Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islam - Jihad - GWOT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Subutai View Post
    I discussed something with a muslim friends a couple of days ago; how America would be able to conquer the muslim world, not by force but through cultural imperialism.

    The root of religious fanatism is poverty and shitty living conditions, general frustration fueled by smart people who know how to use it (read; Usama and gang). I'm no marxist - just keep on reading.

    If America get rid of those problems, by investing in muslim countries, introducing them to the iPod-lifestyle and so forth, people would loose interest in dying the martyr death for the Prophet. Why do that when you can live a nice and comfortable coca cola-life instead?

    It has worked before, after all. With Europe. You've all read European history - know what kind of place Europe was before capitalism arrived. Militaristic, fascist, fanatic - not much unlike the Muslim world of today.

    America's strenght is not her military, but her capitalist culture. It's built on human egoism, which is way stronger than any of thar stupid soldarity, family values or religious respect that the muslims are so obsessed with. Capitalism consumerism is strong - it can conquer any country, something I doubt tha even the American military can handle. You have to realize that and make good use of it. People won't listen to you if you occupy their countries, even if you have the best intentions in the world. But if you "give" them MTV, iPods, etc. they will listen.

    The question is if it's to late now, though...
    Subutai,

    Don't take the following too personal, what you've stated has been said by many here and on other threads before and is nothing new, rather predicable in a way, so consider my response here more generic than specific, though I may use some of your text for context/reference, it being atypical.

    You claim; "The root of religious fanatism is poverty and shitty living conditions ..." FIRST, by definitiuon, so long as everyone in a given nation/region is not receiving an income equal to all others within same, then by definition, those towards the top of the scale are defined as "Rich" and those towards the bottom of the scale are defined as "Poor"/Poverty.

    Secondly, if this were the case, why do we not see more suicide vest/underwear~"car-bombings"~ IEDs, etc. in places like Mexico City, Rio de Janario, Bogata, etc. where there are massive slums filled with hundreds of millions living in "poverty and shitty conditions"?!

    If you were the Father of a family of eight+ kids who suddenly came into say $10,000.00 would you spend it on food, clothing, and improved shelter(shanty) for your family, or on training and explosives to kill yourself while murdering other innocents?

    Chew on that while I present the following ...

    1) Look at the earlier post I did here showing maps of the portion of the world that claims to be largely Muslim. Note how many of such lands/Nations were former EUROPEAN Colonies/Mandates. Is it not possible that if the people living there are currently in "Poverty and shitty living conditions" such may have something to do with the use/abuse/pilliage and treatment by their former COLONIAL EUROPEAN MASTERS?!

    How is this U.S. of America's Problem?!

    Consider; is not the Moral Responsibilty for 'fixing' the "poverty and shitty living conditions" of these people not the obligation of their former EUROPEAN MASTERS?!

    Hey, European Union, you have an obligation beyond your borders to the rest of the world you used and abused, IMO, over the past five centuries, fess up to it and do the Right Thing!

    2) The U.S. of America is BROKE and then some. We are currently on the hook for over $120 Trillion borrowed monies. Each Trillion $ equals over $3,300 per citizen, over $10,000 per taxpayer. Crank the numbers. Starting NOW, were we to try to pay off this Debt Load, we'd be on a tight budget for the next half century plus!!!

    U.S.ofA. ain't got no money to bale out EUROPE's Burden! (Or the rest of the World ~ Live/Deal with it!)

    BTW, some of that Debt Load is carry over from the USA having to go "over there" to settle the hash of two World Wars largely started by EUROPEANS, not to mention assorted "brush fire Wars" in former European Colonies about the Globe. USA has given up a lot of Blood and Treasure already for the past century settling EUROPEAN Messes, when are you all going to pay us back?!

    3) Petro Dollar$$$ - for over sixty years the USA & West (plus Japan, China, etc.) have provided many Muslim nations that are members of OPEC and exporters of petroleum tens of trillions of dollar$$$ in royalties for their Oil exports. How has this money been spent?

    A) Palaces, Hareems (of western, young, 'blonde' women), and "lifestyles of the rich and famous" for the ruling elite.
    B) Funding of National Militaries/Armed Forces.
    C) Contributions to Islamic 'Charities' = Islamic Jihad Causes and Palistianian Support.
    D) (barely)Domestic infrastructure improvements, such as irrigation and agrarian land improvement, domestic industries, etc.

    In other words, the lion's share of funds shared by the West with local Islamic rulers has largely gone to everything other than local relief for those in "poverty and shitty conditions".

    4) Jihadists Martyrs = the recent 'bomber' on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, plus the Sept. 11, 2001 'bombers' are typical of many in the Jihadist movement. They came from the upper echelons of their local societies and rather than use the funds for improving the lot of the 'poverty-stricken' brethern, chose to apply such resources to their Jihadist case. As I pointed out in the first couple of pages of this thread, such motivations are "SELFISH" in nature as such are aspiring to acheive the highest rewards in Heaven(AllahLand) individually possible within their beliefs of Islamic Scripture.

    Economic plight of their fellow Muslims isn't a factor for consideration, only that such aren't within the strictures of Shiria Law is.

    5) In the Iraq under Saddam's rule, one was hard-pressed to find a satellite dish or cell phone amoungst the general populace. (As for why theUSA attacked, see my "... dozen reasons for Iraq ... " thread http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=54392 ) Within a year after the fall of his regime, sat. dishes were profuse, as were refridgerators, air conditioners, TVs and DVDs, not to mention cell phones - such was the effect of being unrestrained in access to the World Marketplace.

    Whereas during the first year of occupation, most IEDs could be traced by the det. cord leading to a hand operated plunger to activate, within about a year after the invasion, most IEDs were being triggered by remote use of cell phones. So much for Western materialism changing motivations of Jihadists! All that changed was method. Fortunately, about 90+% of Iraqis weren't willing to die for Islam, rather willing to live under enhanced lifestyle offerred by Western tech.

    In Iran, where over half of the population is under thirty and desires a more "Western" lifestyle of ipod, internet, MTV, etc. the ruling clique' is an older generation that believes in Islamic Fundementalism and anti-Western attitudes, which controls the 'State Police', etc. Where the people aren't free to choose, their choices matter little in the local political schemes.

    6) If one returns to the first couple of pages of this thread and reads the material and links I presented, they will see that the Jihadists could care less for Materialist/Humanist/Secular/Progressive values or goods/lifestyle. Their focus is upon what they see as higher idealogical/theological rewards in terms of "salvation of their souls" and "rewards in heaven(Allahland)". Hence a willingness to be martyrs to Jihad/Islam/Allah despite alledged terrestrial goals and agendas.

    Those such as Subutai and others, with little real world experience with 'true believers' of any religious stripe, seem to have little grasp of those who have motivations beyond the mere material/physical, and hence are clueless in how to effectively counter such motivated by 'spiritual' rewards via their endeavors.

    Finally; given that this is a nearly fourteen hundred year old conflict, we are hardly near the point where a multi-plex of tactics and strategies is "too late".
    Last edited by G David Bock; 05 Jan 10, 01:33.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • I'm glad to hear that this has been brought up before. In any case...

      I'm not saying that poverty and bad living conditions are the only things that gets terrorism rolling. In the MENA-case, the poverty of the people is combined with Islamic fundamentalism. Violence is still present (and common) in other poor parts of the world, but in a different guise. Mexico and Brazil (and ghettos in America and Europe) have their gangs, etc. Violence is a way of escaping a shitty reality.
      Islamic fundamentalism (in its modern form) pretty much traces back to the early post-colonial era, when Arabs tried to reinvent "old ideals" in order to establish a national identity. They wouldn't have gone far if the people would have been anything but desperate and poor. So, poverty is a way of explaining why it has been able to grow into such a significant movement. Poverty (etc.) is the reason to why common people are drawn to these fanatics and their ideas. It's the reason to why the "believers" are anything but a small and isolated group.

      Rather predictable, I agree.

      I'm sure that if the people in the slums of Mexico City had a strong ideology and great leaders with the ability to spread the word in the same way the Muslims do, we would hear alot more about suicide bombings in and around Central de Abastos.


      1) Of course. Europe is pretty much the reason for the poverty in many parts of the world (Africa being the best example). That, if anything, is predictable.

      How it is the problem for the US? You personify all the ideals they have been tricked into hating by their leaders, and they fight you for that reason. Because they are your enemies as well.

      2) I'm sorry if you read my post as a request to the US. It was meant as a way to ventilate my view on how the current problems could be taken care of. And I'm sure that bribing them with a comfortable Western lifestyle would be no more expensive than the wars that are being fought right now.

      3) A shame. But it's a good start, at least. Gets some money into the system. Europe used to look just like that. But even the most selfish king/dictator/emperor realize(d) that an open market is what will be most beneficial for both themselves and the country as a whole. And when capitalism is introduced, people can start living "meaningful" lives that are built on something else than "sacrifice for Allah".

      4) No, terrorism isn't limited to the poverty-stricken masses. Aside of those that are just desperate and seeking a meaning in life (presented to them by the ideology), there are the "true believers". But when the people is living under bad conditions, they are easier to manipulate - meaning that the "true believers" will gain supporters and won't be isolated as a group of stupid loonies.
      Remember "The Japanese Red Army"? That's what happened to them - they couldn't find supporters (except for loonies) among the rich Japanese, so they eventually disappeared without getting an opportunity to play any kind of important role in history.
      This could happen to Osama and his gang as well. If the Muslims started living better lives, I'm sure they would loose interest in his/their rhetoric.

      5) Yes, Iraq was introduced to Western materialism, yet the violence not only continued but escalated. Do you remember that the Iraqis, aside of getting flashy cellphones, were also being occupied by a foreign army? People don't like that, no matter how many TVs the foreigners bring with them...

      Should have mentioned "foreign occupation" among "poverty and shitty living condition" as things that could motivate a person into following radical ideas and fundamentalism. Guess I sorted it under "shitty living conditions".

      6) I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a "true believer". People like that exist, in other forms, in non-Muslim cultures as well, and I doubt that any of these few hardcore-fanatics can ever be "cured". But the reason that "common" people are drawn to these radical ideas is that their normal life is ****. When you give these people a choice that sounds better than "dying for Allah", you can isolate the fanatics.

      Comment


      • Subutai,

        I respect your opinion, and wished it would work, but I disagree that poverty is a prime mover in Islamic terrorism. At our base is a desagreement on Human Nature: you say humans want material goods and strongly imply they are decent enough to work for them rather than steal them. I say Humans are viocus cowardly heyenas who's fundemental desire is to enslave their neighbors. Where Islamic cultures are different than others, even non-Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa, is that Islam is blatantly chauvanistic, and it's tradition of being able to take over the best bits of the Civilized world and take credit for the economic vitality of the dhimmis therein, does not help matters. Muslims, by their religion, feel they are ENTITLED to wealth and power, and enraged that Christians and atheists, and now even Hindus, live better than they do.

        THen there is the issue of Jihad, which legitimizes this cultrual penis envy in the form of, if we can't beat them, we will enslave them...somehow. THis usually involves uniting the Islamic world under a depotic Caliphate, then using it's resources (hah!) to make rightous war on the West and the United States in partiuclar. Some are more apocalyptic than others. Eeirly enough, their Madhi prophesies sound a lot like Revelation, told form the other side and with the other side winning.

        I would be wary of trying to buy off Muslims, you are salving the wound without treating it. And even in Malmo, where the Swedish social system allows your Muslims to live better than they ever could where they came from and the little SOBs still throw Molotov Cocktails at cops, and rape Swedish women because 'they dress like ******.' No amount of tolerance training will deal with that. Humans by nature only repsect threat of violence against them to obey laws, and this is doubly true when they cannot square their core beleifs (in this case, a depraved misogyny) with them. Islam is the problem, Islam does not secularize like other faiths. Islam must be deconstructed as a faith, and in practical tersm the only way to do that is to have Jesus come back or exterminating the Islamic population. Those who cannot be controlled must be destroyed. And they will bring it on their own heads.
        How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
        275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

        Comment


        • The world and culture you are describing sounds pretty much like the Old Europe. "Fundamental desire to enslave their neighbours", "chauvinistic" and "ENTITELD to wealth and power" - that was the Europe from Alexander to Hitler. And we were just as hardcore and sure about our ideals as the muslims are today. Militarism was rotted in our culture - everyone wanted to be Roman and badass. But it wasn't bombs and shells that turned us around; it was the consumerist American culture and democracy that "pussified" us and made us change our lives. This could happen again - I'm sure

          What you are suggesting is through violence (I presume) "destroy" Islam as a faith. In the end, violence will only escalate and increase the problem (proven by the increase of Islamic terrorism in recent years) - it will only serve to **** off the people and add alot of credibility to the terrorists' arguments about the "aggressive West".

          Sure. If you hit the worst countries hard enough, Carthage-style, the problem will stop and Islam will be destroyed. You have the nukes, after all. But unless Genghis Khan (or someone similar) is resurrected and elected as US president, that just won't happen. I can't see a man like Obama (or even Bush, or even Raegan, or even Mr. Badass Roosevelt) using nukes to eradicate Afghanistan or Iran from the face of the Earth. Imagine the headlines (oh, noes!).

          The best thing to do, unfortunately for all us warmongers (), is to play nice. Make the lives better for the average, common muslim so that he will loose interest in the al-Quaida rethoric. Isolate the fanatics. Pussify the ME just like you managed to pussify Europe (once the lands of Spartans and Vikings - now the lands of the Eurovision Song Contest).

          Oh, and I like your Malmö-argument. Only that it proves the same point that I mentioned earlier. The immigrants that live there live happy lives compared to what they'd get in their homelands - byt compared to that of the average Swede, the conditions are quite shitty. People compare themselves to those that live close to themselves, and if they believe that they are being treated unfair (which may very well be the case, I'm not that into the issue), they get pissed of and start to crash things.
          It's the same thing as with the violence in the ghettos of many American cities. And the ones living there are not muslims, right? So you can't blame the violence on their "Islamic culture", but would blame poverty and bad living conditions.

          Comment


          • Subutai,

            In the end, even if you are right (and I don't think you are), then the issue goes round and round. Europe was not pussified on AMerican consumerism, it was pussified by social welfare nets. And as a consequence Europe in the Cold War went from 40% of the world's GDP to 21%, the same as the US's but the US didn't go down. Money solves many problems if used correctly, but Europe does not have those funds, in fact the whole purpose of taking on immigrants in the first place was so they'd take jobs beneath the Europeans and help pay for the pension systems which are as bloated and unsound as any housing sector enterpirize in America circa two years ago. It is self defeating to placate this class hatred, for there will always be someone richer than you.

            More fundementally, there will always be the poor the rich and the in between. Class hatred is stupid, but only because in America the poor can become rich and the rich can become poor. In Europe, the free market is strangled by social welfare and while benefits might be good, it is nigh on impossible to make it out of the ghetto without the ability to enterpureur our secure gainful employment coming out of school. THAT is the pressing economic challenge Europe faces and they won't do it because the poor are the largest chunk of the voters.

            I'm not against social welfare per se, but economic freedom is the only thing that made the West superior to others. Liberty and democracy are means to the end of the maintenence of the free market. Europe will fall harder and longer than Ameica when brutal truths come down.

            But as to Islam, why should Muslims respect a people who must bring in foriegners because their women won't make enough babies to fill the ranks? Why should I? The whole function of civilization, from mud huts to skyscrapers is so that women could give birth in greater safety and comfort. I'm not laying the blame on the women alone, but bet the Muslim Imams do. And your argument is self-defeating because unless the Muslims can actively engage in getting rich (which they won't because of ass backwards beliefs and hatred), they can never be 'pussified.' I should point out that ghetto blacks, whom I have no love for, don't throw explosives at cops, and go looking for white women to rape. It's not just what our cops would do to them, it's because even the worst of them have an aversion to doing something so utterly likely to bring violence back home. At the worst, ghetto blacks hate White society, but your Muslims DESPISE you, presisly for being weak. And I think they have a point. But the weakness is a sham, and before our lifetimes end, there will be a great holocaust at least in Europe, but probably elsewhere too. We, the non-Muslims, will exterminate the Muslims in toto. And yes that opens a lot of scary doors. Better that than turning Europe into Lebanon. THe Muslims must go, and it will take the destruction of European society and the ragaining of balls in the desperate fight to come. You'll win, what comes after, who cares?
            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

            Comment


            • Well, I understand your point - and I agree. The safest way to get rid of the threat of Islamic terrorism would be to completely destroy Islam as a faith. Obviously.

              Still, let's be realistic, this will never happen. Us non-Muslims aren't "strong" in the same way as they are, we do not hate them enough to destroy them completely. Europe is not worth mentioning, and I do not think that the US, Israel or Russia have what it takes either. I just can't imagine anyone of these countries using nukes or similar genocidal strategies to wipe out Islam and its followers. It won't happen.

              So, if we can't/won't nuke 'em, we have to play nice. Machiavelli says that you should either completely crush your enemy or be nice to them. Sounds logical to me, at least. If you hit an enemy hard enough to **** him off and hate you, but not hard enough to destroy him - you're in for trouble.
              If you ask me, that's exactly what the US and Israel is doing right now (not Russia, they handed Chechnya quite nicely). Hitting the Muslims, but without destroying them. Making the people angry, desperate and full of hate. Excellent for fanatics and terrorist recruitment offices.

              So, there are two options. Hit them hard as hell (so unbelievably hard that they'll forget everything that the mongols did to them in the 13th century) or act nice (so that the speeches of Osama won't sound as relevant and attractive to the average Muslim). First option sounds like more fun, but I can't see it happening in the (current) real world.

              And social welfare... Why not work actively for social welfare in Muslim countries, combined with promoting the consumerist Western lifestyle? Middle Eastern song contest next?

              Comment


              • Always amazes and amuses me that for many, when thinking of how to combat Jihad/Islamic Fundementalism, the military options seem to boil down to either;

                1) Invade with masses of brigades/divisions in classical conventional warfare, send in the ground pounders

                2) "nuke 'em till they glow"!

                There are a few, out of the box options. My earlier post on previous page; "Rods From Gawds" was meant as a lead-in to this;

                The population of Iran is over half of those under the age of thirty and with enough exposure to Western lifestyles and "consumerism" that many of the young wish for a more secular and less Shiria (Muslim only) oriented culture/lifestyle. Hence the protests we've seen recently and a few months ago over the "re-election" of Prez. 'I-wanna-Jihad' and his supporters. This is the "potential" boiling just under the surface that POTUS Obamy either fails to see or won't acknowledge (because to do so would raise the questions regarding his own ascension to power here in USofA).

                Iran is Theocracy, such that the Mullahs hold the real power and the political offices are just drapery to appear "western" in a way. This means that election results and the persons occuppying positions of "political leadership" are those who meet endorsement and approval of the ruling Mullahs. These chosen political leaders control the nations military and secret police forces, the courts, etc.; hence have the power and means to suppress any popular uprising. We are seeing this in recent headlines dealing with the repressions of protests occurring in Iran.

                So long as the "Revoluntionary Guards" (of the late 1970's ~ disposal of the Shah 'fame') are running the country/Guvmint and have control of the State Enforcement Apparatus, a popular uprising and change of Guvmint looks doubtful. One possible solution would be to "cut off the head" of the ruling Govmint Elite, leaving guvmint agencies leaderless and in potential chaos.

                Sabbath in Islam is on Friday and at noon any devout Muslim will be in Mosque. The Political Leadership of Iran, owing their positions to the whim of the ruling Mullahs, will show loyalty and continue to curry favor by being in attendance at the Mosques where "The Mullahs" preside/preach. Herein lies opportunity to strike.

                The "rods from God" weapons technology is based upon kienetic energy, mass time velocity equals destructive power. To assure plausible deniability, if the "rods" appear as much like iron-nickel meteorites as possible, "one" could say it was all an "act of Gawd".

                Hence, the devices, about one to two feet in diameter, six to telve feet long, wil be basically made from 'scrap yard' iron and nickel, have attached minimum combustible composite components (with no "part-marks tracable) for steerage and guidance, plus solid-fuel booster rockets for terminal velocity increase, such that when the come screeming in to impact at high velocity they burst into scores to hundreds of fragments.

                Size will allow from three to six devices per each of two bomb-bays on a B-2 Stealth bomber and with from 100-200 mosques as targets, the mission would require about a dozen or more B-2's, plus the aircraft providing laser-designation of target mosques that the Devices will home in on. With proper timing/co-ordination, the stike could be completed within a half-hours time, well before the enemy would be able to realize and gauge what is happening. With no materials of the Devices tracable to any Earthly source, the Event could be presented as an "Act of Gawd/Allah".

                With Iranian Leadership mostly eliminated within an hours timeframe, the popular insurrection may stand a chance of success given the vaccuum of Guvmint leadership and response. Selective availablilty of SOFs and weapons to the "people's insurrection" post-Strike may help to up the odds of success.

                Should the B-2 strike force compute as too risky, an alternative would to be MIRV the Devices to Posidian missles and use a special tasked Trident sub to launch from the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf.

                On consequnece would be that Iran would likely no longer be in a position to continue to stir the pot in Iraq by its infusion of cadres and weapons there. Also, the issue of nuclear weapons may be thwarted once a new political power base, one not seeking Jihad or Final Judgement Day Scenario, is running the country.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Nice plan. Getting rid of the leading elite and leave room for the educated youth.

                  Problem would be that dropping an American bomb inside Iran, no matter who is killed, would "justify" the regmie's policy towards the West. Their angry rethoric would make alot more sense to the normal Iranian. They would hate you if you did it. People tend to dislike when you drop bombs on their territory, no matter what your intentions might be. The "popular insurrection" wouldn't stand a chance at all - they would turn all their attention to the ones that bombed their beloved mosques.

                  But I agree with what you said about having to get rid of the religious leadership before you could really "Westernize" the country. It's just that the US (Or Israel, or any other foreigner) is not the one that should do it. Ironically, it would serve those that you killed, and their ideals, just perfectly.

                  Sponsoring some kind of Iranian anti-government organization that would be able to carry out "terrorist" attacks or assassinations. Anything to make it look like the people themselves turned on the government rather than an act of "American imperialists".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Subutai View Post
                    I discussed something with a muslim friends a couple of days ago; how America would be able to conquer the muslim world, not by force but through cultural imperialism.

                    The root of religious fanatism is poverty and shitty living conditions, general frustration fueled by smart people who know how to use it (read; Usama and gang). I'm no marxist - just keep on reading.

                    If America get rid of those problems, by investing in muslim countries, introducing them to the iPod-lifestyle and so forth, people would loose interest in dying the martyr death for the Prophet. Why do that when you can live a nice and comfortable coca cola-life instead?

                    It has worked before, after all. With Europe. You've all read European history - know what kind of place Europe was before capitalism arrived. Militaristic, fascist, fanatic - not much unlike the Muslim world of today.

                    America's strenght is not her military, but her capitalist culture. It's built on human egoism, which is way stronger than any of thar stupid soldarity, family values or religious respect that the muslims are so obsessed with. Capitalism consumerism is strong - it can conquer any country, something I doubt tha even the American military can handle. You have to realize that and make good use of it. People won't listen to you if you occupy their countries, even if you have the best intentions in the world. But if you "give" them MTV, iPods, etc. they will listen.

                    The question is if it's to late now, though...
                    I have discussed this issue my self in the past. In that the key to this economics not war. Im sure Milton Friedman would approve. This is an organic process , not one that can be meticulously engineered. The genuine nutter like Bin Laden are of the rich social strata. But their minions are usually the dirt poor who fall for their BS about their lot being down to the evil satan. If your doing well, one is less inclined to listen to these fools.

                    Comment


                    • I have an issue with some of the comments I read here.

                      I think you guys, especially the American colleagues, have to realize that this so called "war on terrorism" has been going on for over 1400 years now, albeit under various names. The Americans with their 9/11 are relative newcomers to this game.

                      I don't believe economic backwardness and poverty are the primary catalysts of Islamic supremacism and Islamic extremism. This is because (you guys forget it) the world is a huge place inhabited by billions of people living in terrible poverty yet not provoking other groups the way Muslims provoke other groups. You have cultures in Sub-Saharan Africa, the cold climates, Asia, Siberia, the Himalayas, the Amazon forest, the Andes, you name it, where the natives live like prehistoric Neanderthals yet they don't f...uck with you despite their poverty. They literally walk around dressed in animal skins and banana leaves. If anything, they want to be left alone. They are so poor the Palestinians, Saudis, Yemenis and other peoples with a reputation for radicalism, look like a "middle class" in comparison.

                      There is this persistent Islamic trait to provoke, provoke, provoke, even at the cost of a violent backlash. Also, what I'm seeing is a lot of testing behavior, those guys are trying to provoke to see how much they can get away with before the public rallies against them. It's premeditated, it's not poverty.

                      So if you guys are going to come up with excuses for the Islamic conduct, you have to try harder than "poverty made them do it". That's acceptable for Barack Obama's campaign speeches but not good enough for our debates. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

                      Immediately after 9/11 there was a public opinion poll in Turkey where 40% of the respondents spoke in favor of further terrorist attacks on America as long as there is a good excuse ("America made us do it"). How do you connect this with the "Islamic poverty" hypothesis? Is Turkey an impoverished country compared to the rest of Europe?
                      Last edited by MonsterZero; 16 Jan 10, 18:57.

                      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                      Comment


                      • I would never argue that poverty is the reason for all this. No way. Im saying people like Bin Laden use people who are poor or have grievences and tell them and indoctrinate them that its the west and particularly Americas fault. Its a symptom of the disease not its cause. I hate to invoke Godwins law but again the Nazis wouldnt have been able to recruit members without the economic conditions of the 30's. But no economics hasnt created the problem like you say but people like Bin laden have made use of it. Poor ecoomics creates political instability that helps ideologies like Bin Ladens.
                        You are right though this goes back past 9/11 and goes back to things like Iran in the 50's . Bin Ladens big issue isnt American freedom or christianity or whatever and certainly not Palestine . He flipped out when American and Western troops were allowed to base in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War. Even though the Bin Laden family were very powerful he was still kicked out of the kingdom for constantly going mad about it. Couple that with his radicalisation and success against the Russians in Afghanistan, he felt more emboldened to take on the Americans.
                        Last edited by copenhagen; 17 Jan 10, 07:39.

                        Comment


                        • Bin Lauden, Sunni, has little in common with Iran, Shia, other than generic interest in Jihad.

                          America happens to be past broke, so "economics" of lavishing wealth and goods to 'bribe' ain't happening. America don't trade much with Iran, so 'economics' of cut-off/sanction won't work either, especially when our 'friends' overseas remain reluctant to end their trade with Iran. Besides, 'economics' of sanctions usually hurts "the people" one wants to assist, as the thugs with the guns and power still get first dibs on food and goods, let the masses starve. See North Korea and Zimbabwe for current examples. Then, sometimes it backfires, such as with japan in 1930-40's where sanctions and trade cut-offs were seen as a threat to national security and instead of ratcheting down the warfare, Japan escallated.

                          The plan I proposed above had two key elements;

                          1) the USA would not forewarn nor admit to doing such.
                          2) every effort made to assure there is no physical evidenc to tie us to it

                          As I tried to point out, this avoids "bombing to the stoneage" or invading with those dozens of divisions we are holding in reserve.

                          Gives the people some chance against the Mullah's regime- been following what's happening to the opposition in that country lately?!

                          And if any want to believe we did it, then they have a gauge on how far we'll go to match them in ruthlessness.

                          A lot of chruches and cathedrals were destryed when cities of Europe were bombed out in WWII. For Iran, what's a few mosques in comparrision to cities left largely untouched?

                          But don't worry, as long as we have a Tory in the White House and as CinC, this likely won't happen. So you chamberlains and queslings can slumber peacefully, while Iranians who wish to live will be re-educated on the need to "submit".
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • The following presented with no comment or endorsement at this time, i just came across it. However, at first glance looks to be a worthwhile source to bookmark here;

                            http://www.currenttrends.org/

                            As in current trends in Islam.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • I wonder how the world would look today if back in 1990/91 Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait and then been green lighted to move on Saudi Arabia? I'd bet Bin Baz and the Ikhwan would've met their match in Saddam, by now they'd be nothing more than millions of bleaching bones in a mass grave full of islamist dreams.
                              Millions of Islamists are in Europe because Europeans let them migrate in. Saudi Arabia is today exporting Wahhabi hate because the US protected Saudi from invasion. 9/11 happened because the US saved the international Islamists from being consumed in Bosnia.
                              Today Britain is ground zero for Euro islamist terror because of weak laws and insane migration policy. Its not really why islamists are terror prone, they always always have been , its just that we in the west have made it very easy for them to survive in the modern world, prosper, and get inside the west to grow and attack.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eddie3rar View Post
                                Today Britain is ground zero for Euro islamist terror because of weak laws and insane migration policy. Its not really why islamists are terror prone, they always always have been , its just that we in the west have made it very easy for them to survive in the modern world, prosper, and get inside the west to grow and attack.
                                Yeah, the opinion in the rest of the western world seems to be that Europe is a bunch of Islam-loving ******* worth less than dirt.
                                If our cultural identity gets threatned bad enough that we once again do a little European-style purge along the lines of the Inquisition, American colonization and Holocaust, would you applaud or invade our asses? Seems to be what people want us to do. Shut down all the borders, dispose of anybody with a diferent god or skin color? As not to offend the purity of the US and Aussie civilization who were obviously placed by god in their respective places. God forbid any immigration there! No sir!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X