Yeah - the inner cities, poverty seems to be a cycle that doesn’t end. In the US, I think about 90-95% of the wealth is controlled by about 5-10% of the population, but unlike, for example the Saudi Royal family, anybody in more liberal societies such as the US have the opportunity to join the 5%. There is no strict system that keeps the poor poor and rich rich. Many poor people become rich, and many rich people lose everything they have and end up in jail.
Most goods in the US and UK are reasonably affordable for the poor. The basic necessities are met, and people here live in the hope that they can be better off in the future. That hope does not exist in many of the African or ME countries. Even the basic necessities are scarce. If somebody tells them that they can hope to achieve everything they wish by blowing up places x, y, and z - they will join in. It’s not like they have anything else going for them.
This is similar to the gang violence and shootings in the inner cities. The members join the gang because it provides them some sort of security and power that their environment does not provide them.
EDIT: Poor people can avoid being poor provided somebody shows them the right way. Similar to how terrorists can not be terrorists if they are shown another way. It’s not as if many of the ME countries have something to show for “another way.”
as usual with you kirupa i agree to a point , but dont like the rose (kirupa) tinted spectacles you view the west/USA with.
It is a loveless hell hole like the rest of planet its just more bearable than many other places
Fair play phil, you have a point man about it being anyone and them still invading it. But I think therfor you have missed my ORIGINAL point (my fault didnt make it very clear)
As i was discussing in my crusades thread i dont believe the ORIGINAL crusades were really about religion, even way back then it was for trade routes and money…
So in that way it is IDENTICAL to the crusades you see, i believe
that its the original purpose of the first crusades that we need to define man…
Don’t paint ‘us’ with such a broad brush Ave
I didnt, you painted yourself with it along with the majority of other americans onthese forums even the subversive ones like you phil, have been brainwashed into believing that arabs and muslims are some how responsible for the majority of terrorism and violence and unrest even though like 10 yrs ago and earlier we barley heard anything about them.
I see americans use phrases like “everyone knows most terrorists are muslim” or “islam is a violent religion” and various other unfounded and narrowminded views.
We are not much better in the UK man in fact we are worse, cause we follow you guys.
Not our fault but years of propaganda has convinced us all not to trust arabs or muslims…
As a point of info have you ever been to a muslim country ?
*Originally posted by ave *
**]for the majority of terrorism and violence and unrest even though like 10 yrs ago and earlier we barley heard anything about them. **
That’s the question RB is asking - what caused it to be more prominent in the past 10 years. Terrorism - islamic one at that - has existed for a long time. Various countries such as India/Pak have had their fare share of terrorist violence over the decades
That’s the question RB is asking - what caused it to be more prominent in the past 10 years. Terrorism - islamic one at that - has existed for a long time. Various countries such as India/Pak have had their fare share of terrorist violence over the decades
The answer seems pretty simple to me. …the end of the cold war. The US needed a new way to justify wasting billions of dollars abroad that could be spent on our own citizens. Without the public’s constant fear of communist invasion or nuclear attack, we needed some other ‘ists’ to be afraid of and islamic fundamentalists and terrorists work perfectly. Now instead of worrying about your neighbor being a commie spy, it’s worrying that the arab man you see downtown has a dirty bomb in his briefcase. It’s amazing what people will believe when they’re scared.
The answer seems pretty simple to me. …the end of the cold war. The US needed a new way to justify wasting billions of dollars abroad that could be spent on our own citizens. Without the public’s constant fear of communist invasion or nuclear attack, we needed some other ‘ists’ to be afraid of and islamic fundamentalists and terrorists work perfectly. Now instead of worrying about your neighbor being a commie spy, it’s worrying that the arab man you see downtown has a dirty bomb in his briefcase. It’s amazing what people will believe when they’re scared.
*Originally posted by ahmed *
**Non of the Islamic teachings i’ve had ever encouraged Terrorism, and it in fact rather opposes it. As a Muslim though, it’s my duty to defend my land. I am encouraged to go an fight in Palestine and do whatever neccesary to help defend my land. Going off at other countries, like what happened in sept. 11, is something that Islam would oppose though, to my best knowledge
It’s really a rather peaceful religion, or at least used to be, if you read the holybook or the prophet’s sayings… things change :trout:
**
Yes but its the extremists that branch out on interpreting the Koran (sp) into a holy war approach that cause the ill feeling.
yes laslett but one could argue the same point at christianity, that also has its MAD fundamentalists, and yet when i question christians on this they say "well those are not REAL christians and arent following gods word"
Surely those who follow islam could say exactly the same in regards to there fundamentalists ??
As usual with christianity its ONE rule for themselves…and another for everyone else.
Do as i say not as i do , seems to be the christian way.
*Originally posted by ave *
**yes laslett but one could argue the same point at christianity, that also has its MAD fundamentalists, and yet when i question christians on this they say “well those are not REAL christians and arent following gods word”
Surely those who follow islam could say exactly the same in regards to there fundamentalists ??
As usual with christianity its ONE rule for themselves…and another for everyone else.
Do as i say not as i do , seems to be the christian way. **
I knew as soon as i hit submit that this would come up.
I totally agree. I was just responding to the thread title re: Islam however it can be applied to all religions that have have extremists.
*Originally posted by dropkick *
**The answer seems pretty simple to me. …the end of the cold war. The US needed a new way to justify wasting billions of dollars abroad that could be spent on our own citizens. Without the public’s constant fear of communist invasion or nuclear attack, we needed some other ‘ists’ to be afraid of and islamic fundamentalists and terrorists work perfectly. Now instead of worrying about your neighbor being a commie spy, it’s worrying that the arab man you see downtown has a dirty bomb in his briefcase. It’s amazing what people will believe when they’re scared. **
While its true to a point it fails to answer the question of fundamental terrorism, where its the people or the terrorist rebell against other nations using them as pawns, and continue to wage war on them and to regain their identety with the Islam religion. Again, the media or the goverment can be over inflating the danger there really is, but thats not what I am asking. What you said is true for state-sponcored terrorism, but not fundamental, the one that 'threaten" USA.
Maybe I mis-read but…Why does it matter if the terrorist is “fundamental” or “state-sponsored”. Either way someone is playing off the fear of the general public. The source isn’t really of any consequence here.
There is a big diffrence, state-sponcored is usualy for political idialogical goals, the enemies is usualy another very real oppent that the enemy cant or dont want to engage in an open conflict. Fundamental terrorism is a religious idiological goals, to wage war against anywone from the book of war (unbeleivers) anyone with a diffrent life style. Its a fight against not only people but against modernity.
basicaly, the two have diffrent goals, its sort of like the diffrence between the PLF and the Al-Queda.
The main point is that the US governement hasn’t made that distinction. They’ve just claimed this noble “war on terrorism” but are only going after a tiny piece. Why aren’t we raiding houses in Belfast looking for the Real or Continuity IRA? Why aren’t coalition troops bombing Latin America? Why did we go after Iraq first and not N. Korea. We know Kim Jung Il has the means to produce and deliver WMD that would be a direct threat to the states and Saddam’s programs are based upon speculative “evidence” from Bush(if Saddam had WMD, wouldn’t he have used them against the invaders?) I’ll stop before I get too off topic.
Basically, this whole war on terrorism thing is just a plot to keep the oil bidness in business or the US government is full of ignorant, racist, christian fundamentalists…or both.
*Originally posted by dropkick *
**The main point is that the US governement hasn’t made that distinction. They’ve just claimed this noble “war on terrorism” but are only going after a tiny piece. Why aren’t we raiding houses in Belfast looking for the Real or Continuity IRA? Why aren’t coalition troops bombing Latin America? Why did we go after Iraq first and not N. Korea. We know Kim Jung Il has the means to produce and deliver WMD that would be a direct threat to the states and Saddam’s programs are based upon speculative “evidence” from Bush(if Saddam had WMD, wouldn’t he have used them against the invaders?) I’ll stop before I get too off topic.
Basically, this whole war on terrorism thing is just a plot to keep the oil bidness in business or the US government is full of ignorant, racist, christian fundamentalists…or both. **
Who is more likely to give those wepons to terrorist organizations, N. Korea or Iraq? I believe Iraq. Who has used WMD in the past? Iraq.
Don’t get me wrong, I belive that N. Korea if full of a bunch of crazy people willing to destroy America, but thier government is more show. They have the ability to inflict great harm, but if the past shows anything, it is that N. Korea keeps to themselves (with the exclusion of poping shots over to S.Korea.). Iraq on the other hand has invaded its neighbors and has used WMD. It is a no brainer in my opinion that Iraq was the bigger threat. I also believe that the situation in N. Korea can be delt with diplomaticly, where as that was impossible in Iraq.
I don’t quite see it smallest to biggest, but most immanent to least. I.e. stop the training camps in Afgan, stop the WMD in Iraq, the I see Iran as the next step. Hopefully diplomaticly, but you never know. I really think that the N.Korea will be handled diplomaticly, but you are right phil…N. Korea is a force to be reconed with.
The likelihood of Saddam and Osama being in cohorts is slim to none. I don’t doubt that Hussein would have given/sold weapons to terrorist organizations but throwing out troops whenever the government thinks someone is harboring terrorists but really doesn’t have any proof is ridiculous. Yes, Hussein has used chemical weapons, but when has that been a direct threat to the US? Phil agrees that we’re not here to police the globe.
Phil -
The US had about 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves and produced roughly 4-5 million per day(being conservative there). We use about 20 mil per day. If someone actually pulled off your scheme, chances are the US would tap into ANWR to bump up the production. This isn’t even counting what is imported from Canada and South America. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be harmful to the world economy, it just wouldn’t be as crippling and apocalyptic.
Anyways - back to the topic
RB - terrorists don’t have to be state-sponsored to be politically motivated and countries can support religiously motivated terrorism.
*Originally posted by dropkick * The main point is that the US governement hasn’t made that distinction. They’ve just claimed this noble “war on terrorism” but are only going after a tiny piece. Why aren’t we raiding houses in Belfast looking for the Real or Continuity IRA
Because it doesn’t affect them yet! Its not a threat to the U.S. so why spend on something that doesn’t affect you!
The likelihood of Saddam and Osama being in cohorts is slim to none.
maybe even lower than that, after all they are completely religiously opposed to each other.
Why aren’t we raiding houses in Belfast looking for the Real or Continuity IRA
cause they arent terrorists man…duh stupid you, they are friendly irish freedom fighters against british oppresion, terrorists are just ARabs with towels on their heads arent they :trout:
