need to reconsider your original position. And who are these people who are attempting to paint these places as anything other than poverty stricken, insular breeding grounds for radicalism? Hell, did you watch the Democratic debate? 3 candidates onstage doing exactly that 1 day later, saying these populations are merely misunderstood. Did you watch the Democratic debate? Because that's not at all what was said. Indeed, its where I learned terrorism is caused by global warming, poverty, and systemic racism. And George W. Bush. First, that's irrelevant to your original statement that I was disputing, second you're obviously caricaturing the arguments that were made, and third, like Rebs said, you apparently did learn something.
Actually, if you hold any of those views, it is your position that they are misunderstood. They are victims of forces outside their control, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
