What exactly is an appropriate response?

you ALL are wrong.

there are just a lot of people that aren't having enough SEX. plain and simple.

i'm too busy having SEX and hacking around on computers to HATE. i like SEX. war can kill me. i would rather have SEX. that's what these guys need to do. GET LAID.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Rusotto....go lower...far.lower.
Socioeconomic differences. You don't see many extremists in irst world counties, wonder why...

But it's important to note there are very FEW pure extremists anyway. And there are more extremists in the first world than one may think--Northern Ireland is a perfect example.

Extremism requires certain conditions, such as poverty and much of the povery in the middle east could have bene avoided if the US wasen't so interesting in playing games to its advangeage.

I completely disagree. These countries were not made poor by the US. Did the US make them poorer? Sure. Did the US stick its nose in where it didn't belong. Sure. But WHO is responsible for the beginnings of this widespread poverty? I'd wager a combination of colonialism and their own people. Take away the debt to the US, and there would probably still be leftover debt. And as far as playing games, look what Australia did with the Tampa refugees...taking advantage of refugees from a country that is fighting internal strife (Indonesia). No one is innocent...

As for afgansitan, leaving a country awash with arms after youv'e won another point on the ideological scoreboard probably didn't help.

But by that rationale, then the Soviets are responsible too. After all, a lot of their leftover equipment has been used in Afghanistan since they left (although I hear it's in bad shape).

[jaguar]

While there are very few 'Pure' Extremists there are one hel of alot of symththisers and supporters. And look at northern ireland, opressed, often impoverished irish, gee that fits my model rather well wouldn't you say? (Yes i've been there) The enitre community supports the 3-4 IRA members in each community, its similar in much of the middle east.

There are quite a few regimes in the middle east the US supports that could easily be called draconian, the reasons i'm sure are not pure. From a stance i could say that the US interfering iwht who leads *any* country is wrong, i mena after all it is the poepl e of htat country, wheither through free elections, revolution etc who leads their country wihtout the artifical effect of a few hundred million in aid to the currant regime. Particualry in oil countries.


I don't think Russia intended to elave *anything* behind. Russias reason was teritorial gain, the US just wanted to piss them off, Afghastian was a pawn for thier use, then to be dumped.

In the Middle East its not so much an issue of poverty (which does exist) as power, many of thsoe nations and tier islamic elements feel that they are powerless pawn to the US (which they are) and resent this (oddly enough). If some state next to philadelphia started throwing money around in your internal politics so they could build a nuclear waste dump in your land or something wouldn't you be a tad pissed off too.

I'm not saying anyone is innocent, think Australias handling of the Tampa is an unexcuseble shame and a breach of human rights and the technicality playing bastards in Camberra who have shunted around these poor people for political gain shoudl be forced to stand down..

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
While there are very few 'Pure' Extremists there are one hel of alot of symththisers and supporters. And look at northern ireland, opressed, often impoverished irish, gee that fits my model rather well wouldn't you say? (Yes i've been there)

No, I wouldn't say that. I don't think what is happening in Northern Ireland is a matter of SES, it's more a matter of religious and territorial issues.

From a stance i could say that the US interfering iwht who leads *any* country is wrong, i mena after all it is the poepl e of htat country, wheither through free elections, revolution etc who leads their country wihtout the artifical effect of a few hundred million in aid to the currant regime. Particualry in oil countries.

Most of the oil countries are controlled by rich emirs and kings, who have been in power for umpteen gazillion years...well before the US was around.

I don't think Russia intended to elave *anything* behind. Russias reason was teritorial gain, the US just wanted to piss them off, Afghastian was a pawn for thier use, then to be dumped.

A pawn for both countries. As were all the former countries of the Eastern Bloc. There were plenty of countries played by the US, including Iraq. Certainly, it wasn't right. But if we're trying to remedy the injustices against third-world countries, we need to get down to the origins and go from there.

In the Middle East its not so much an issue of poverty (which does exist) as power, many of thsoe nations and tier islamic elements feel that they are powerless pawn to the US (which they are) and resent this (oddly enough).

For the record, all middle eastern countries are considered third world, with the exception of Israel.

I wouldn't say it is as much of a pawn situation anymore. I don't blame Arab countries for getting paranoid, given how much money is given to Israel. At the same time, the US has had relatively good relations with most of the Arab world for the past decade. The world has bitched at Israel for years...but no one made any initiative to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the table until recently. Of course, that also depends on Israel's president of the month.

If some state next to philadelphia started throwing money around in your internal politics so they could build a nuclear waste dump in your land or something wouldn't you be a tad pissed off too.

We already have a nuclear waste dump next to Philadelphia...it's called New Jersey.

[jaguar]

From what I’ve seen religion isn't so much the issue in Northern Ireland as just Irish vs. English, nothing more to it. All have done pretty badly under virtual martial law, and they are all very pissed off. The IRA has intricate early warning and slow=down systems with which to hide people and equipment in the suburbs that require the complete cooperation of one hell of allot of people. The reason those people do that is because they are very, very pissed off at the British. Same deal in Palestine for example. My point was that for extremism to be successful you need someing for poeple to be very angry about, tw has covered alot of this stuff.
Is United Arab Emirates considered third world?(genuine question, i wouldn't have thought so)

we need to get down to the origins and go from there

What would you say that is?
I'd say class war.

My typing should improve now that I have a spellchecker on here again. Apologies.

Cultures is a big issue too, its been said many a time that alot of Islamic countries are annoying becuase their own culture is being lost, a byproduct of globalisation.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
From what I’ve seen religion isn't so much the issue in Northern Ireland as just Irish vs. English, nothing more to it. All have done pretty badly under virtual martial law, and they are all very pissed off. The IRA has intricate early warning and slow=down systems with which to hide people and equipment in the suburbs that require the complete cooperation of one hell of allot of people. The reason those people do that is because they are very, very pissed off at the British. Same deal in Palestine for example. My point was that for extremism to be successful you need someing for poeple to be very angry about, tw has covered alot of this stuff.

I posted the URL for Blair's speech on another thread. He actually covers Palestine and Northern Ireland in it.

Is United Arab Emirates considered third world?(genuine question, i wouldn't have thought so)

You may have a point there...I haven't seen a recent map of the third world countries.

Cultures is a big issue too, its been said many a time that alot of Islamic countries are annoying becuase their own culture is being lost, a byproduct of globalisation.

I think it's possible that a country can retain its cultural diversity while becoming a greater part of the world society. I think Europe will experience this type of situation in the coming years as well. Granted, no one should be force-fed western culture...but in our current world, isolationism is nearly impossible to achieve.

[russotto]

Originally posted by jaguar
Rusotto....go lower...far.lower.
Socioeconomic differences. You don't see many extremists in irst world counties, wonder why...

Seriously, tell me about Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczinsky and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and....

We've got all sorts of extremists in the US. Most of them in the "mostly harmless" category, and thus aren't news.

Extremism requires certain conditions, such as poverty and much of the povery in the middle east could have bene avoided if the US wasen't so interesting in playing games to its advangeage.

Stuff and nonsense. Poverty is not a requirement for extremism (bin Laden is not poor, for one thing), and the US didn't cause poverty in the middle east in general nor Afghanistan in particular.

As for afgansitan, leaving a country awash with arms after youv'e won another point on the ideological scoreboard probably didn't help.

The weapons left are, for the most part, Russian. And would you care to try and take them away?

Islamic extremism is the rallying point for this anti-first world anger. Thsoe reasons you listed down the bottom further my point, the real anger isin't about anyhting that petty, its about being made powerless fools by the first world. People don't liek when thier nation has its strings pulled.

The First World's mere existence is an affront enough. The US is still not at fault.

[jaguar]

*sighs*

Seriously, tell me about Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczinsky and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and....

They don't have the support of entire nations like Bin Laden does do though do they?

Stuff and nonsense. Poverty is not a requirement for extremism (bin Laden is not poor, for one thing), and the US didn't cause poverty in the Middle East in general nor Afghanistan in particular.

Anger at something, poverty is one of the most common, look at the rise of Hitler after WW1 or the Russian Revolution. When things get bad people turn to those who look like providing answers or at least a scapegoat (Hitler: Jews, Bin Laden: America)

The weapons left are, for the most part, Russian. And would you care to try and take them away?

Wait till a US plane is taken out by a US made stinger missile. Watch the CIA squirm then :p . But that is not the issue, it’s that they just completely left after getting what they wanted. It was like leaving the anti-sadam forces in Iraq to get slaughtered after BushSr pulled out.

The First World's mere existence is an affront enough. The US is still not at fault.

More about not being part of it then it existing.

[elSicomoro]

In the somewhat-related department, I wrote an essay regarding debt relief a little over a year ago. It was during the IMF/World Bank protests in Washington last April.

While Afghanistan is giving bin Laden refuge, I wouldn't necessarily say that he has the support of an entire country. The same thing with Pakistan.

This just came to my mind. The "turning point" with bin Laden seems to be the US being on Saudi soil during the Gulf War. Now then, Iraq went INTO Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (at Dhaharan). So, here is an aggressor (a Muslim country) going onto "sacred soil" (Saudi Arabia). Iraq probably could have taken some Saudi territory if they hadn't encountered American forces. So I guess my question is, why is bin Laden going headfirst after the US, when his own "people" invaded his homeland? It seems a bit contradictory. Or was he already looking at the Americans as "aggressors" and the Iraqis as "freedom fighters?" But if that were the case, was he agreeable with the invasion of one Muslim country (Kuwait) by another (Iraq)?

[jaguar]

As I’ve said before its things like that that show that his apparent motives are far more global than such incidents. General dislike of the US for other far bigger reasons shines though. I’m starting to think it’s more cultural than economic. Islam fears being eroded by an apparently unstoppable wave of western culture which is causing them o go more extreme in an effort to protect their own culture. Thoughts? From another perspective I doubt it would do his Muslim popularity rating much good if he starting bombing Arabs in Iraq. Although Sadam himself I thought would have been a popular target.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
As I’ve said before its things like that that show that his apparent motives are far more global than such incidents. General dislike of the US for other far bigger reasons shines though. I’m starting to think it’s more cultural than economic.

I've heard it said on several occasions by common folk much like us.

My opinion on Western culture is this: For all of its excesses, 21st century Western culture as a whole is pretty good. We have unprecedented technology in various sectors. Although I cannot speak for the rest of Western society, the majority of Americans have a decent standard of living. (Although 15% of Americans living in poverty is 15% too much.) Communication and access to information are at their greatest point in history, and continue to expand. And overall, again IMO, the 2001 Western world is an enlightened one.

Islam fears being eroded by an apparently unstoppable wave of western culture which is causing them o go more extreme in an effort to protect their own culture. Thoughts?

Western culture, particularly American culture, is high on material excess (although maybe not as much as it was 15 years ago). As an example, I will use Japanese exchange students that came to SEMO to study in 1994-95. Japanese culture, though becoming more Western, is still rather reserved by our standards. Some of these kids came over and were simply overwhelmed. They ate up as much of it as they could--smoking cigarettes, cutting class, dyeing their hair, piercing various body parts, etc. Now granted, this is merely an example, and does not represent all Japanese exchange students at SEMO (or around the world for that matter). But from my standpoint, given that Islam is not high on excess, some Islamic countries may look upon our culture with shame. In turn, they may fear that their young ones will be swallowed up by Western culture, hence diluting the future of their own culture. It doesn't help that we practically force-feed our culture to the world at large, so perhaps they feel as if we are downgrading their own culture. Although it doesn't justify terrorism, I can certainly understand if they feel that way.

*feeling philosophical* At the same time, regardless of what a certain country's laws dictate, I believe that all people have a strong element of free will. At the same time, the human race is extremely gullible. If you're a young kid living in, say Iran, and you see the US (a mouthpiece for the world) hawking Western culture, and you see people that are enjoying it, then to some degree, it makes you want to join the rest of the gang. At the same time, if you're being told how bad it is, I believe to some degree that that will make you all the more curious.

I am now going back to school to get a sociology degree...I always did like sociology better than philosophy.

[jaguar]

My opinion on Western culture is this: For all of its excesses, 21st century Western culture as a whole is pretty good. We have unprecedented technology in various sectors. Although I cannot speak for the rest of Western society, the majority of Americans have a decent standard of living. (Although 15% of Americans living in poverty is 15% too much.) Communication and access to information are at their greatest point in history, and continue to expand. And overall, again IMO, the 2001 Western world is an enlightened one.

Hm, i'd say most of that isn't so much cultural as just tech. They don't have to be interrelated. One can lead to another and they are obviously joined at the hip but..

It seems every issue from aids in africa to 911 that i have a long discussion comes down to globalisation.

At the same time, regardless of what a certain country's laws dictate, I believe that all people have a strong element of free will

Now THAT is interesting. Igorence is bliss comes in. You could argue that if people no nothing better then they will be happy, which is very orwellian. WIsh i had itme to continue this now but homework is calling.

[russotto]

Originally posted by jaguar
As I’ve said before its things like that that show that his apparent motives are far more global than such incidents. General dislike of the US for other far bigger reasons shines though. I’m starting to think it’s more cultural than economic. Islam fears being eroded by an apparently unstoppable wave of western culture which is causing them o go more extreme in an effort to protect their own culture. Thoughts? From another perspective I doubt it would do his Muslim popularity rating much good if he starting bombing Arabs in Iraq. Although Sadam himself I thought would have been a popular target.

You keep trying to find a reason to pin responsibility on the US and the first world. It isn't there. Islam in general is not responsible for this attack; neither bin Laden nor the Taliban represents Islam in general, and _both_ have been denounced (the Taliban even BEFORE Sept 19th) by Islamic countries and Islamic religious leaders. Osama Bin Laden is even alienated from his own family -- his nephew was in the US, studying at a university, on September 11th. Further, Afghanistan is completely unthreatened by any wave of western culture, as they have successfully managed to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

In Afghanistan, the US didn't leave anyone to get slaughtered once we pulled out. The US were never there in force; it provided weapons and who knows what else, but it wasn't like Desert Storm. Furthermore, the US backed side _won_. The Soviets pulled out in 1989. Then the anti-Soviet alliance fell apart and civil war ensued. This, too, is not the fault of the US (nor even the Soviets, who had sufficient problems of their own). The Taliban wasn't even formed until well after that.

As for Iraq, the US had no obligation to ensure the victory of the anti-Saddam forces. Desert Storm gave them an opportunity, but they weren't able to take advantage of it.

[jaguar]

You keep trying to find a reason to pin responsibility on the US and the first world. It isn't there. Islam in general is not responsible for this attack; neither bin Laden nor the Taliban represents Islam in general, and _both_ have been denounced (the Taliban even BEFORE Sept 19th) by Islamic countries and Islamic religious leaders.

I never said Islam was, as an entity, responsible. Are you seriously telling me there is little or no support in Lebanon, Palastine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Many other states for the Taliban and Bin Laden? Many want a Taliban style revolution! (interesting naffact: aparantly the footage of Palstinians celebrating shown on CNN was from 1991)

The PLO, Hamas, Hezbolah(how u spell it?)Islamic Jihad etc, support Bin Laden and are closely interlinked, they have mainstream suppot in the Islamic world.

And to assume there is no cultural, economic or political basis for what they did, they why did they?

I stand by what i said, marginalised, often impoverished people a ripe for exploitation by extremist movements, viola Middle East.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by jaguar
I stand by what i said, marginalised, often impoverished people a ripe for exploitation by extremist movements

Well, that would explain professional wrestling, wouldn't it?

Hmmmm... marginalised, impoverished people exploited by lunatics, you say? Yes... just like St. Petersburg in 1917, eh Jag? Or China during the Great Leap Forward? Or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? I'm sorry to have to use such old examples, but the "inevitable victory of the historical dialectic" got the shit kicked out of it by "decadent bourgeois capitalism" a while back, so I had to reach back several decades to find what I was looking for. (Odd that no more recent examples of the forward march of Socialism are available, don't you think?)

Yes, yes... many interesting parallels between the tactics employed by the Taliban and those employed by the "progressive" forces of international Socialism... let's discuss them in another thread sometime?

-1 Offtopic (But intensely satisfying)