Do you approve or criticize America's War on Terror ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Saturos3091"]
NO regime on the planet has ever been solely left-winged or right-winged, so you can stop the whole "Political Islam/Nazism is left-wing!" "No it's not!" because you're both fvcking wrong.
ghoklebutter
I suppose that's true. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that Islam is mostly right-wing, however.
Most systems of subjugation and bowing down to the old order are generally conservative and thus right-wing going by today's standards of the words.[QUOTE="kraychik"]Absolutely untrue, as Islamism (political Islam, if you didn't already know) coerces people into submission. In other words, people are coerced into compliance with the state's perception of Islamic piousness. All sorts of religious transgressions carry heavy legal penalties. Islamism and other leftist ideologies are all about the state crushing the individual. In the words of O'Brian from 1984, force and violence is not a means, but an end - and that his vision of the future was a boot stomping down onto a person's face indefinitely. That is communism. That is Islamism. That is socialism. That is Nazism. That is the family of leftist ideologies and real tyranny.ghoklebutter
Islam has a doctrine very similar to that of original sin in Christianity (and the only difference is that it doesn't regard children as innately sinful). Therefore, the idea of social engineering is totally not Islamic. In fact, Allah curses those who want to "perfect" human nature.
It is certainly very authoritarian - I agree. But Islam accepts economic hieararchies, and doesn't support equality for the most part. It also supports capital. The only possible exception is the idea of zakah, which is an obligatory 2.5% alms tax that is supposed to allow for wider wealth distribution. Therefore, Islam is decidedly rightist.
If you think that all leftist ideologies are about destroying individuality, then clearly you haven't heard of libertarian socialists.
I don't care about how you describe the religious tenets of Islam. I am talking about political Islam and how it manifests itself. It is a leftist ideology by any measure - state control over most the economy, as well as great control over people private lives (the social sphere). Authoritarianism IS leftism, as leftism (in the popular conception of the term as I use it in this forum) is all about erosion of the individual's liberties (economic and/or social) for the alleged benefits of the state and/or society. Of course there will be inequalities in any system, including Islamist system, but what you keep ignoring is that political Islam shares significant common denominators with other leftist ideologies (hence, they are all part of the leftist family of ideologies) in practise - centralization of control of the economy and people's private lives into the hands of the state. You're engaging in smoke and mirrors with what Islam is "really" about (according to you), rather than how POLITICAL Islam invariably manifests itself. I don't care about Zakat or any of the other pillars of Islam, what I care about is how POLITICAL Islam manifests itself. If it hasn't already been made clear, you're confusing Islam with Islamism. And the very premise of a "libertarian socialist" is a complete oxymoron. Another example of leftists trying to redefine terms (hilariously). Sort of like how Sun-Tzu is simultaneously a Zionist and an anti-Zionist. Again, this is the doublethink of the left.
And the very premise of a "libertarian socialist" is a complete oxymoron. Another example of leftists trying to redefine terms (hilariously). Sort of like how Sun-Tzu is simultaneously a Zionist and an anti-Zionist. Again, this is the doublethink of the left. kraychik
Here you go.
We can't capture every single exception and nuance of political systems in a normal conversation, let alone a discussion forum. Anyone with any sense knows that most government today involve some elements of the let and the right in the sense of balancing the good of the collective and the good of the individual, which aren't always congruent. Congratulations on making an observation that ninth-graders are capable of making. We're all really impressed with your capability to see exceptions to rules and trends. For the sake of discussion, human beings will occasionally generalize and simplify in order not to have to type out five-thousand words per posts. So my original assertion is correct in that Islamism is a leftist ideology because it has far more in common with leftism than with the contemporary right - it is about crushing for the benefit of the state, in the same vein as Nazism and communism.ITT: Pseudo-intellectuals argue about the semantical definitions of "left" and "right" that are both outdated and taken out of context solely to fulfill their need to label themselves.
Saturos3091
One thing I'd like to clear up though that someone said a few pages back (probably Kraychik, can't remember): ALL political systems require individual responsibility, bar ones based on Nihilism and those don't exist. Being a leftist does not shirk those responsibilities in any case. And just a small hint for you kids still arguing, NO regime on the planet has ever been solely left-winged or right-winged, so you can stop the whole "Political Islam/Nazism is left-wing!" "No it's not!" because you're both fvcking wrong.
[QUOTE="kraychik"]And the very premise of a "libertarian socialist" is a complete oxymoron. Another example of leftists trying to redefine terms (hilariously). Sort of like how Sun-Tzu is simultaneously a Zionist and an anti-Zionist. Again, this is the doublethink of the left. ghoklebutter
Here you go.
Oh, so you've got a link to a political compass composed by an amateur so you win? I studied the political compasses many years ago in my first year of undegrad. It doesn't mean that the term "libertarian socialist" isn't a contradiction in terms. It's funny how you think the political compass that you post over and over and over again in here is news to anyone. Keep on trying to redefine terms and hijack language for political purposes.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="Saturos3091"]
NO regime on the planet has ever been solely left-winged or right-winged, so you can stop the whole "Political Islam/Nazism is left-wing!" "No it's not!" because you're both fvcking wrong.
BossPerson
I suppose that's true. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that Islam is mostly right-wing, however.
Most systems of subjugation and bowing down to the old order are generally conservative and thus right-wing going by today's standards of the words. This is a leftist lie. They may be conservative in the context of this societies in which hey exist, but they certainly have nothing in common with conservatism as it's understood in America.[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="kraychik"]And the very premise of a "libertarian socialist" is a complete oxymoron. Another example of leftists trying to redefine terms (hilariously). Sort of like how Sun-Tzu is simultaneously a Zionist and an anti-Zionist. Again, this is the doublethink of the left. kraychik
Here you go.
Oh, so you've got a link to a political compass composed by an amateur so you win? I studied the political compasses many years ago in my first year of undegrad. It doesn't mean that the term "libertarian socialist" isn't a contradiction in terms. It's funny how you think the political compass that you post over and over and over again in here is news to anyone. Keep on trying to redefine terms and hijack language for political purposes. Please explain to me how libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.By the way, libertarianism is not the same as it is in America; it's an old synonym for anarchism.
[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]
the west is trying its best to keep the muslims from reaching super power again. from rebuilding the "islamic caliphate" as they call it
laugh at this like ignorant fks if you want but its true, all this money, all the support for israel. predictions from the Quran are all coming true. weather you like it or not.
ghoklebutter
I never knew a fairy-tale book that a mentally-ill, gynophobic, misogy...
take a deep breath buddy.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]
the west is trying its best to keep the muslims from reaching super power again. from rebuilding the "islamic caliphate" as they call it
laugh at this like ignorant fks if you want but its true, all this money, all the support for israel. predictions from the Quran are all coming true. weather you like it or not.
GrayF0X786
I never knew a fairy-tale book that a mentally-ill, gynophobic, misogy...
take a deep breath buddy. are you not denying it?[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"]
the west is trying its best to keep the muslims from reaching super power again. from rebuilding the "islamic caliphate" as they call it
laugh at this like ignorant fks if you want but its true, all this money, all the support for israel. predictions from the Quran are all coming true. weather you like it or not.
GrayF0X786
I never knew a fairy-tale book that a mentally-ill, gynophobic, misogy...
take a deep breath buddy.Hey, I gave you a pretty good description. =[
I'd say the war on terror has been pretty effective. This day in age, you will never completely eliminate terrorism, but tens of thousands of them have been killed, including many of the leaders. That's good enough for me. Let them keep popping up like gophers and we'll keep swatting 'em.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Until people actually get their heads out of their asses and understand that Western policies are at least part of the problem, there will not be a solution..
m25105
You're right, but not in the sense that you realize. Our policies are indeed a big part of this problem. And those policies include not destroying our enemies and punishing those that cause us harm. They also include a non-existent energy policy which prohibits America and other Western countries from fully exploiting domestic energy resources under the facade of "environmental protection" (i.e. the lie about man-made AGW and the fake need to control CO2 emissions) . In your fantasy political/historical narrative, however, you see a world where America and the broader West have abused Muslim-majority countries, and that 9/11 and the endless other examples of Islamist mass murder and terrorism are "understandable" reactions to our transgressions. Thank you for putting on display the absurdity of the left, and how domestic leftists are essentially carrying the torch of apologism for Islamist mass murderers. You're doing a damn good job, maybe you can be a commentator someday for the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Russia TV, or Al-Arabiya.
I see you ignored the report I linked.He tends to ignore studies that actually disprove him opting to continue to parrot his far-right ideology through walls of text. Just a classic example of willed ignorance.
More importantly, there has never been anything in the Middle East even remotely close to "US imperialism". It's a complete fabrication and a lie advanced from the left in order to make excuses for Islamist mass murderers. I'm used to these lies, of course. Like good drones, leftists just repeat talking points and other lies they get from their moronic political leadership. Subzero is essentially channelling the lies of Jeremiah Wright, with his "chickens coming home to roost" anti-American diatribe. kraychik
Every border in the middle east was drawn by the West, usually with as many tribes that hate each other within the same country to keep them weak and killing each other.
This has been going on for thousands of years.
Why do you think there was a Roman governor in Jerusalen in the bible.
The west has been waging war on middle eastern peoples before there ever was an Islam or Christianity.
Look at Roman conquests of North Africa, Egypt, as far east as Armenia.
Look at Alexander the Great, guy took over Persia, he was from Greece/Mecdonia.
People like you talk alot of ish but don't know your history.
9/11 was not "chickens coming home to roost" it was just criminals causing mayhem.
Chickens coming home to roost is european populations being replaced by non-european populations, voting themselves into office, and creating diverse societies. It really chaps peoples asses that there's an African in office with a muslim father, especially his name "Barak."
Bottom line western culture is heartless and depraved, and it's becoming more irrelevant as time goes on. Enjoy.
This is all about left and right. Perceptions on the issue associated with the OP (how do you feel about the so-called "War on Terror"?) is heavily divided along political lines. In other words, those who self-identify as conservatives will overwhelmingly support the broad concept of proactively destroying our enemies before they cause us harm (those like myself). Those on the left (you and many others in this thread), however, will overwhelmingly view America and the broader West as cruel and oppressive imperialists who prompted the Islamists to "react" to their (false) perceptions of being oppressed by America and the West. Essentially, you "understand" why the Islamists engage in mass murder and terrorism and believe that (imagined) wrongs that we commit against them cause them to react via mass murder and terrorism.Basically, this issue (as almost all political issues) is divided along political lines. You can witness this in this very thread. As a typical leftist, however. you are oblivious to this very obvious reality. You actually think that this discussion, and that opinions associated with it, can be apolitical (obviously a function of your leftism blinding you to your own biases, as you no doubt view yourself as objective), when of course this discussion and most others are entirely political.kraychik
I like how you assume that I am a leftist while I have said virtually nothing about my own political views, because this goes to show how deluded your political views are. Your comprehension of the subject is limited to an infantile 'left vs. right' divide that doesn't allow for either party to transcend the mold of your narrow definition of these ideologies.
I also never claimed that this discussion can be apolitical. That would be quite the paradox seeing as this discussion revolves around a political topic. I was merely insinuating that your total lack of nuance and your constant resorting to buzzwords point towards a very deluded vision of the political landscape. Thanks for proving me right.
[QUOTE="kraychik"] We can't capture every single exception and nuance of political systems in a normal conversation, let alone a discussion forum. Anyone with any sense knows that most government today involve some elements of the let and the right in the sense of balancing the good of the collective and the good of the individual, which aren't always congruent. Congratulations on making an observation that ninth-graders are capable of making. We're all really impressed with your capability to see exceptions to rules and trends. For the sake of discussion, human beings will occasionally generalize and simplify in order not to have to type out five-thousand words per posts. So my original assertion is correct in that Islamism is a leftist ideology because it has far more in common with leftism than with the contemporary right - it is about crushing for the benefit of the state, in the same vein as Nazism and communism. Saturos3091It's an observation that ninth-graders are capable of making, yet you obviously weren't capable of making yourself. I understand what generalizations are, and I understand that you're arguing for the traditional definition of leftism, while others are arguing for the modern definition of right-wing. It doesn't change the fact that your debate is one of semantics, and thus doesn't carry any weight when you look at the context of the ongoing argument, or even the context of reality. You pointing out that "It's just a generalization" highlights why that is one of the biggest problems in American political thought today. tl;dr - It's a moot point to relabel something for the benefit of your own self-constructed image of the world. You're a johnny-come-lately to his party, as gnocklebutter has been trying to get my attention with his link to a graph of the double-axis political spectrum over the past couple of days - essentially trying to make the same obvious point that you're doing now. I am well aware that political ideologies are better described on a set of two axis, one representing the degree to which a person is comfortable with government control over the economy, and the other representing the degree to which a person is comfortable with government control over the social sphere. I learned this many years ago, not yesterday or today. None of this changes the fact that contemporary leftists are more comfortable with government control over BOTH spheres. It is not "right wing" to desire a greater role for the government in either sphere, although leftists like yourself try to characterize the contemporary conservative movement in America as such. It is almost exclusively the left that wants MORE government control over the economy via taxes and regulation, as well as the social sphere, through attacks on the first and second amendments. Only the contemporary conservative movement in America (and in general, the broader west) is on the side of greater individual sovereignty in resistance to the encroachment of the state in both spheres.
[QUOTE="kraychik"]This is all about left and right. Perceptions on the issue associated with the OP (how do you feel about the so-called "War on Terror"?) is heavily divided along political lines. In other words, those who self-identify as conservatives will overwhelmingly support the broad concept of proactively destroying our enemies before they cause us harm (those like myself). Those on the left (you and many others in this thread), however, will overwhelmingly view America and the broader West as cruel and oppressive imperialists who prompted the Islamists to "react" to their (false) perceptions of being oppressed by America and the West. Essentially, you "understand" why the Islamists engage in mass murder and terrorism and believe that (imagined) wrongs that we commit against them cause them to react via mass murder and terrorism.Basically, this issue (as almost all political issues) is divided along political lines. You can witness this in this very thread. As a typical leftist, however. you are oblivious to this very obvious reality. You actually think that this discussion, and that opinions associated with it, can be apolitical (obviously a function of your leftism blinding you to your own biases, as you no doubt view yourself as objective), when of course this discussion and most others are entirely political.DraugenCP
I like how you assume that I am a leftist while I have said virtually nothing about my own political views, because this goes to show how deluded your political views are. Your comprehension of the subject is limited to an infantile 'left vs. right' divide that doesn't allow for either party to transcend the mold of your narrow definition of these ideologies.
I also never claimed that this discussion can be apolitical. That would be quite the paradox seeing as this discussion revolves around a political topic. I was merely insinuating that your total lack of nuance and your constant resorting to buzzwords point towards a very deluded vision of the political landscape. Thanks for proving me right.
Only leftists struggle with seeing these issues in "black and white" terms, fancying themselves as being better able to grasp nuance and complexities while characterizing conservatives as overly-simplistic and dogmatic. At the end of the day, this issue is 100% political, as the political leanings of an individual will determine with few exceptions how a person approaches the question posed by the original post. You want to muddy the waters and pretend that this isn't a left/right issue, when this is completely a left/right issue. Those on the right will agree with me, with few exceptions, and those on the left will disagree with me, with few exceptions. The funny thing about the left is that the left tends to think it is apolitical, while those that disagree with them ARE political. In other words, the left thinks it approaches these issues objectively, thoughtfully, intellectually (i.e. "Why do they hate us? Let's *understand" their motivations and maybe we can compromise and meet the demands of the Islamists half-way!"), while the right approaches it dogmatically, emotionally, and reflexively. The origins of people's attitudes towards the so-called "War on Terror" are much simpler than you are making them out to be. It all comes down to whether someone's on the right or the left (yes, you have your exceptions, with those on the right like Ron Paul and those on the left like Joe Liberman, but they are few and far between). Of course, this is typical of leftists who obfuscate so much that they themselves lose sight of the foundation of the disagreement over this (and most other issues) - a difference in ideology. Leftists think that conservative disagree with them because conservatives know less, or are less intelligent or educated. Of course this has nothing to do with it, it is absolutely ideological, and we should recognize this reality - but again, leftists want to view themselves as apolitical and objective while those that disagree with them are political and biased. This is 100% political, and 100% left versus right.Only leftists struggle with seeing these issues in "black and white" terms, fancying themselves as being better able to grasp nuance and complexities while characterizing conservatives as overly-simplistic and dogmatic. At the end of the day, this issue is 100% political, as the political leanings of an individual will determine with few exceptions how a person approaches the question posed by the original post. You want to muddy the waters and pretend that this isn't a left/right issue, when this is completely a left/right issue. Those on the right will agree with me, with few exceptions, and those on the left will disagree with me, with few exceptions. The funny thing about the left is that the left tends to think it is apolitical, while those that disagree with them ARE political. In other words, the left thinks it approaches these issues objectively, thoughtfully, intellectually (i.e. "Why do they hate us? Let's *understand" their motivations and maybe we can compromise and meet the demands of the Islamists half-way!"), while the right approaches it dogmatically, emotionally, and reflexively. The origins of people's attitudes towards the so-called "War on Terror" are much simpler than you are making them out to be. It all comes down to whether someone's on the right or the left (yes, you have your exceptions, with those on the right like Ron Paul and those on the left like Joe Liberman, but they are few and far between). Of course, this is typical of leftists who obfuscate so much that they themselves lose sight of the foundation of the disagreement over this (and most other issues) - a difference in ideology. Leftists think that conservative disagree with them because conservatives know less, or are less intelligent or educated. Of course this has nothing to do with it, it is absolutely ideological, and we should recognize this reality - but again, leftists want to view themselves as apolitical and objective while those that disagree with them are political and biased. This is 100% political, and 100% left versus right.kraychik
What I said about viewing the world in black and white has more to do with moral relativism than with any political current. If anything, not oversimplifying the discussion should be a healthy treat of any political flavour. And noone here is calling conservatives overly simplistic - I'm calling you overly simplistic. Don't try to apply your own thought patterns to other people.
This isn't a mere case of left vs. right merely because 'left' and 'right' are glaringly inaccurate terms because they change in meaning depending on time and location. For instance, what is considered left in the USA may very well be right in Western-Europe. And at one point, right and left merely denoted whether the political party in question was confessional or non-confessional respectively. What I'm saying is that, at best (and I stress this), you're narrowing this down to an American issue. And while the Americans are the initiators of the War on Terror, it is a global issue. As such, you can't view it within such limited parameters as the discussion is broader than the (fake) yuxtaposition between the so-called liberals and conservatives in the USA. And even when you limit the discussion to the USA, I don't see why someone couldn't be a conservative and an isolationist at the same time. You have to concentrates on the arguments of this debate, and not try discarding people by putting political labels on them and assuming all kinds of things about them. This way, you prevent transforming this discussion into a minority complex-driven rant about how leftists think they're superior, as well as preventing that you assume things about people that turn out not to be true.
[QUOTE="kraychik"]Only leftists struggle with seeing these issues in "black and white" terms, fancying themselves as being better able to grasp nuance and complexities while characterizing conservatives as overly-simplistic and dogmatic. At the end of the day, this issue is 100% political, as the political leanings of an individual will determine with few exceptions how a person approaches the question posed by the original post. You want to muddy the waters and pretend that this isn't a left/right issue, when this is completely a left/right issue. Those on the right will agree with me, with few exceptions, and those on the left will disagree with me, with few exceptions. The funny thing about the left is that the left tends to think it is apolitical, while those that disagree with them ARE political. In other words, the left thinks it approaches these issues objectively, thoughtfully, intellectually (i.e. "Why do they hate us? Let's *understand" their motivations and maybe we can compromise and meet the demands of the Islamists half-way!"), while the right approaches it dogmatically, emotionally, and reflexively. The origins of people's attitudes towards the so-called "War on Terror" are much simpler than you are making them out to be. It all comes down to whether someone's on the right or the left (yes, you have your exceptions, with those on the right like Ron Paul and those on the left like Joe Liberman, but they are few and far between). Of course, this is typical of leftists who obfuscate so much that they themselves lose sight of the foundation of the disagreement over this (and most other issues) - a difference in ideology. Leftists think that conservative disagree with them because conservatives know less, or are less intelligent or educated. Of course this has nothing to do with it, it is absolutely ideological, and we should recognize this reality - but again, leftists want to view themselves as apolitical and objective while those that disagree with them are political and biased. This is 100% political, and 100% left versus right.DraugenCP
What I said about viewing the world in black and white has more to do with moral relativism than with any political current. If anything, not oversimplifying the discussion should be a healthy treat of any political flavour. And noone here is calling conservatives overly simplistic - I'm calling you overly simplistic. Don't try to apply your own thought patterns to other people.
This isn't a mere case of left vs. right merely because 'left' and 'right' are glaringly inaccurate terms because they change in meaning depending on time and location. For instance, what is considered left in the USA may very well be right in Western-Europe. And at one point, right and left merely denoted whether the political party in question was confessional or non-confessional respectively. What I'm saying is that, at best (and I stress this), you're narrowing this down to an American issue. And while the Americans are the initiators of the War on Terror, it is a global issue. As such, you can't view it within such limited parameters as the discussion is broader than the (fake) yuxtaposition between the so-called liberals and conservatives in the USA. And even when you limit the discussion to the USA, I don't see why someone couldn't be a conservative and an isolationist at the same time. You have to concentrates on the arguments of this debate, and not try discarding people by putting political labels on them and assuming all kinds of things about them. This way, you prevent transforming this discussion into a minority complex-driven rant about how leftists think they're superior, as well as preventing that you assume things about people that turn out not to be true.
Honestly, do you really think I am unfamiliar with how the terms left and right have meant different things at different times and in different places? I am well-aware of all of this. But it's pretty obvious that both you and I live in the present and are speaking about politics in the context of the American political landscape. You're deflecting away from the crux of what I'm saying by going off on a tangent about how terms like left and right can mean different things to people in Europe a century ago. We both know where we are, we both know what year it is, and we both know the context of the discussion. My point remains valid - that people's perceptions of this issue (and virtually all others) is greatly determined by their political orientation with respect to the left-right spectrum. Those on the right are with me, and those on the left identify and express solidarity (labelled as "understanding") with mass murdering Islamist terrorists.
world police....that is all
Honestly, do you really think I am unfamiliar with how the terms left and right have meant different things at different times and in different places? I am well-aware of all of this. But it's pretty obvious that both you and I live in the present and are speaking about politics in the context of the American political landscape. You're deflecting away from the crux of what I'm saying by going off on a tangent about how terms like left and right can mean different things to people in Europe a century ago. We both know where we are, we both know what year it is, and we both know the context of the discussion. My point remains valid - that people's perceptions of this issue (and virtually all others) is greatly determined by their political orientation with respect to the left-right spectrum. Those on the right are with me, and those on the left identify and express solidarity (labelled as "understanding") with mass murdering Islamist terrorists.kraychik
As I've pointed out, this is a global issue, which immediately makes the typical American rhetoric insufficient to cover the discussion. Yes, we both live in the present, but we do not both live in the USA. Whether this debate in the US transcends the borders of left and right (outdated terms by any standard) I do not know, but as you've already pointed out yourself, there are always exceptions to the rule, such as Ron Paul. What I'm saying is that in this, and indeed any political debate, all that matters is the issue at hand and the arguments supporting it. The political preference of an individual is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of his arguments. We should consider what the best way to combat/prevent terrorism is and act accordingly. Our political preference may guide us to certain conclusions, but that does not mean that certain opinions are exclusive to a certain political ideology, or that members of a certain party can only reach one specific conclusion. And that's what irritated me most about your posts, that you spent way more time ranting about (alleged) leftists than was called for, implying that it's as simple as being left or right and going with what simple but flawed logic would denote.
In theory I approve of it, in practice I criticize it. I do support the war on terror to a point, there are some really bad dudes out there and we have cannot back down from them. Pretending otherwise is just being naive and stupid.
However many aspects of the war on terror actually stip away our civil liberties, which is exactly what the terrorists want. We need to stick by our values while still defending us against threats of terrorism. But that being said we should focus more on defense and not attacking other countries.
Though I am totally happy we got Bin Laden, in those cases it's ok. As for Saddam, well I'm glad he's dead, but the Iraq War was just a cluster fvck that should have been avoided. We only go to wars if it's in our best interest.
It's a war on an abstract concept. Sounds f*cking brilliant if you ask me :roll:
We've spent 1.3 TRILLION dollars on the war on terror so far. There have been about 14,000 deaths from international terrorism in the past 25 years. That works out to about 90 million per killing. Not the most efficient thing in the world. Not to mention that it's been used repeatedly as a tool of fear by those in charge.
[QUOTE="C2N2"]
[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.JML897
Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.
And lots of drug dealers are in prison. It doesn't stop drugs from being distributed. Same deal. Capturing or killing Al-Qaeda leaders doesn't stop terrorism.
Not really a similar comparison in the slightest bit... The reasons drug cartels are able to flourish are money and power... They have small armies and billions of dollars... And corruption is rampant... They either buy, kill, or intimidate their way out of any law enforcement prevention not to mention have even highest level government officials in Mexico/Columbia on their payroll... That is hardly the case with terrorism unless you are suggesting Muslim extremists have infiltrated our highest levels of government or that our military is accepting bribes from terrorist with money they don't have. Cartels are untouchable because no one wants to touch them; exactly the opposite of terrorism.
inb4 Obama is a Muslim extremist.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Until people actually get their heads out of their asses and understand that Western policies are at least part of the problem, there will not be a solution..
kraychik
You're right, but not in the sense that you realize. Our policies are indeed a big part of this problem. And those policies include not destroying our enemies and punishing those that cause us harm. They also include a non-existent energy policy which prohibits America and other Western countries from fully exploiting domestic energy resources under the facade of "environmental protection" (i.e. the lie about man-made AGW and the fake need to control CO2 emissions) . In your fantasy political/historical narrative, however, you see a world where America and the broader West have abused Muslim-majority countries, and that 9/11 and the endless other examples of Islamist mass murder and terrorism are "understandable" reactions to our transgressions. Thank you for putting on display the absurdity of the left, and how domestic leftists are essentially carrying the torch of apologism for Islamist mass murderers. You're doing a damn good job, maybe you can be a commentator someday for the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Russia TV, or Al-Arabiya.
Apologism? Where in the hell did I say I support the actions of mass murderers and extremism? I am trying to point out if your would actually f*cking open your eyes that much of the hatred within the region is actually WELL founded.. And that to cut off support from these regimes we not only have to combat them but relook at our policies and change them with our dealings with the region.. Must I point out events like Iran? During 1953 thanks to CIA and MI6 under Kermit Roosevelt they overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran, Mosadeq, who supported a labor movement.. They declared him a "communist" and overthrew him.. Then they put in and supported the brutal and corrupt Shah.. Who finally lost control during a rebellion in which the one group the Shah di dnot think was a threat until it was too late.. That being the extreme religious.. If you serioulsy think that western policy for the past 100 years hasn't seriously affected the region along with causing much animosity then your dillusional.. Its a multi pronged problem that we must look at all causes.. This includes to stopping extreme groups, this includes looking at the western history and changing out policies.. This includes multiple different things.. No where am I defending extreme Islam.. And leftist? What? The left and the right in the United States have continued these policies regardless of party affiliation, the only politiican in recent memory that tried to combat it some what is that of Jimmy Carter.. And he wasn't very successful unfortunately.
The irony is even in a post 9/11 environment if the new security measures were never made, you still have a far greater chance of getting killed in a car accident or struck by lightning than getting kiled by a terrorist.. Where is the fearmongering about people getting behind the wheel of a car? Or when a thunderstorm starts?Well it has resulted in the loss of freedoms in the U.S. It sounds like it is more of a police state now. The governments seem to be using the fears of the people to impose draconian laws that would never have been passed prior to 9/11
tenaka2
[QUOTE="kraychik"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Until people actually get their heads out of their asses and understand that Western policies are at least part of the problem, there will not be a solution..
sSubZerOo
You're right, but not in the sense that you realize. Our policies are indeed a big part of this problem. And those policies include not destroying our enemies and punishing those that cause us harm. They also include a non-existent energy policy which prohibits America and other Western countries from fully exploiting domestic energy resources under the facade of "environmental protection" (i.e. the lie about man-made AGW and the fake need to control CO2 emissions) . In your fantasy political/historical narrative, however, you see a world where America and the broader West have abused Muslim-majority countries, and that 9/11 and the endless other examples of Islamist mass murder and terrorism are "understandable" reactions to our transgressions. Thank you for putting on display the absurdity of the left, and how domestic leftists are essentially carrying the torch of apologism for Islamist mass murderers. You're doing a damn good job, maybe you can be a commentator someday for the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Russia TV, or Al-Arabiya.
Apologism? Where in the hell did I say I support the actions of mass murderers and extremism? I am trying to point out if your would actually f*cking open your eyes that much of the hatred within the region is actually WELL founded.. And that to cut off support from these regimes we not only have to combat them but relook at our policies and change them with our dealings with the region.. Must I point out events like Iran? During 1953 thanks to CIA and MI6 under Kermit Roosevelt they overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran, Mosadeq, who supported a labor movement.. They declared him a "communist" and overthrew him.. Then they put in and supported the brutal and corrupt Shah.. Who finally lost control during a rebellion in which the one group the Shah di dnot think was a threat until it was too late.. That being the extreme religious.. If you serioulsy think that western policy for the past 100 years hasn't seriously affected the region along with causing much animosity then your dillusional.. Its a multi pronged problem that we must look at all causes.. This includes to stopping extreme groups, this includes looking at the western history and changing out policies.. This includes multiple different things.. No where am I defending extreme Islam.. And leftist? What? The left and the right in the United States have continued these policies regardless of party affiliation, the only politiican in recent memory that tried to combat it some what is that of Jimmy Carter.. And he wasn't very successful unfortunately.
The reason why the CIA wanted to overthrow Mosadeq was because of the fact that he hated the west and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil in order to hurt Europe and the US. This was 8 years after World War 2, can you blame the US for being on the offensive? Any other superpower would have invaded the place. I used to be left wing on these issues but what people like you don't realize is that the resectful attitudes you're promoting aren't shared by the other side. What the west needs is a united policy towards the middle east, one that relies on military force first and fore most. We're not their friends and the only reason we affiliate with them is because of the oil. Both sides need to get this through their thick skulls. The entire left wing in Europe are claiming that America and the EU are loosing influence but the reason we're loosing influence isn't economical, it's because we're holding back. No other country/union acts like this and it's going to be our demise.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="kraychik"]
You're right, but not in the sense that you realize. Our policies are indeed a big part of this problem. And those policies include not destroying our enemies and punishing those that cause us harm. They also include a non-existent energy policy which prohibits America and other Western countries from fully exploiting domestic energy resources under the facade of "environmental protection" (i.e. the lie about man-made AGW and the fake need to control CO2 emissions) . In your fantasy political/historical narrative, however, you see a world where America and the broader West have abused Muslim-majority countries, and that 9/11 and the endless other examples of Islamist mass murder and terrorism are "understandable" reactions to our transgressions. Thank you for putting on display the absurdity of the left, and how domestic leftists are essentially carrying the torch of apologism for Islamist mass murderers. You're doing a damn good job, maybe you can be a commentator someday for the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Russia TV, or Al-Arabiya.
jointed
Apologism? Where in the hell did I say I support the actions of mass murderers and extremism? I am trying to point out if your would actually f*cking open your eyes that much of the hatred within the region is actually WELL founded.. And that to cut off support from these regimes we not only have to combat them but relook at our policies and change them with our dealings with the region.. Must I point out events like Iran? During 1953 thanks to CIA and MI6 under Kermit Roosevelt they overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran, Mosadeq, who supported a labor movement.. They declared him a "communist" and overthrew him.. Then they put in and supported the brutal and corrupt Shah.. Who finally lost control during a rebellion in which the one group the Shah di dnot think was a threat until it was too late.. That being the extreme religious.. If you serioulsy think that western policy for the past 100 years hasn't seriously affected the region along with causing much animosity then your dillusional.. Its a multi pronged problem that we must look at all causes.. This includes to stopping extreme groups, this includes looking at the western history and changing out policies.. This includes multiple different things.. No where am I defending extreme Islam.. And leftist? What? The left and the right in the United States have continued these policies regardless of party affiliation, the only politiican in recent memory that tried to combat it some what is that of Jimmy Carter.. And he wasn't very successful unfortunately.
The reason why the CIA wanted to overthrow Mosadeq was because of the fact that he hated the west and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil in order to hurt Europe and the US. This was 8 years after World War 2, can you blame the US for being on the offensive? Any other superpower would have invaded the place. I used to be left wing on these issues but what people like you don't realize is that the resectful attitudes you're promoting aren't shared by the other side. What the west needs is a united policy towards the middle east, one that relies on military force first and fore most. We're not their friends and the only reason we affiliate with them is because of the oil. Both sides need to get this through their thick skulls. The entire left wing in Europe are claiming that America and the EU are loosing influence but the reason we're loosing influence isn't economical, it's because we're holding back. No other country/union acts like this and it's going to be our demise. This is wrong he didn't hat ethe west he kicked out the British oil company because they were ripping off the country so he nationalized it.... The US was looking for a new ally in the Middle East to combat USSR. And your excuse in the matter is "Hey man we just had a huge war, clearly its completely ok in toppling a democrat peaceful leader and putting in its place a brutal and corrupt dictator!".. You need to get it through YOUR thick skull this is not ethical and that much of the hatred towards the west is numerous events JUST like this.. I never thought I would see some one as dillusional to not only justify the acts done but to suggest we continue doing it and claim that nothing is wrong with it.. Hilarious..Left wing? I am just trying to point out the f*cking hypocrisy it is.. For the US a country that claims to promote "democracy and freedom" have in fact destroyed both far more than they have ever created..
This is wrong he didn't hat ethe west he kicked out the British oil company because they were ripping off the country so he nationalized it.... The US was looking for a new ally in the Middle East to combat USSR. And your excuse in the matter is "Hey man we just had a huge war, clearly its completely ok in toppling a democrat peaceful leader and putting in its place a brutal and corrupt dictator!".. You need to get it through YOUR thick skull this is not ethical and that much of the hatred towards the west is numerous events JUST like this.. I never thought I would see some one as dillusional to not only justify the acts done but to suggest we continue doing it and claim that nothing is wrong with it.. Hilarious..
Left wing? I am just trying to point out the f*cking hypocrisy it is.. For the US a country that claims to promote "democracy and freedom" have in fact destroyed both far more than they have ever created..
sSubZerOo
Only a person with an established agenda looks att Mosadeqs oil-scheme that way. Mosadeqs plan would hurt the westerns economies in huge proportions, ask yourself why this was the case. Why would it hurt the west? If Mosadeq simply wanted to nationalize the industry and keep fair prices, nothing would happen.
What you need to do is it focus on the interests of YOUR OWN country and stop caring about other countries. You act as if the west is invincible and that we can afford to care about other countries around the world while China and Russia are becoming ultra-nationalistic. This will not work out for ever and when it reaches the breaking point, you'd have wished for something else.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
This is wrong he didn't hat ethe west he kicked out the British oil company because they were ripping off the country so he nationalized it.... The US was looking for a new ally in the Middle East to combat USSR. And your excuse in the matter is "Hey man we just had a huge war, clearly its completely ok in toppling a democrat peaceful leader and putting in its place a brutal and corrupt dictator!".. You need to get it through YOUR thick skull this is not ethical and that much of the hatred towards the west is numerous events JUST like this.. I never thought I would see some one as dillusional to not only justify the acts done but to suggest we continue doing it and claim that nothing is wrong with it.. Hilarious..
Left wing? I am just trying to point out the f*cking hypocrisy it is.. For the US a country that claims to promote "democracy and freedom" have in fact destroyed both far more than they have ever created..
jointed
Only a person with an established agenda looks att Mosadeqs oil-scheme that way. Mosadeqs plan would hurt the westerns economies in huge proportions, ask yourself why this was the case. Why would it hurt the west? If Mosadeq simply wanted to nationalize the industry and keep fair prices, nothing would happen.
What you need to do is it focus on the interests of YOUR OWN country and stop caring about other countries. You act as if the west is invincible and that we can afford to care about other countries around the world while China and Russia are becoming ultra-nationalistic. This will not work out for ever and when it reaches the breaking point, you'd have wished for something else.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
This is wrong he didn't hat ethe west he kicked out the British oil company because they were ripping off the country so he nationalized it.... The US was looking for a new ally in the Middle East to combat USSR. And your excuse in the matter is "Hey man we just had a huge war, clearly its completely ok in toppling a democrat peaceful leader and putting in its place a brutal and corrupt dictator!".. You need to get it through YOUR thick skull this is not ethical and that much of the hatred towards the west is numerous events JUST like this.. I never thought I would see some one as dillusional to not only justify the acts done but to suggest we continue doing it and claim that nothing is wrong with it.. Hilarious..
Left wing? I am just trying to point out the f*cking hypocrisy it is.. For the US a country that claims to promote "democracy and freedom" have in fact destroyed both far more than they have ever created..
jointed
Only a person with an established agenda looks att Mosadeqs oil-scheme that way. Mosadeqs plan would hurt the westerns economies in huge proportions, ask yourself why this was the case. Why would it hurt the west? If Mosadeq simply wanted to nationalize the industry and keep fair prices, nothing would happen.
What you need to do is it focus on the interests of YOUR OWN country and stop caring about other countries. You act as if the west is invincible and that we can afford to care about other countries around the world while China and Russia are becoming ultra-nationalistic. This will not work out for ever and when it reaches the breaking point, you'd have wished for something else.
] I am sorry but what? Mosadeq nationalizing the oil did not affect the US at all, but it pissed off the British and MI6.. Yet again he felt the British were ripping his country off.. You seriously can't be this crazy right? That wanting to claim their country's natural resource as a act of aggression.. The West isn't invincible no where did I say it was.. Guess what they do affect our country because of the hostility it recieves due to our questionable policies.. And I am sorry but I don't have as selfish and ignorant views as you, unlike you I actually care if innocent people suffer around the world through my countries policies.. sSubZerOoOf course it did. Mosadeqs nationalization would drive up oil prices for the entire OECD. Back in the day, the middle east wasn't as developed in terms of oil derrecks as it is now, and Iran with the help of the British was one of the only regions where oil-production existed properly. Britain had invested a huge amount of money in Irans oil industry and Mosadeq wanted to take this for himself. This could not be the case of course. I'm not selfish, I care about my countrymen and our allies. I care for our future prosperity. Ignorance does not play a part in this.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]] I am sorry but what? Mosadeq nationalizing the oil did not affect the US at all, but it pissed off the British and MI6.. Yet again he felt the British were ripping his country off.. You seriously can't be this crazy right? That wanting to claim their country's natural resource as a act of aggression.. The West isn't invincible no where did I say it was.. Guess what they do affect our country because of the hostility it recieves due to our questionable policies.. And I am sorry but I don't have as selfish and ignorant views as you, unlike you I actually care if innocent people suffer around the world through my countries policies.. jointedOf course it did. Mosadeqs nationalization would drive up oil prices for the entire OECD. Back in the day, the middle east wasn't as developed in terms of oil derrecks as it is now, and Iran with the help of the British was one of the only regions where oil-production existed properly. Britain had invested a huge amount of money in Irans oil industry and Mosadeq wanted to take this for himself. This could not be the case of course. I'm not selfish, I care about my countrymen and our allies. I care for our future prosperity. Ignorance does not play a part in this. No it wouldn't have. Production of oil would have been the same. It's just that the Iranian government would be getting most of the profits as opposed to the British government. Also, the nationalization process involved reimbursing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company for facilities. You should really just stop talking about this.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]] I am sorry but what? Mosadeq nationalizing the oil did not affect the US at all, but it pissed off the British and MI6.. Yet again he felt the British were ripping his country off.. You seriously can't be this crazy right? That wanting to claim their country's natural resource as a act of aggression.. The West isn't invincible no where did I say it was.. Guess what they do affect our country because of the hostility it recieves due to our questionable policies.. And I am sorry but I don't have as selfish and ignorant views as you, unlike you I actually care if innocent people suffer around the world through my countries policies.. jointedOf course it did. Mosadeqs nationalization would drive up oil prices for the entire OECD. Back in the day, the middle east wasn't as developed in terms of oil derrecks as it is now, and Iran with the help of the British was one of the only regions where oil-production existed properly. Britain had invested a huge amount of money in Irans oil industry and Mosadeq wanted to take this for himself. This could not be the case of course. I'm not selfish, I care about my countrymen and our allies. I care for our future prosperity. Ignorance does not play a part in this. Wut , Great Britian controlled the oil industry of Iran.. And the oil went solely to Great Britain.. The US's main goal was to have another pro capitalist power in the Middle East to combat the USSR.. The nationalizing of the oil made the perfect excuse for.. And I am sorry but what? Thats Iran's oil, its perfectly within a countries power to claim (or reclaim) their OWN natural resources.. Yes you are selfish.. You do not care for the rights of other human beings and states that are not within your own.. And quite frankly your exactly whats wrong with humanity today.
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]] I am sorry but what? Mosadeq nationalizing the oil did not affect the US at all, but it pissed off the British and MI6.. Yet again he felt the British were ripping his country off.. You seriously can't be this crazy right? That wanting to claim their country's natural resource as a act of aggression.. The West isn't invincible no where did I say it was.. Guess what they do affect our country because of the hostility it recieves due to our questionable policies.. And I am sorry but I don't have as selfish and ignorant views as you, unlike you I actually care if innocent people suffer around the world through my countries policies.. shakmaster13Of course it did. Mosadeqs nationalization would drive up oil prices for the entire OECD. Back in the day, the middle east wasn't as developed in terms of oil derrecks as it is now, and Iran with the help of the British was one of the only regions where oil-production existed properly. Britain had invested a huge amount of money in Irans oil industry and Mosadeq wanted to take this for himself. This could not be the case of course. I'm not selfish, I care about my countrymen and our allies. I care for our future prosperity. Ignorance does not play a part in this. No it wouldn't have. Production of oil would have been the same. It's just that the Iranian government would be getting most of the profits as opposed to the British government. Also, the nationalization process involved reimbursing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company for facilities. You should really just stop talking about this. Err yes it would have? Mosadeq advocated higher oil prices, this is common knowledge. Besides, Mosadeq wanted to nationalize something which the British government had developed. This in itself would have been a sufficient cause for war. This is however a discussion about the war on terror, not about Iran anno 1953.
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]] I am sorry but what? Mosadeq nationalizing the oil did not affect the US at all, but it pissed off the British and MI6.. Yet again he felt the British were ripping his country off.. You seriously can't be this crazy right? That wanting to claim their country's natural resource as a act of aggression.. The West isn't invincible no where did I say it was.. Guess what they do affect our country because of the hostility it recieves due to our questionable policies.. And I am sorry but I don't have as selfish and ignorant views as you, unlike you I actually care if innocent people suffer around the world through my countries policies.. sSubZerOoOf course it did. Mosadeqs nationalization would drive up oil prices for the entire OECD. Back in the day, the middle east wasn't as developed in terms of oil derrecks as it is now, and Iran with the help of the British was one of the only regions where oil-production existed properly. Britain had invested a huge amount of money in Irans oil industry and Mosadeq wanted to take this for himself. This could not be the case of course. I'm not selfish, I care about my countrymen and our allies. I care for our future prosperity. Ignorance does not play a part in this. Wut , Great Britian controlled the oil industry of Iran.. And the oil went solely to Great Britain.. The US's main goal was to have another pro capitalist power in the Middle East to combat the USSR.. The nationalizing of the oil made the perfect excuse for.. And I am sorry but what? Thats Iran's oil, its perfectly within a countries power to claim (or reclaim) their OWN natural resources.. Yes you are selfish.. You do not care for the rights of other human beings and states that are not within your own.. And quite frankly your exactly whats wrong with humanity today. It went to Britain because it was Britains! Britain had developed the entire oil industry, the profits belonged to Britain.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment