Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Grandasaur Egg posted:

That is covered in the interview -- Hedges has this opinion, too. The fact that Hitchens is completely amoral and therefore at times funny doesn't discount that he did and said things that aren't beneficial to world stability.

The point is that both lack moral grounding and would easily give consent to terrible, racist reprisals as a result of their irrational beliefs. It's the ugly unification of wildly opposing belief systems via the mingling of racist attitudes, and today's reactions confirm that premise.

Yeah, it could be, except there really isn't any New Atheist thing, like there is in fundamentalism. Also, you're mistaking what atheism IS. It's simply a disbelief in god. That's it. There is, currently, a huge rift among atheists, centered around mysogony, racism and politics. But the thing is, it has poo poo to do with atheism. We start where we shed superstition (for those who ever had it) and work from there.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2012 14:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:09

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Baruch Obamawitz posted:

Oh man, Hillary just said that the picture leading drudgereport was a picture of Libyan civilians carrying the ambassador to the hospital, not taking of a trophy reminiscent of what happened in Iraq.

Like that's going to change the necrophageous lede and the idea that HERE BE DRAGONS.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2012 15:07

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

Trying to discuss this issue as one of pure speech and provocation, assuming that all the people involved are equally powerful and on a level playing field (a political theory version of a "white room fight" maybe) is pretty blinkered. The fact is that whatever proximate cause the violence had, the ultimate cause of this attack has to do with imperialism. Trying to have a discussion of the speech and reaction to it without taking into account the context of "our" frequent military misadventures and constant attempts to dominate the region has produced a goofy and pointless discussion.

You WOULD say that WOULDN'T you??? How can you allow yourself to NOT be swept up in a wave of things that aren't... that at all.. but could be, if we--- LOOK, just do it, okay?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2012 16:05

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

steinrokkan posted:

It is not. The video is a conscious part of an ongoing symbolic "debate" between certain politically and ideologically affiliated groups. A debate in which peoples' lives are amongst the used media.

Yes, and it's very obvious. At least it should be.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2012 16:28

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

The Asian Oprah posted:

Once I heard Rush Limbaugh advise a woman to cut off ties completely with her family because they would talk about politics at the dinner table and it made her uncomfortable because they were vaguely democratic leaning.

It's just as dumb and antisocial an idea when you suggest it

Yes.
Everything is always in exact ballance and so are actions and effects.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2012 15:37

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

The Asian Oprah posted:

What? What does a false narrative of equivalency have to do with how you probably shouldn't be ending relationships with your friends and relatives because they don't your ideologies don't perfectly align?

Learn to talk to people you disagree with, y'all.

Well, yeah, but that didn't really seem to be your point.
Sorry. But I'd also suggest that no one should ever fight for a family already split.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2012 17:20

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Sushi in Yiddish posted:

The Time article is really showing how hosed up things are.

It's like somebody turned over a rock and assholes from all around the world are boiling out from under it.I didn't think that we'd have right wing militias in California.

The detective work being done to uncover the people who made the movie is really fascinating, but it would also be terrible if those people are killed by extremists and become martyrs for their own terrible causes.

The absolutely "funny" thing is that it is far-right idiots in one country feeding off the same in another.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2012 17:35

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Hollis posted:

I just have a hard time understanding the violent outburst/ protests over the film in general. I mean is some other force motivating people into outrage? Are people that upset about the film, that's 14 minutes long.

It makes me think that now when people want to just piss off and cause riots they'll just make a film about Muhammed. Like a gay porno.

I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around the protests in general. If anything you can bet Terry Jones is going to be like " Hmmmmmm, this worked!!!" and make more.

What if he does? More protests?

Yes, there most likely is organization behind it. But trying to understand that would be wrong. Because they're thugs. So understanding what they do would be... bad? Would be catering to them? I don't know. It's a weird idea that embracing ignorance is noble.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 15:21

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

CeeJee posted:

Except no one was talking about the root causes of his act, he was just evil.

Actually, the root causes of that are just as interesting and important. And, yes, people ARE talking about it.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 15:28

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Hollis posted:

What's the ultimate goal here of the protests? I mean even if you made a factual and I am not saying you implied anything about The Prophet, just a factual accounting of his life. People would get really pissed off.

It just seems this is not only based around the implications of him but the fact they depicted him. From what I understand it's a big NO NO , on depicting the Prophet in any works at all.

I can't remember how it breaks down, but yes, depicting the dude is a no-no for many muslims. (Look up Iconodules and Iconoclasts for the Christian version).

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 15:31

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Mans posted:

I don't know. Israel would be hosed but their actions, supported by the U.S., caused the backlash against them. Iraq is already semi-independent, if they had the ability to nationalize their oil and industry they'd probably be better off than right now. The Saudis would be in trouble too just like Bahrain but if a government is only in power because of a foreign economic interest, specially when that government is quite repressive, i don't see how toppling it would be disastrous.

And you're still in your robotic mode where you can't read properly. I said "progressively leave the Middle East to their own devices". That's usually not something that creates a power vacuum.

I'd now like to ask YOU what you think the U.S. does in the Middle East. Are their actions justified? Is it the only thing between stability (lol) and total chaos? Should the U.S. keep on stationing troops and using naval bases until the end of times? They already kill each other, they just tend to kill the people we don't care about.

I still don't get how the U.S. is creating any sort of stability in Middle East right now?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 20:46

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

CeeJee posted:

What makes you think the Israeli and Saudi regimes would collapse if the US would stop supporting them ? Saudi Arabia is insanely wealthy and can easily get anything the US sold them somewhere else with a lot less strings attached. Israel would lose a few percent of its economy but it's not like they were defenseless in 1967 when the US was supplying their enemies with weapons.

Also note how the US backed Mubarak and the Shah were overthrown relatively easily while the non-US backed Gadaffi and Assad plunged their nations into total civil war.

I don't think they would collapse. I just think not funding them would be good-

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 20:56

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

3 Tablets Daily posted:

This is meaningless. You might as well be saying "Leave in a way such that those bad things you said would happen, don't happen."

I think, deciphering the glyphs, that he meant gradually pulling out? Sure, there was no time table, but the idea is there.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:06

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

3 Tablets Daily posted:

I'd say that the withdrawal from Iraq (from mission accomplished to full withdrawal) is about as slow as it gets and it isn't pretty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_%28post_U.S._withdrawal%29

Maybe invading was bad?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:16

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Mans posted:

Is my English that bad?

I hope not! 'Cause I'm not a native English speaker myself!

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:18

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

3 Tablets Daily posted:

Yeah, it might not have been a good idea to create a power vacuum in a religiously and ethnically divided region.

And, therefore, if the U.S. pulls out of.... it will lead to increased MURDERDEATH in.... In other words: The U.S. invades Iraq, maybe on bad intel, but hey, they "win", and then they have to stay forever. Because if not, they'll have to stay everywhere else. And the U.S. is the only power in the vacuum of outer sp... I mean the world, I mean, wait? What is your cheap point?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:24

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

3 Tablets Daily posted:

Sober up and pay the bills, I suppose?

That would include getting out, no one wants a drunk to overstay his welcome.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:26

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Eej posted:

Pardon me for asking but are the sectarian conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East solely due to religious differences? I guess the cynic in me wants to know if there are parties involved in encouraging hard line fundamentalists in order to further their own agenda.

I guess my question is if the regressives don't truly have the support of the people why do they still continue to exist? Does the intrusion of Western powers into Middle Eastern affairs (along with the region's rich history of autocratic regimes) prevent more moderate or progressive governments from forming and solidifying power in order to combat these regressive elements?

"Movements" of any type can exist without broad support forever. I'm just curious about the fact that the U.S. has been involved in the Mid East for decades... and has next to nothing to show for it. It's a money pit for them. Or a corpse pit. But still... Why?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:41

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

3 Tablets Daily posted:

My cheap point was that if the US, or more broadly, any country providing substantial financial, and material backing to unpopular middle east dictatorships, were to just drop everything and leave. Things would get a lot worse--ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, etc--before they got better.

You do know there are other choices that military presence?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 21:54

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Red7 posted:

What do you mean by this? Humanitarian aid?

Well, for one thing. Just don't suck at it.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 22:47

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Red7 posted:

Any government led humanitarian aid in some of those countries is going to involve a military presence. Its a trend that even the NGOs, who back in the 80s and early 90s could move relatively freely are being forced into defensive compounds - hell they were even targeting NGOs workers in Kabul.

Why? I mean, why do you think that is?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 23:00

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Red7 posted:

Because they're associated with the West and America. It was 3 UN aid workers who were killed by a mob in Mazar-i-Sharif after Terry Jones burnt his Koran - they didn't have a military presence at all.

I know what you're getting at, that wouldn't be case if the US weren't seen as the devil in the Middle East - but they are and any solutions or alternatives need to take that into account.

Which is what I'm asking you to do. Take poo poo into account. The middle east isn't monolithic in any sense, neither are the ammassed peoples of it anti U.S.
poo poo, some people lump Turkey and Morocco together. (Not accusing you of that, though, I'm just saying that this is the usual geographic and ethnic idiocy that I'm used to hearing).

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 23:24

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Red7 posted:

I've no doubt, but you only need a 100 or so blokes to get whipped up into a frenzy by a firebrand Mullah and your days ruined, how ruined it is is dependent on how screwed up the country is and/or the level of penetration by radical Islam.

Unless you literally remove every Westerner associated with Western governments, there is always going to be a need for a (para)military presence in the region - even if that is provided by the host government in the more stable states.

Yes, no matter how small the threat is we need an everpresent military force. What, a riot in L.A.? Send in the marines! This is your argument?

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 23:42

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

PT6A posted:

If there were a serious minority of people in an American, Canadian, UK, etc. city that was devoted to removing the government and installing a new government devoted to removing people's freedoms, and showed no problem with bombing and killing civilians in order to do it, and the existing police force had already had problems dealing with them? Yes, I think using a military force is justified. Until a strong security force has been established, and the threat of Islamic militants reduced significantly or eliminated, using a military force of some sort to establish and maintain security is a perfectly logical action.

Christ, we have the Army come in and help clear snow after large storms. The military isn't just devoted to waging war.

Wait, what.
What army are we discussing now?
And despite what is happening to paramilitarize police in some places, this is not a good thing,

HMDK fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 16, 2012

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 23:51

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

iyaayas01 posted:

Congratulations on sucking at reading.

And paramilitary != military. The Marines are not a police force, absolutely, but you DO need a secure environment if you are going to do aid type operations. This is not a new thing or something that's only happened post 9/11 or something unique to the Middle East, look at Somalia in the early '90s or the Balkans for pretty much all of the '90s or the Philippines for the past couple decades or several countries in Latin America at various points over the past couple of decades.

The U.S. (or any other foreign) military is not and should not be the solution in every one of these situations, but waving your hands and making it sound like security is not a component of providing aid to a region is not grounded in reality, at all.

Yeah, no poo poo. But basically a 100 people or less could be "a credible threat" according to this.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 23:58

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

iyaayas01 posted:

Does a 100 person threat justify invading a country or deploying the military to provide aid or whatever? Obviously not, but you can't just completely hand wave away a security threat to aid simply because it's small.

Agreed.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2012 00:06

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

iyaayas01 posted:

The protesters would only see the Marines if they penetrated the embassy...I feel like people really have the wrong idea about this. The Marines aren't going to be out on the street, cracking protesters heads, they aren't even going to be near the external gate, they are going to be in the embassy chancery itself and will only see protesters if it gets to the point where the protesters are on the verge of completely storming the compound and U.S. lives are at risk.

Wait, you DID get that I was making a joke about the marines, right?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2012 00:13

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Myrdhale posted:

Wrong. Free speech does not qualify you to be free of criticism.

Exactly.
"Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?!?", is the cry of the lobotomized.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 15:03

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Narciss posted:

I don't think anyone here is saying "LIKE the video", just "don't burn down a Hardees" and "don't kill people with the same nationality as the person who insulted you".

I won't suffer a Hardees to live.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 15:13

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Baddog posted:

Seems like if your drawing of mohammed gets any sort of publicity at all, you arent really 'pretty safe' anywhere. Unless giving up your life and going into hiding with your family is relatively ok.

Yeah, I know . Everytime I make a joke about Moe Howard Mohammed, my muslim buddies try to behead me. It's a fun routine.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 16:11

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Metamucil posted:

This. Have we already forgotten the lessons of Constantinople? No army can stand before the Ottoman horde.

Will the gates of Vienna hold?

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 22:00

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

mllaneza posted:

Lucky for the Turks, the Poles are allies this time around. I'm worried about the Russians trying for another Crimean War and getting involved with NATO, which would suck on a whole new scale.

But the Poles will just ride at the incoming tanks on horseback and with outdated tech like lances.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 22:09

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

DarkCrawler posted:

That's a weird way of saying "Artillery-carrying bear battalion".

I'm infuriated and aroused.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 22:21

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Alchenar posted:

What? No, 'Casus belli' isn't a meaningless phrase, it is a legal concept in international law.

Maybe that was the joke?

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 23:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:09

HMDK: Sep 5, 2009; ...and they all pretend they're orphans, and their memory's like a train

Ardennes posted:

To be honest, Turkey invading Syria sounds like some type of dumb alternative history short story.

I think it would be bloody, not in the direct combat sense but that the Turkish would be as involved in a conflict just as dirty as Kurdistan. I don't doubt the Turkish army would far well against regular forces but beyond that it looks like a poo poo show.

Welcome to my fear.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2012 00:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria