|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:And the position of Osama and others like him is that they just want to be left the hell alone and not have foreign values forced upon muslims. They see it as a massive assault against everything they believe in. Not because they hate freedom, but because of their vision that these "freedoms" are society-destroying barbarism.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Dude, no poo poo he's a moron psycho fucker and has lovely opinions and inconsistencies. I'm not defending any of their actions. And if the causes of their uneducated religious furor are anyway similar to Bin Ladin's, we're better off fighting them. Did anyone actually read Bin Ladin's justifications for attacking the US? His main issues with the US are: 1. Failure to allow Islamists to destroy the 50-year-old state of Israel. 2. Fighting against Islamist fighters trying to violently institute Sharia law, in places such as Somalia. 3. Middle Eastern governments allowance of infidel forces to build bases on their soil 4. The United States support of brutal Middle Eastern dictators, and the United State's embargo against a different brutal Middle Eastern dictator, Saddam Hussein. I've seen these two attacks against United States policy back-to-back plenty of other times, without any trace of irony. The US has done some nasty, unjustified things in this area of the world, but if the reasons Muslims are outraged were the same as Bin Ladin's, then the world would be in for a heap of trouble that's not going to go away no matter what the US does, with the possible exception of letting Israel be wiped off the map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Tezzeract posted:Whoa, what the gently caress? Are you defending Osama Bin Laden and saying that his viewpoints are completely justified? Because what I'm reading is some random numbers that you've pulled out of thin air you're holding the US 100% accountable for the flaws of Middle Eastern leadership. The U.S. regards its interests as paramount in foreign policy, and ideals come second. In Egypt the U.S. hardly embraced the fall of Mubarak, our old ally, and we also didn't seem to interested in helping the citizens of Bahrain, whose fledgling revolt was quickly and efficiently quashed with the help of our best buddies, the Saudis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Soap Bat Derby posted:I'm not talking about the targeting of strategic military sites, I'm talking about the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. OBL's stance on that is rather clear. In a country where the people choose their own leaders to represent them, have the power to change those leaders, pay taxes which are utilized by their elected officials to further their own desires, and a military that inflicts horrors is composed of volunteers from that country, there are no innocent civilians and everyone is fair game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:And the position of Osama and others like him is that they just want to be left the hell alone and not have foreign values forced upon muslims. I'm not the most knowledgeable on this subject, but isn't this not true? I'm pretty sure one of OSL's stated goals is the forced conversion of USA to Islam (forced as in if we don't do this we can expect more attacks). I'm honestly asking; I know very, very little about any of this and it's very fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:And the position of Osama and others like him is that they just want to be left the hell alone and not have foreign values forced upon muslims. They see it as a massive assault against everything they believe in. Not because they hate freedom, but because of their vision that these "freedoms" are society-destroying barbarism. Would you say that the majority of muslims feel the same way about western values? Should the minority who feel affronted by such freedom have the ultimate say about what the rest get to experience?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Tezzeract posted:Whoa, what the gently caress? Are you defending Osama Bin Laden and saying that his viewpoints are completely justified? Because what I'm reading is some random numbers that you've pulled out of thin air you're holding the US 100% accountable for the flaws of Middle Eastern leadership. how do you explain propping and supporting the GCC though? like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the others who were too happy killing their own people and crushing peaceful protesters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Regardless of the root causes behind people like OBL, once enough of them are created and band into a religious group dedicated to establishing a global caliphate it's hard for me to believe any amount of words are going to make them go away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
New Division posted:The U.S. regards its interests as paramount in foreign policy, and ideals come second. In Egypt the U.S. hardly embraced the fall of Mubarak, our old ally, and we also didn't seem to interested in helping the citizens of Bahrain, whose fledgling revolt was quickly and efficiently quashed with the help of our best buddies, the Saudis. The US is highly pragmatic in each situation, regardless of the people in power, but we do at least try to push the ideals and sometimes it works. Kuwait is not the best example, but we have had a positive influence there over the last decades. Since the end of the cold war, we have tended to go stability first, ideals second, but not so much "ideals: not at all"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
I never thought i'd see the day where someone unironically says the U.S. is in the Middle East in the name of democracy and women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:OBL's stance on that is rather clear. Yeah, pre 9/11, those horrors included "living in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
This thread turned to poo poo awfully quick. Save us, Brown Moses! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
I give up. This is all the fault of whoever dismantled the Ottoman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Soap Bat Derby posted:The US is highly pragmatic in each situation, regardless of the people in power, but we do at least try to push the ideals and sometimes it works. Kuwait is not the best example, but we have had a positive influence there over the last decades. Since the end of the cold war, we have tended to go stability first, ideals second, but not so much "ideals: not at all" Not really, we mainly focus on how the situation can benefit us, and try and dress it up as just trying to help. Because its easier for the public to swallow. We are not the first power to do this, we will not be the last. I am really surprised how many people seem to think the US cares about anyone but themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I give up. This is all the fault of whoever dismantled the Ottoman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I give up. This is all the fault of whoever dismantled the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was hardly a benevolent force and its break up was a good thing, but the West just had to take it upon itself to take over the job of "managing" its former territories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Not really, we mainly focus on how the situation can benefit us, and try and dress it up as just trying to help. Because its easier for the public to swallow. We are not the first power to do this, we will not be the last. I am really surprised how many people seem to think the US cares about anyone but themselves. The US has never cared about anyone but themselves. The question is what factors currently cause conflict between the US and Muslim countries, and not other parts of the world. Nations do not (usually) do things out of humanitarian kindness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Mans posted:I never thought i'd see the day where someone unironically says the U.S. is in the Middle East in the name of democracy and women's rights. Thanks for putting that back in perspective. I'm not going to contribute to that derail anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Goddamn who let all the LF out of the bag. Sorry about your thread, Brown Moses 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Not really, we mainly focus on how the situation can benefit us, and try and dress it up as just trying to help. Because its easier for the public to swallow. We are not the first power to do this, we will not be the last. I am really surprised how many people seem to think the US cares about anyone but themselves. At what level? Yes, at the policy/ decision making level. At the execution level, there tend to be more idealists. Not ironically, the differences between policy and ideals is why so many people become so disillusioned. But which level matters more? What some politicians in DC think, or the actions on the ground of people like Chris Stevens and Vilerat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:The US has never cared about anyone but themselves. The question is what factors currently cause conflict between the US and Muslim countries, and not other parts of the world. Nations do not (usually) do things out of humanitarian kindness. That was what the person I quoted seemed to be saying. Which is kind of surprising given the forum really. Soap Bat Derby posted:At what level? Yes, at the policy/ decision making level. At the execution level, there tend to be more idealists. Not ironically, the differences between policy and ideals is why so many people become so disillusioned. But which level matters more? What some politicians in DC think, or the actions on the ground of people like Chris Stevens and Vilerat? CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
international owl day posted:http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-power-of-nightmares/ This video is an excellent exposé on how exactly we've gotten ourselves into this situation. Someone referred it to me earlier in this thread, and it answered a number of my questions and helped me to release some of the anger and anxiety I have felt over the last few days; I believe it could help you as well. Seconded, this thread is full of raw rage not of the nerd variety. When a whole culture is culpable to the actions of a few, then we all are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:43
|
|
Soap Bat Derby posted:Uh huh. That was the most simplified explanation I've ever heard of the situation in Iran. Also complete bollocks, as it wasn't the Ayatollah's revolution, he just stepped into power after the moderates couldn't agree fast enough while the conservative religious groups were trying to disrupt the democratic process (sort of a repeat of what is going on in Egypt and Libya now), and then he was only able to hold on to power because of the invasion by Iraq, which consolidated the country behind him.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:And the position of Osama and others like him is that they just want to be left the hell alone and not have foreign values forced upon muslims. They see it as a massive assault against everything they believe in. Not because they hate freedom, but because of their vision that these "freedoms" are society-destroying barbarism. If the US and the rest of the western world turned away from the middle east forever, the conflict would still continue, except it'd just be targeted at other muslims. Even if the US and the west had never entered the middle east, the conflict between these forces would still have to take place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The first one really. Though I don't quite get what exactly you are saying. I'm saying that US policy is pragmatic and aims for stability, because that's what benefits the US economically. They may dress it up as being humanitarian where it isn't, to justify spending the money to the populace, when the desired goal is really direct economic benefit. But at the same time, the people they put on the ground to enact policy tend to be idealists recruited under the auspices of making a difference, and do therefore have a direct and positive influence over time. Also, I think the US is the first to have anything resembling the Peace Corps as an official arm of the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Goddamn who let all the LF out of the bag. Sorry about your thread, Brown Moses If you think this is bad, you should see what the real crazies of LF are saying over at their lovely parachute board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong. Osama bin laden and the phenomenon of modern islamic terrorism is a conflict rooted in the secularisation of the middle east, first and foremost. It's a conflict not of values being forced on them but of contemporary Jahiliyyah within muslim societies. This secular force is seen as having origin in the US, but it's very much a conflict over local power, between secular reformists and religious conservatives in arab countries. This is false, because Saudi Arabia is not a secular country, yet OBL still has grievances with them. I'd like to ask the question again, why do people look away from the GCC? why do they get a pass at oppressing their people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong. Osama bin laden and the phenomenon of modern islamic terrorism is a conflict rooted in the secularisation of the middle east, first and foremost. It's a conflict not of values being forced on them but of contemporary Jahiliyyah within muslim societies. This secular force is seen as having origin in the US, but it's very much a conflict over local power, between secular reformists and religious conservatives in arab countries. Anyone who thinks Islamic Radicalism was created by the interference of Western powers in Islamic countries just needs to read some writings from the 19th century to realize how very, very wrong they are. The clash between the West and Radical Islam is more of a clash between two growing powers than a simple cause-and-effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
A cuople of things about the drone/"collateral damage"-chat a couple of pages back: If you can blow up a Bad Dude while he's in his house, you'd think that it'd also be possible to blow him up while he's on a lonely stretch of road somewhere near his house. Also, hiding behind civilians is a pretty interesting euphemism for living with your family. It's not like a Bad Dude sees a drone coming for him and then rushes into his house to cower behind his wife and kids. It's more like he goes about his Bad Dude day and then at some point a missile comes through the living room window, apparently only killing less than 1/3rd of a person for every U.S Army certified Bad Dude. Great job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
brakeless posted:A cuople of things about the drone/"collateral damage"-chat a couple of pages back: That's all fine and good. But it's not as if the people we are fighting don't have a history of storing weapons in schools and other such places so when they are killed they can whip a mess about civilian killings. Their doing that deliberately and actually want civilians to get blown to poo poo. War's a nasty business which is why we should try to avoid them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Anyone who thinks Islamic Radicalism was created by the interference of Western powers in Islamic countries just needs to read some writings from the 19th century to realize how very, very wrong they are. The clash between the West and Radical Islam is more of a clash between two growing powers than a simple cause-and-effect. What 19th century writings do you think back up your assertion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Soap Bat Derby posted:I'm saying that US policy is pragmatic and aims for stability, because that's what benefits the US economically. They may dress it up as being humanitarian where it isn't, to justify spending the money to the populace, when the desired goal is really direct economic benefit. But at the same time, the people they put on the ground to enact policy tend to be idealists recruited under the auspices of making a difference, and do therefore have a direct and positive influence over time. I am not sure I can buy that argument. I mean yeah you could argue that the people are less apathetic in the destruction the US causes but it seems really hard to prove and does the benefit really outweigh the costs? I mean you could use this argument for any Empire, (The Brits, The soviets) I just don't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If the US and the rest of the western world turned away from the middle east forever, the conflict would still continue, except it'd just be targeted at other muslims. Even if the US and the west had never entered the middle east, the conflict between these forces would still have to take place. You don't even need a conditional here. Even with the western world directly involved in the middle east, most victims of Islamist violence are Muslims who committed the crime of not being loyal enough to a particular breed of regressive belief. They're reactionary fundamentalist militias first and foremost, with anti-imperialism ranging from afterthought to lip service, and are most easily compared to reactionary fundamentalist militias elsewhere, even though they'd be mutual enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
brakeless posted:A cuople of things about the drone/"collateral damage"-chat a couple of pages back: Exactly. Really, people need to stop talking about drones specifically, and start talking about why the United States shouldn't continue with this war. War inevitably causes civilian casualties. All wars are stained with innocent blood. In fact, I'd argue that the expectation that war can go on without civilian casualties lessens the dread that everyone should feel at the prospect of it. Sure, nations can avoid using tactics like indiscriminate bombing to lessen causalities, but making war between the US and the Taliban sound like something that can be carried out with minimal innocent lives lost just makes things easier for the war's advocates. Rather than discussing how people are "murdered with drones" (as if a slow-burn war wasn't going on) we should be discussing: 1. What the long-term prospects are of continued NATO presence in Afghanistan 2. Likelihood that the Taliban can be defeated 3. What would be the likely results if the US and allies were to pull out of the country right now, and if it would even be any worse than doing so after a few more years of NATO, Taliban, and civilian deaths
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Soap Bat Derby posted:I'm saying that US policy is pragmatic and aims for stability, because that's what benefits the US economically. They may dress it up as being humanitarian where it isn't, to justify spending the money to the populace, when the desired goal is really direct economic benefit. But at the same time, the people they put on the ground to enact policy tend to be idealists recruited under the auspices of making a difference, and do therefore have a direct and positive influence over time. What do you consider to be "stability?" The US has had a hand in, or more than just a hand, dozens of changes in governments, assassination plots, some successful some not, of leaders, kidnapping, torture, etc of groups opposed to the US', or the US corporation's, goals, including the example I mentioned earlier where Allende was replaced by Pinochet. I'm sure the people of Chile will tell you how their stability was increased dramatically by that regime change. Corporations don't really benefit from stability so much as authoritarian governments, that are willing to adopt neoliberalism, being in charge. I mean if you want that kind of stability then you're pretty much a terrible person and need to figure out how to not hold such an awful worldview. quote:Also, I think the US is the first to have anything resembling the Peace Corps as an official arm of the government. I don't think the good the Peace Corps does is even a fraction of a drop in the bucket compared to the harm other branches, like the CIA or the State department.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
So, were the other two guys who were murdered in Benghazi spies or something? It took longer to release their identities, plus they're only being referred to as "former Navy SEALs" rather than by FSO or some other title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
nvm
Sucrose fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:The Chileans I've talked to most recently thought that Allende was just as bad as Pinochet. Do you really think an anecdote like that refutes anything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
New Division posted:Do you really think an anecdote like that refutes anything? On second thought, no, I don't. Don't know why I typed it. CIA involvement in that coup is thought to be minimal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Sucrose posted:The Chileans I've talked to most recently thought that Allende was just as bad as Pinochet. How so? I'm not aware of the human rights violations committed by the Allende government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:24
|
|