I voted for Obama in the last two elections because the Republican contenders were far too outlandish for my supposed tastes at the time. Looking back, I wonder if I was sucking the propaganda during the Obama/Romney campaign since I lament voting for Obama now.

(11-02-2014 10:00 AM)Americas Wrote:  The actual genetic differences between humans today, no matter how differentiated they are from region, is remarkably small. We are talking about a genetic difference of 1-2% here. In fact, the genetic differences within populations is almost as likely to occur as genetic different between populations. What this means that if you sample different populations (ie. races) 5 times, you will see 20% of that time the genetic differences to be greater within populations.

Race is a social construct. It was created by some crock pot anthropologists a few centuries ago to rank certain types of people, often in ridiculously racist and completely arbitrary ways. And it stuck because it was a social construct that aided in the justification of colonization of "weaker groups of humans" by Europeans.

Now, environment and culture does affect certain genetic dispositions of humans, but the lines are so blurry that making any certain inferences is kind of a waste of time. Yes, people have different physical characteristics, but the actual amount of genetic change for this to occur is remarkably small.

Humans and chimps also share 98% of the same DNA. Does that mean the difference between you and a chimpanzee is "remarkably small"? Also, it's trivially easy for forensic scientists to identify the race of a dead human being simply from examining their skeleton. That doesn't sound like a social construct to me.

Hatred based solely on race is silly, and "racial hierarchies" are pointless masturbatory exercises, but denying the biological existence of race is as laughable as denying the biological differences between the sexes.

(11-02-2014 06:58 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I don't like to get involved in religion discussions and don't know how this got onto that topic, but the prevailing Western narrative on Islam is mostly wrong. Yes, there are insanely violent extremists among Muslims, but the primary motivation for the conflict has been Western interference in Arab lands over the last 100 years. That is what Bin Laden complained about. In terms of human, family and tribal memory, 100 years is not a long time. In you fuck with someone enough, you can make them psychotic, yes. Westerners think history started with 9/11. It did not.

Just consider that in the last 100 years Western countries:

colonized the whole Islamic world from Mindanao to Morocco and extracted trillions of dollars worth of resources in oil, minerals, labor, agricultural products, timber, and rubber.

did things like "policing by bombing," i.e. indiscriminate bombing of rebellious Iraqi towns in the 1920s and 30s by the RAF, and committed massacres and atrocities in Mindanao and other places (Battle of Algiers) to enforce colonial rule;

tried to break Turkey up into pieces and colonize it after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Only Ataturk stopped it.

imposed a settler state (Israel) by Western fiat (Balfour) on holy lands of the Muslim and Christian Arabs, and condones expansionism (West Bank settlements) and brutal measures (Gaza)

installed and supported puppet regimes in many countries after colonization which enriched themselves while continuing to extract resources for the West (the Shah of Iran, Saddam for a time, Mubarak, Ben Ali, the Gulf monarchies)

right now and more recently, has waged war, bombing campaigns, and promoted insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims as "collateral damage" or murder (e.g. Blackwater) and of course destroyed the lives of millions through destruction and disorder.

Syria is a particular example. In that country, the West sought to disrupt a secular dictator not any worse than its own puppets (Mubarak, the Sauds) and created a monster which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Why?

I've been on the inside of a couple of the more recent conflicts, and I know there are two sides to all stories, but you have to look at the reality of the situation. A dead child is a dead child. Westerners, particularly Americans, thinking they are pure victims is a form of solipsism.

To say that only Muslims are killing is absurd - they are also being killed, in much greater numbers.

   

To get back on the topic, back in the day in Croatia (even though Europe in general is a bit to the left of the USA average, this is still a useful parable that illustrates the Democrats vs. Republicans choice) the story went like this:

1. Initially, I used to vote for the left parties because I both thought that they were more civilized and morally superior (ah, blue pill) to those "barbaric religious nationalist conservatives", and a few other reasons.

2. When I grew slightly disenchanted with the left kind of morality and saw and experienced the havoc that feminism was wreaking, I still kept voting for the left parties mainly because they produced better economic results by being vastly less corrupt than the right parties.

3. Then the left parties proved their economic incompetence to be at least as equal to the amount stolen by right parties, so I decided I wouldn't vote for the left parties unless the right parties and their candidates were really disgusting and/or stupid. Sadly, they indeed turned out to be that way, so I gave the left one more chance (this was roughly around the time Barack Obama had been re-elected).

4. Now that the left parties have both proven their economic incompetence to be at least as equal to the amount stolen by right parties, and their fanatical devotion to feminism has grown so much that it has become an actual threat to my existence (as opposed to being just some annoying but abstract philosophy like before), I have decided that I will never again vote for a left party, no matter how bad its opponents might seem in any other regard. Their opponents could be Nazis, I don't care. I am never again in my life voting for any party that espouses feminist beliefs.

My future consists of either voting for a right or libertarian party or staying at home.

/the diary of a disenchanted voter, and a testament to stupidity of Croatian leftist parties

I was exposed to both left and right politics as I grew up. My father's family is staunchly conservative, myself and him are Conservative-Libertarians, and my mother's is socialist in all but name. My maternal grandfather uses capitalist as an insult and capitalism as a swear word. My problem with progressivism and the left is the fact that their economic arguments lack any substance. In addition when you give firm evidence of how their policies are flawed the only defense they can offer is that somehow their policies are more "moral."

I reply that it is more moral to let some people lose in order for most people to win, and that their policies are unsustainable in the future and that an economic collapse will cause far more damage than a free market.

The response I get is almost always more false morality and empty arguments.

(11-02-2014 10:00 AM)Americas Wrote:  Race is a social construct. It was created by some crock pot anthropologists a few centuries ago to rank certain types of people, often in ridiculously racist and completely arbitrary ways. And it stuck because it was a social construct that aided in the justification of colonization of "weaker groups of humans" by Europeans.

Now, environment and culture does affect certain genetic dispositions of humans, but the lines are so blurry that making any certain inferences is kind of a waste of time. Yes, people have different physical characteristics, but the actual amount of genetic change for this to occur is remarkably small.

Oh boy here we go I guess your next statement will be that gender is a "Social Construct?"

In general in the West most people really need to unlearn all this cultural marxist crap they picked up over the years. It's patently false most of the time and has zero scientific backing.

(11-02-2014 11:52 AM)scorpion Wrote:  Humans and chimps also share 98% of the same DNA. Does that mean the difference between you and a chimpanzee is "remarkably small"? Also, it's trivially easy for forensic scientists to identify the race of a dead human being simply from examining their skeleton. That doesn't sound like a social construct to me.

Hatred based solely on race is silly, and "racial hierarchies" are pointless masturbatory exercises, but denying the biological existence of race is as laughable as denying the biological differences between the sexes.

The bold is actually completely incorrect. Forensic anthropology is not an exact science by any means. The furthest they can go is say this skull is "likely X race." And furthermore, when these differences are longitudinal they become even more random. This is also another discipline that evolved from pseudo-scientific methods trying to prove Caucasians were a superior race.

I never denied the biological existence of race, but that doesn't mean race isn't still a social construct. I said the differences are trivial and as a taxonomic indicator race is pretty pointless. The original argument I was arguing against was that you can't believe in evolution if you don't believe in inherent significant biological differences between different races, which is a fallacious argument.

I think what Americas said was intended to convey the same thought that scorpion put forward, but scorpion put it better with more factual information included.

Funny that you have conservatives and socialists in your family chambers. My grandmother votes republican in every election, yet both of my parents consider themselves democrats. They bitch about dem policies in the news constantly. What can I say? The left's fear mongering has them but the neck.

The fact that different races create different social constructs is proof enough that race is not a social construct.

Not really. You have opportunists, loathing, greed and fear in each group. These elements play out as different presentations depending on what echelon they are currently holding. Each is jockeying for their best advantage if divisive driven, or self comfort if fear driven.

(11-02-2014 10:00 AM)Americas Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 07:24 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Really? So a chihuahua and a Doberman are essentially the same? Or how about a border collie and a golden retriever on an intelligence test? Same species, right? Any population, even within a species, can obviously be affected by either natural or artificial selection in the same way that different species can.

Even then, the line between species is not always hard. In North America, for instance, wolves and coyotes have been known to interbreed.

Race amongst humans is also not just a social construct. There is a continuum between different races or certain mixtures, but if we consider certain physical features, we can broadly distinguish races. For instance, if you saw someone with pale skin, hair and eyes, which continent would you suppose his ancestors to have come from? (Don't be a clever clogs and say Africa.) Likewise, certain groups of people are far more likely to be susceptible to certain diseases, whilst such genetic predisposition is almost non-existent in other groups of people. Is that a social construct? Furthermore, when it comes to athletics, certain groups of people completely outperform others. Why are the top ten fastest times for marathons all held by East African men (not African in general, but specifically East African)? Is this merely a coincidence? Is it because of social conditions? Why do East Asians typically outperform those of European heritage on IQ tests, regardless of whether they grew up inside or outside the West, especially despite having lower levels of "privilege"? Why do Ashkenazi Jews outperform everybody else (including East Asians)? Why do men tend to outperform women on tests of spatial reasoning but women tend to outperform men on tests of verbal ability? Are all of these differences just social constructs?

Why would it be the case that evolution had an effect upon millions of other species and subgroups within them, and even upon human beings up until some arbitrary and politically correct point in the past, but not for humans, not recently enough to matter? What's this magic deus ex machina, if not a god of some form? I figure that if you're going to buy a theory, then you have to be consistent with it, even when that leads to uncomfortable places.

The actual genetic differences between humans today, no matter how differentiated they are from region, is remarkably small. We are talking about a genetic difference of 1-2% here. In fact, the genetic differences within populations is almost as likely to occur as genetic different between populations. What this means that if you sample different populations (ie. races) 5 times, you will see 20% of that time the genetic differences to be greater within populations.

So? There will be a distribution within any population, but you can still make comparisons between populations and comment upon such characteristics. The Dutch are supposedly the tallest nationality in the world. Is there a distribution of heights within the Netherlands? Can we find short Dutch people who are, indeed, shorter than people from other countries? Of course we can. We can still comment that the Dutch, as a population, are the tallest nationality. If we met a tall person and that's all that we knew about him, then surely we'd have to say that he's more likely to be Dutch than Korean, for instance. If we then found out that the short person was lactose intolerant, we'd say it's even more likely that he was Korean. If we then added a third, a fourth, a fifth factor, we'd get to the point where the probabilities would move so far away from 0.5 for either individual being Korean that we'd be able to say with extreme confidence which was which.

Race certainly isn't insignificant when we consider different genetic disorders, athletic ability, and possibly even intelligence.

Quote:Race is a social construct. It was created by some crock pot anthropologists a few centuries ago to rank certain types of people, often in ridiculously racist and completely arbitrary ways. And it stuck because it was a social construct that aided in the justification of colonization of "weaker groups of humans" by Europeans.

Now, environment and culture does affect certain genetic dispositions of humans, but the lines are so blurry that making any certain inferences is kind of a waste of time. Yes, people have different physical characteristics, but the actual amount of genetic change for this to occur is remarkably small.

The pseudo-science of the past has nothing to do with the validity of present science, especially since people nowadays bend over backwards to be politically correct on the issue of race.

The lines are nowhere near as blurry as you make them out to be. The PISA tests, for instance, are dominated by East Asian countries. Further to this, if we look at population groups within the United States, those of Asian descent outperform those of other races.

You still haven't explained why evolution as a process would be important enough for us to clearly demarcate sup-species groups within other species (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, cattle), despite the existence of those we might term "mongrels" and yet all of those same processes would suddenly be suspended for humans just in case everyone thought we were Nazis. Now that is a social construct.

It is actually quite possible to believe that groups are significantly different, weaker even if you want to go that far, and be opposed to colonialism. I have stated before at this site that I believe that Asian nations should be for Asians and should be kept largely Asian and European nations should be for Europeans and kept largely European. I also think that African nations should be for Africans and kept largely African. It is the secular left that is so hellbent on breaking down these ethno-nationalist distinctions and the secular left that would all usher in (even if unintentionally) Latin American style favelas ruled over by an often ethnically homogeneous elite.

(11-02-2014 08:25 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 07:32 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 06:58 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 05:32 AM)Akula Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:58 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  Religion has been the cause of more hatred, killing, oppression, and suffering in this world than anything else. Feminism can't even begin to match the evil that has been wrought in the name of religion through out the history of mankind.

We're talking about the here and now not the Moors or the Crusades hundereds of years ago. The only religion doing the killing these days seems to mostly be Islam which the left continually give a free pass. And being "Progressive" is pretty much a religion or at least a set of sacred beliefs now.

I don't like to get involved in religion discussions and don't know how this got onto that topic, but the prevailing Western narrative on Islam is mostly wrong. Yes, there are insanely violent extremists among Muslims, but the primary motivation for the conflict has been Western interference in Arab lands over the last 100 years. That is what Bin Laden complained about. In terms of human, family and tribal memory, 100 years is not a long time. In you fuck with someone enough, you can make them psychotic, yes. Westerners think history started with 9/11. It did not.

Just consider that in the last 100 years Western countries:

colonized the whole Islamic world from Mindanao to Morocco and extracted trillions of dollars worth of resources in oil, minerals, labor, agricultural products, timber, and rubber.

did things like "policing by bombing," i.e. indiscriminate bombing of rebellious Iraqi towns in the 1920s and 30s by the RAF, and committed massacres and atrocities in Mindanao and other places (Battle of Algiers) to enforce colonial rule;

tried to break Turkey up into pieces and colonize it after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Only Ataturk stopped it.

imposed a settler state (Israel) by Western fiat (Balfour) on holy lands of the Muslim and Christian Arabs, and condones expansionism (West Bank settlements) and brutal measures (Gaza)

installed and supported puppet regimes in many countries after colonization which enriched themselves while continuing to extract resources for the West (the Shah of Iran, Saddam for a time, Mubarak, Ben Ali, the Gulf monarchies)

right now and more recently, has waged war, bombing campaigns, and promoted insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims as "collateral damage" or murder (e.g. Blackwater) and of course destroyed the lives of millions through destruction and disorder.

Syria is a particular example. In that country, the West sought to disrupt a secular dictator not any worse than its own puppets (Mubarak, the Sauds) and created a monster which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Why?

I've been on the inside of a couple of the more recent conflicts, and I know there are two sides to all stories, but you have to look at the reality of the situation. A dead child is a dead child. Westerners, particularly Americans, thinking they are pure victims is a form of solipsism.

To say that only Muslims are killing is absurd - they are also being killed, in much greater numbers.

So how does that explain all of the aggression towards non-Western targets both within the Middle East and within other countries from Nigeria to Thailand and the Philippines?

You also conveniently left out that many of those "Muslim" countries in the Middle East were once Christian lands. Also, within the past one hundred years, Muslim nations have been colonial forces in the West, taken Western slaves, etc.

I'm not with the neo-cons at all, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

1. Thailand, Philippines, Nigeria - Imperfect borders in "Northern Ireland" type situations with an ethnoreligious minority and colonial borders in the wrong place. The Muslim insurgency in Thailand is in the extreme south, with an ethnic Muslim Malay minority fighting. Same thing in Mindanao - historical Sultanate of Sulu, later suppressed by the Spanish and by the Philippine government with settler rule. If you gave any of these places self-determination, they'd do their own thing. Is that "aggression?" One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Nigeria is a patchwork within colonial borders, remember that two Christian groups, Yoruba and Ibo fought a very bloody civil war over secession of the Ibo Biafra state.

Sure, many Muslim countries were Christian 700 years ago. They were Roman pagan before that. But we were talking about violence recently.

I don't buy into the narrative of colonialism that conflicts between people can be traced to imperfect colonial borders. In some cases, that is true. However, in the main, it's just a variation on the myth of the noble savage who lived in an idyllic state prior to the arrival of the white man. Thailand, for instance, was never colonised by the West. Many ethno-religious tensions in the world pre-date Western involvement. For instance, India. Islam was conquering and colonising people long before Western involvement. To selectively ignore this part of history simply because the Muslim world has not been in the ascendency for the past century grossly takes that past century out of context.

Quote:

Quote:Also, within the past one hundred years, Muslim nations have been colonial forces in the West, taken Western slaves, etc.

Not sure what you're talking about there, unless it's the Ottomans 100 years ago, but there's no doubt that the West is wayyy ahead in the body count score in the last 100, 50, 10, 1 years, even if you don't count Israel.

Not just the Ottomans (since slavery only became illegal in Saudi Arabia in 1962), but I brought them up because you discussed colonialism in Muslim lands. With the exception of Israel, and perhaps some very minor examples, there hasn't been colonisation of Muslim lands within the past one hundred years. During the nineteenth century, yes (though even then, there wasn't full-on colonisation as in other parts of the world), but the twentieth century was a period of decolonisation. The West has certainly interfered heavily in many places in the past century, but so have other nations. The Soviet Union/Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others have all interfered heavily in various parts of the Middle East over recent decades. That's largely what countries do if they have enough power and feel that they have something to gain or lose from a situation. The West (predominantly the US) has been able to interfere more simply because it has been the richest and had the most powerful military. As historian Niall Ferguson points out: empire is the least original idea on the planet.

I'm not justifying neo-con foreign policy at all. I was opposed, and continue to be opposed, to the military adventurism of the past decade in particular. However, to think that radical Islam is solely the result of that is absurd. Look at the recent genocides that have occurred in various places (ISIS in Iraq, Darfur, etc.). What did the people on the receiving end in those places have to do with Dick Cheney and co.? It also ignores the fact that Islamists have been problems in multiple European countries who have not played a role in the Middle East, but who have not only have never been colonial empires themselves, but have, in fact, been part of other countries' colonial empires. Again, you seem to suppose that if only the West would stop interfering in Muslim nations, then radical Islam would go away. That ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

This guy made my professor cry! Holy fuck haha

came here to post it but saw it was up. He had such an epic meltdown I wish I had recorded it and put it on youtube

delete

(11-02-2014 10:28 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  I don't buy into the narrative of colonialism that conflicts between people can be traced to imperfect colonial borders. In some cases, that is true. However, in the main, it's just a variation on the myth of the noble savage who lived in an idyllic state prior to the arrival of the white man. Thailand, for instance, was never colonised by the West. Many ethno-religious tensions in the world pre-date Western involvement. For instance, India. Islam was conquering and colonising people long before Western involvement. To selectively ignore this part of history simply because the Muslim world has not been in the ascendency for the past century grossly takes that past century out of context.

Quote:

Quote:Also, within the past one hundred years, Muslim nations have been colonial forces in the West, taken Western slaves, etc.

Not sure what you're talking about there, unless it's the Ottomans 100 years ago, but there's no doubt that the West is wayyy ahead in the body count score in the last 100, 50, 10, 1 years, even if you don't count Israel.

Not just the Ottomans (since slavery only became illegal in Saudi Arabia in 1962), but I brought them up because you discussed colonialism in Muslim lands. With the exception of Israel, and perhaps some very minor examples, there hasn't been colonisation of Muslim lands within the past one hundred years. During the nineteenth century, yes (though even then, there wasn't full-on colonisation as in other parts of the world), but the twentieth century was a period of decolonisation. The West has certainly interfered heavily in many places in the past century, but so have other nations. The Soviet Union/Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others have all interfered heavily in various parts of the Middle East over recent decades. That's largely what countries do if they have enough power and feel that they have something to gain or lose from a situation. The West (predominantly the US) has been able to interfere more simply because it has been the richest and had the most powerful military. As historian Niall Ferguson points out: empire is the least original idea on the planet.

I'm not justifying neo-con foreign policy at all. I was opposed, and continue to be opposed, to the military adventurism of the past decade in particular. However, to think that radical Islam is solely the result of that is absurd. Look at the recent genocides that have occurred in various places (ISIS in Iraq, Darfur, etc.). What did the people on the receiving end in those places have to do with Dick Cheney and co.? It also ignores the fact that Islamists have been problems in multiple European countries who have not played a role in the Middle East, but who have not only have never been colonial empires themselves, but have, in fact, been part of other countries' colonial empires. Again, you seem to suppose that if only the West would stop interfering in Muslim nations, then radical Islam would go away. That ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic history.

OK, in the case of Thailand/Malaysia, it's bad borders, but not because of colonial powers. It's more the case of an imperial power (UK) not being imperialistic enough. The southern provinces of Thailand were Malay sultanates up til the 19th century. The Thais conquered them. So there is an ethnic, linguistic and religious divide between those Malays and the Thais. The Brits didn't push up the peninsula much, but did secure some of the Malay territory formerly under control of Thais. So in that case, the colonial power did a service in separating the groups with borders.

These ethno-sectarian conflicts are not confined to Muslim minorities, like Chechens, Malays, and Moros - there also have been the conflicts with Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibetans in China, Ibos in Nigeria, Basques in Spain, and in Northern Ireland. Within Islam, the Bengalis in formerly East Pakistan are an example. Anywhere a group feels its rights or wish for self-rule are being thwarted by another group. It is not limited to Muslims.

If you're talking about a supposed history of aggression of Muslims "over fourteen centuries," what about western Christianity? Muslim expansion by conquest stopped around 1550. During that time and onward, Christians conquered the whole Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, almost all of Africa, India, almost all of southeast Asia. Read contemporary accounts like The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz. These guys at least pretended to be religiously motivated. There was a lot of brutality.

While the 20th century was a period of decolonization, the colonial powers persisted into the 1950s, even into the 1970s (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain were ruled by the Brits until 1971). After that, "neocolonialism" in the form of client states continued.

I don't object to the idea that Muslims might want to expand their lands; only that they are especially aggressive in that regard or successful. The historical record shows they were on the retreat and dominated from 1550 on, while Christians rampaged around the world.

Western interventions have fueled and justified ISIS. Any invader tends to rally people against it in some form. Since I live here, I see how western actions are portrayed in the Arab media, and they don't pull punches. While western media sanitizes the effects of their wars, both on the enemy and themselves, Arab media shows the grisly effect in the form of dead children and mutilated men in places like Iraq and Gaza. This has whipped up a lot of hate and discontent against the West in Muslim countries. The trauma of these wars has excited a kind of psychosis in the Muslim world.

Islam is also a cultural counterpoint to the forms of decadence we RVF forum members both complain about and enjoy, so the ISIS (or the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2011 Egyptian elections) guys can claim a purity and truly revolutionary aspect that our favored groups of secularists like the Free Syrian Army cannot.

As the Arabist and foreign policy realist retired Ambassador Charles Freeman said:

Amb. Charles Freeman: The Collapse of Order in the Middle East

Quote:. . . . the United States cannot escape responsibility for policies that helped birth Da`ish [ISIS] in Iraq and mature its fighting forces in Syria. The U.S. invasion of Iraq kicked off an orgy of intolerance and sectarian killing that has now taken at least 700,000 lives in Iraq and Syria and traumatized both, while threatening the existence of the other states created by Sykes-Picot a century ago. The rise of Da`ish is a consequence of anarchy brought on by Western attempts at regime change, but it is ultimately a deviant cult within Islam. Its immediate objective is to destroy the existing order in the Muslim world in the name of Islam. Its doctrines cannot be credibly rebutted by non-Muslims. The threat it poses requires a Muslim-led politico-military response. A US-dominated bombing campaign with token allied participation cannot kill it. The United States is well supplied with F-15s, 16s, and drones, but it lacks the religious credentials to refute Da`ish as a moral perversion of Islam. Arab air forces are helpful. Arab religious engagement and moral leadership are essential to contain and defeat Da`ish.

(11-03-2014 02:49 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  OK, in the case of Thailand/Malaysia, it's bad borders, but not because of colonial powers. It's more the case of an imperial power (UK) not being imperialistic enough. The southern provinces of Thailand were Malay sultanates up til the 19th century. The Thais conquered them. So there is an ethnic, linguistic and religious divide between those Malays and the Thais. The Brits didn't push up the peninsula much, but did secure some of the Malay territory formerly under control of Thais. So in that case, the colonial power did a service in separating the groups with borders.

So now the Brits get blamed for being imperialistic and not imperialistic enough? How does that work?!

Quote:These ethno-sectarian conflicts are not confined to Muslim minorities, like Chechens, Malays, and Moros - there also have been the conflicts with Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibetans in China, Ibos in Nigeria, Basques in Spain, and in Northern Ireland. Within Islam, the Bengalis in formerly East Pakistan are an example. Anywhere a group feels its rights or wish for self-rule are being thwarted by another group. It is not limited to Muslims.

If you're talking about a supposed history of aggression of Muslims "over fourteen centuries," what about western Christianity? Muslim expansion by conquest stopped around 1550. During that time and onward, Christians conquered the whole Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, almost all of Africa, India, almost all of southeast Asia. Read contemporary accounts like The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz. These guys at least pretended to be religiously motivated. There was a lot of brutality.

I have never said that aggression was confined to Islam. In fact, I recently wrote that I thought Christianity was a colonising force within Europe and was non-European. The difference with Islam, however, is that conquest is not baked into the religion. Christ was not a man of the sword. Mohammed was. It took Christianity to become bound up with the state for it to become an engine of conquest and colonisation.

As for 1550 being the end of Islamic conquest, right off the top of my head, I know that to be incorrect. There's also the issue of ISIS conquering territory right now. Regardless, the end point of ascendancy is not the point because given the opportunity (as we are seeing in Syria and Iraq), it would all happen again if possible.

Quote:While the 20th century was a period of decolonization, the colonial powers persisted into the 1950s, even into the 1970s (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain were ruled by the Brits until 1971). After that, "neocolonialism" in the form of client states continued.

It's not the same kind of colonisation though. The numbers of colonists were remarkably small, not to mention the forms that administration took. As for "neocolonialism", by that definition, as I mentioned in a previous post, it could be claimed that until recently, Syria was simultaneously a client state of (at least) the US, Russia and Iran, which doesn't make any sense at all. "Neocolonialism" is not colonialism.

Quote:I don't object to the idea that Muslims might want to expand their lands; only that they are especially aggressive in that regard or successful. The historical record shows they were on the retreat and dominated from 1550 on, while Christians rampaged around the world.

Again, I take issue with the idea that Europeans dominated Muslims from 1550 onwards is rather an exaggeration. The Battle of Vienna was by no means a foregone conclusion, and the Ottomans were no easy pickings for quite some time afterwards. Likewise, the Barbary Pirates were still a threat to some (not all) European nations until as late as 1830.

Quote:Western interventions have fueled and justified ISIS. Any invader tends to rally people against it in some form. Since I live here, I see how western actions are portrayed in the Arab media, and they don't pull punches. While western media sanitizes the effects of their wars, both on the enemy and themselves, Arab media shows the grisly effect in the form of dead children and mutilated men in places like Iraq and Gaza. This has whipped up a lot of hate and discontent against the West in Muslim countries. The trauma of these wars has excited a kind of psychosis in the Muslim world.

I don't disagree that the boneheaded foreign policy of the West, including from the Nobel Laureate himself, has caused all sorts of problems. Yet a significant portion of the problems in the Muslim World, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa has been a massive own goal. It's convenient for various groups and despots to blame the West for keeping Muslims down because it relieves the pressure from their own gross incompetence and/or corruption, but it's a victim mentality.

One of the stories of this century, I believe, is that as the West wanes in geopolitical and economic importance, and as Asia rises, the tide is going to go out, and Arabs (in particular) are going to be caught swimming naked. Take a nation such as Korea. Three generations ago, it was on a par with sub-Saharan Africa in terms of development. It is a former (non-Western) colony that endured brutal colonisation and then a horrible civil war, and still finds itself caught in a bit of a geopolitical hot spot. Yet it has risen above all of that, as have other nations in the region, as well as some in other regions. When the West declines in power and the East rises, and much of the Muslim world still wallows in backwardness and self-pity, what's the narrative going to be then? Korea has historically had virtually no contact with Islam. When Arabs are still cutting each other's heads off, will that have anything to do with Koreans? Will Koreans care? Should they? Anti-Western feelings in the Muslim world are excuses, as much as they are reasons, for their stagnation and/or regression.

Quote:Islam is also a cultural counterpoint to the forms of decadence we RVF forum members both complain about and enjoy, so the ISIS (or the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2011 Egyptian elections) guys can claim a purity and truly revolutionary aspect that our favored groups of secularists like the Free Syrian Army cannot.

Sure, but the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy shouldn't be something we should buy into here. I don't believe that we should endorse, or even admire, something simply because it stands in opposition to the degeneracy often present in the West now. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all. Further to that, based upon my direct observations of Muslim countries (two in SEA and two in the Middle East), I don't think I'd want to live in a Muslim country. The proof of the pie is in the eating, and Muslim nations are usually grossly dysfunctional or unpleasant places. Even in the "better" places, such as the UAE, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of local justice. (If you have the time, that two part piece is really an excellent piece of investigative journalism, as are most pieces from that show, despite the left-wing bent.)

Quote:As the Arabist and foreign policy realist retired Ambassador Charles Freeman said:

Amb. Charles Freeman: The Collapse of Order in the Middle East

[quote]. . . . the United States cannot escape responsibility for policies that helped birth Da`ish [ISIS] in Iraq and mature its fighting forces in Syria. The U.S. invasion of Iraq kicked off an orgy of intolerance and sectarian killing that has now taken at least 700,000 lives in Iraq and Syria and traumatized both, while threatening the existence of the other states created by Sykes-Picot a century ago. The rise of Da`ish is a consequence of anarchy brought on by Western attempts at regime change, but it is ultimately a deviant cult within Islam. Its immediate objective is to destroy the existing order in the Muslim world in the name of Islam. Its doctrines cannot be credibly rebutted by non-Muslims. The threat it poses requires a Muslim-led politico-military response. A US-dominated bombing campaign with token allied participation cannot kill it. The United States is well supplied with F-15s, 16s, and drones, but it lacks the religious credentials to refute Da`ish as a moral perversion of Islam. Arab air forces are helpful. Arab religious engagement and moral leadership are essential to contain and defeat Da`ish.

I'd agree with a fair bit of that, and the bits with which I disagree I have addressed above already.

(11-03-2014 05:48 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  [quote='Sp5' pid='868280' dateline='1415000983']OK, in the case of Thailand/Malaysia, it's bad borders, but not because of colonial powers. It's more the case of an imperial power (UK) not being imperialistic enough. The southern provinces of Thailand were Malay sultanates up til the 19th century. The Thais conquered them. So there is an ethnic, linguistic and religious divide between those Malays and the Thais. The Brits didn't push up the peninsula much, but did secure some of the Malay territory formerly under control of Thais. So in that case, the colonial power did a service in separating the groups with borders.

So now the Brits get blamed for being imperialistic and not imperialistic enough? How does that work?!

Quote:These ethno-sectarian conflicts are not confined to Muslim minorities, like Chechens, Malays, and Moros - there also have been the conflicts with Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibetans in China, Ibos in Nigeria, Basques in Spain, and in Northern Ireland. Within Islam, the Bengalis in formerly East Pakistan are an example. Anywhere a group feels its rights or wish for self-rule are being thwarted by another group. It is not limited to Muslims.

If you're talking about a supposed history of aggression of Muslims "over fourteen centuries," what about western Christianity? Muslim expansion by conquest stopped around 1550. During that time and onward, Christians conquered the whole Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, almost all of Africa, India, almost all of southeast Asia. Read contemporary accounts like The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz. These guys at least pretended to be religiously motivated. There was a lot of brutality.

I have never said that aggression was confined to Islam. In fact, I recently wrote that I thought Christianity was a colonising force within Europe and was non-European. The difference with Islam, however, is that conquest is not baked into the religion. Christ was not a man of the sword. Mohammed was. It took Christianity to become bound up with the state for it to become an engine of conquest and colonisation.

As for 1550 being the end of Islamic conquest, right off the top of my head, I know that to be incorrect. There's also the issue of ISIS conquering territory right now. Regardless, the end point of ascendancy is not the point because given the opportunity (as we are seeing in Syria and Iraq), it would all happen again if possible.

Quote:While the 20th century was a period of decolonization, the colonial powers persisted into the 1950s, even into the 1970s (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain were ruled by the Brits until 1971). After that, "neocolonialism" in the form of client states continued.

It's not the same kind of colonisation though. The numbers of colonists were remarkably small, not to mention the forms that administration took. As for "neocolonialism", by that definition, as I mentioned in a previous post, it could be claimed that until recently, Syria was simultaneously a client state of (at least) the US, Russia and Iran, which doesn't make any sense at all. "Neocolonialism" is not colonialism.

Quote:I don't object to the idea that Muslims might want to expand their lands; only that they are especially aggressive in that regard or successful. The historical record shows they were on the retreat and dominated from 1550 on, while Christians rampaged around the world.

Again, I take issue with the idea that Europeans dominated Muslims from 1550 onwards is rather an exaggeration. The Battle of Vienna was by no means a foregone conclusion, and the Ottomans were no easy pickings for quite some time afterwards. Likewise, the Barbary Pirates were still a threat to some (not all) European nations until as late as 1830.

Quote:Western interventions have fueled and justified ISIS. Any invader tends to rally people against it in some form. Since I live here, I see how western actions are portrayed in the Arab media, and they don't pull punches. While western media sanitizes the effects of their wars, both on the enemy and themselves, Arab media shows the grisly effect in the form of dead children and mutilated men in places like Iraq and Gaza. This has whipped up a lot of hate and discontent against the West in Muslim countries. The trauma of these wars has excited a kind of psychosis in the Muslim world.

I don't disagree that the boneheaded foreign policy of the West, including from the Nobel Laureate himself, has caused all sorts of problems. Yet a significant portion of the problems in the Muslim World, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa has been a massive own goal. It's convenient for various groups and despots to blame the West for keeping Muslims down because it relieves the pressure from their own gross incompetence and/or corruption, but it's a victim mentality.

One of the stories of this century, I believe, is that as the West wanes in geopolitical and economic importance, and as Asia rises, the tide is going to go out, and Arabs (in particular) are going to be caught swimming naked. Take a nation such as Korea. Three generations ago, it was on a par with sub-Saharan Africa in terms of development. It is a former (non-Western) colony that endured brutal colonisation and then a horrible civil war, and still finds itself caught in a bit of a geopolitical hot spot. Yet it has risen above all of that, as have other nations in the region, as well as some in other regions. When the West declines in power and the East rises, and much of the Muslim world still wallows in backwardness and self-pity, what's the narrative going to be then? Korea has historically had virtually no contact with Islam. When Arabs are still cutting each other's heads off, will that have anything to do with Koreans? Will Koreans care? Should they? Anti-Western feelings in the Muslim world are excuses, as much as they are reasons, for their stagnation and/or regression.

Quote:Islam is also a cultural counterpoint to the forms of decadence we RVF forum members both complain about and enjoy, so the ISIS (or the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2011 Egyptian elections) guys can claim a purity and truly revolutionary aspect that our favored groups of secularists like the Free Syrian Army cannot.

Sure, but the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy shouldn't be something we should buy into here. I don't believe that we should endorse, or even admire, something simply because it stands in opposition to the degeneracy often present in the West now. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all. Further to that, based upon my direct observations of Muslim countries (two in SEA and two in the Middle East), I don't think I'd want to live in a Muslim country. The proof of the pie is in the eating, and Muslim nations are usually grossly dysfunctional or unpleasant places. Even in the "better" places, such as the UAE, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of local justice. (If you have the time, that two part piece is really an excellent piece of investigative journalism, as are most pieces from that show, despite the left-wing bent.)

Quote:As the Arabist and foreign policy realist retired Ambassador Charles Freeman said:

Amb. Charles Freeman: The Collapse of Order in the Middle East

[quote]. . . . the United States cannot escape responsibility for policies that helped birth Da`ish [ISIS] in Iraq and mature its fighting forces in Syria. The U.S. invasion of Iraq kicked off an orgy of intolerance and sectarian killing that has now taken at least 700,000 lives in Iraq and Syria and traumatized both, while threatening the existence of the other states created by Sykes-Picot a century ago. The rise of Da`ish is a consequence of anarchy brought on by Western attempts at regime change, but it is ultimately a deviant cult within Islam. Its immediate objective is to destroy the existing order in the Muslim world in the name of Islam. Its doctrines cannot be credibly rebutted by non-Muslims. The threat it poses requires a Muslim-led politico-military response. A US-dominated bombing campaign with token allied participation cannot kill it. The United States is well supplied with F-15s, 16s, and drones, but it lacks the religious credentials to refute Da`ish as a moral perversion of Islam. Arab air forces are helpful. Arab religious engagement and moral leadership are essential to contain and defeat Da`ish.

I'd agree with a fair bit of that, and the bits with which I disagree I have addressed above already.
[/quote]

I agree with you on the bullshit, excuses and conspiracy theories Muslims, particularly Arabs, engage in. I hear it all of the time.

I agree with you on the "own goal" they score by continued this societal and economic dysfunction. Most Muslim countries are very fucked up. But that also supports my point: how can they be so dangerous if they're so fucked up? Pakistan is the only really dangerous Muslim country, because it has nukes. Arab armies are notoriously ineffective, because of corruption. As far as ISIS being a Muslim "conquest," remember they are only taking over other Muslim lands defended by the corrupt Iraqi Army, the Western-and-Gulf-degraded Syrian Army, and desert.

Thanks for the report on Dubai, I'll watch it. I'm always a little bit on guard, there and elsewhere in the Arab world. Arbitrary justice is a feature of the Arab world, no doubt. You can also get screwed in other places like Thailand, Kenya, and Sri Lanka, of course, but no doubt it's best to avoid the police and watch what you do in these countries. They overstate the danger of getting arrested for "adultery" as an unmarried couple, though. The only cases I know about come out of drunken brawls in hotels.

I'm also certainly not endorsing ISIS, but I do recognize the power of the Islamist ideology in the context of people living within corrupt states of the Western/Westphalian form dominated by immoral elites impoverishing the people and corrupting society, and in places where foreign intervention / occupation is overt. People look for a solution, does not mean they have the right solution at hand. They're limited by their own background.

What I mean by neocolonialism: the West supports the elites, the elites favor imports over domestic industry and give favorable resource extraction concessions to western businesses. The people are then screwed and suppressed by the puppet elites. It's not as if there isn't a history of the installation and support for these puppets, e.g. the coup against Mossadegh. Loathing of the Shah and hatred for his oppression brought in Khomeini.

My overall point isn't that the West is responsible for everything wrong, or that there is not a threat from extremism, it's that the threat would be less if people didn't panic and want to intervene in and bomb these countries so much.

(11-03-2014 07:39 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I agree with you on the bullshit, excuses and conspiracy theories Muslims, particularly Arabs, engage in. I hear it all of the time.

I agree with you on the "own goal" they score by continued this societal and economic dysfunction. Most Muslim countries are very fucked up. But that also supports my point: how can they be so dangerous if they're so fucked up? Pakistan is the only really dangerous Muslim country, because it has nukes. Arab armies are notoriously ineffective, because of corruption. As far as ISIS being a Muslim "conquest," remember they are only taking over other Muslim lands defended by the corrupt Iraqi Army, the Western-and-Gulf-degraded Syrian Army, and desert.

You really screwed up the block quotes in your post before!

Anyway, the main point for me in the above is the bit I have highlighted. Maybe I come at this from a slightly different angle to you, and that I could be accused of extreme paranoia, but I'm quite concerned about black swan events. I see the world right now as being extremely fragile. There are so many potential flash points in so many potential areas. There is always an asymmetry between construction and destruction, but I see that as being really exaggerated right now because the world has moved into such a fragile state. ISIS might not be able to build anything, but they could certainly destroy a lot of things and/or spread chaos. This could take many forms, but two obvious ones would be either closing the Straits of Hormuz (whether by occupying them or simply making them unsafe, e.g. by mining the Persian Gulf, or a part thereof) or the House of Saud falling. Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to think of at least half a dozen scenarios where oil might plausibly hit $200/barrel. What chain reactions would that set off on distant shores, to say nothing of US or EU citizens returning from the Levant and carrying out bio-terrorist operations on Western soil?

Humans, but particularly the West right now, seem to be really bad at assessing risk, contagion, etc. There's an almost unflappable faith by, and in, the modern high priests of rationality and science to model and predict, and thus to manipulate and control, everything from economics to medicine to warfare. Yet what has the past decade consisted of if not complete repudiations of this faith? So yes, ISIS could simply be a bunch of yahoos clowning around, but that doesn't necessarily make them harmless if they're not approached correctly.

Quote:Thanks for the report on Dubai, I'll watch it. I'm always a little bit on guard, there and elsewhere in the Arab world. Arbitrary justice is a feature of the Arab world, no doubt. You can also get screwed in other places like Thailand, Kenya, and Sri Lanka, of course, but no doubt it's best to avoid the police and watch what you do in these countries. They overstate the danger of getting arrested for "adultery" as an unmarried couple, though. The only cases I know about come out of drunken brawls in hotels.

The lack of rule of law is a problem that plagues the entire undeveloped world. It's probably the defining difference between places that are good to live in and those that aren't, because even if you think you're going out of your way to avoid trouble, trouble can find you, especially if you have something the local kingpin wants. Personally, in most third world countries (and even many first world countries!), I'd always be less concerned about getting in trouble for upsetting social mores as I would of upsetting someone's economic apple cart. A sizable minority, or maybe even majority, of people in any country are willing to forgive you your vices, or at least look the other way, if your behaviour doesn't directly affect them. Getting pissed off about money is pretty much a universal human condition, however. That's when people get a really rude awakening regarding the rule of law and its impartiality regarding locals and foreigners. Frankly, I'd be pretty reluctant to do business in much of the Middle East. Just at a basic level, there were innumerable times where a really minor commercial transaction turned into a bait and switch and then subsequent heated arguments. It was really draining for me (both as a participant and an observer) in many of the third world nations (not just Islamic) in which I've travelled. Most of the time, it didn't seem to lead anywhere particularly threatening as such heated arguments might in the West, if they ever reached that level. Indeed, it seemed like it was all just part of a game. That said, it was really hard to actually judge that, and it could have turned bad for all I had known. Even aside from that though, that lack of rule of law or basic trust between individuals imposes massive economic inefficiencies upon a system, which holds a place back, and that seems to create a feedback loop of frustration, anxiety and low social trust. The whole thing is a massive vicious cycle.

Quote:I'm also certainly not endorsing ISIS, but I do recognize the power of the Islamist ideology in the context of people living within corrupt states of the Western/Westphalian form dominated by immoral elites impoverishing the people and corrupting society, and in places where foreign intervention / occupation is overt. People look for a solution, does not mean they have the right solution at hand. They're limited by their own background.

What I mean by neocolonialism: the West supports the elites, the elites favor imports over domestic industry and give favorable resource extraction concessions to western businesses. The people are then screwed and suppressed by the puppet elites. It's not as if there isn't a history of the installation and support for these puppets, e.g. the coup against Mossadegh. Loathing of the Shah and hatred for his oppression brought in Khomeini.

Well, if you're going to go down that rabbit hole, then I'd agree with you, but wouldn't stop there. Everyone, including Westerners, is suffering a kind of neocolonial screwing by the elites. It may have once been the case that the average Westerner benefited from this arrangement, but I'd say that these days, there are larger and larger swathes of the West who are not. There is also a weird kind of neocolonialism occurring where many Westerners and their cultures are being supplanted in their own countries.

Quote:My overall point isn't that the West is responsible for everything wrong, or that there is not a threat from extremism, it's that the threat would be less if people didn't panic and want to intervene in and bomb these countries so much.

I'm not up to date on the latest opinion polls, but does the average American even want any involvement in the Middle East now? I thought Americans were pretty war weary, especially regarding that region. As for the elites, they might be panicking, but I suspect that a lot of what they do is not based upon decisions taken in the heat of the moment. Rather, I think a lot of it is premeditated, it's just that they incorrectly assess risk, and so screw it up. Obviously, there are different factions competing with one another.

Regardless, I don't disagree with you that less military adventurism would be a good thing. We're probably on the same page there. I don't know that intervention would make anything better, but I also don't know that it wouldn't. In hindsight, perhaps the US should never have gone into Iraq. Yet that's a bit like saying don't play with fire, then starting a forest fire. Do you let it burn, and hope that it burns itself out, or are you then forced to intervene in order to stop it raging out of control and causing massive damage? As I mentioned above, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine multiple ways in which ISIS could become a lot more than a largely abstract problem for the West, though I don't even know how anyone could reasonably expect to deal with ISIS that wouldn't at least have the possibility of unintentionally spreading the chaos further. It seems like a very non-linear, almost fractal situation.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

As the Romans said, "who stands to gain?"

The elites thrive in chaos.


Radical Islam did not truly exist until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Before this with the Ottomans the wars of expansion had long ceased to be religiously motivated at the higher levels, perhaps the average soldier was still fired up with the thoughts of jihad, but the Ottoman Empire had become a state like any other, pursuing war as an extension of politics by another means.

What changed was the U.S. and British involvement in the Middle East following World War 2. The CIA and MI6 overthrew the secular and democratically elected President of Iran in 1951 and installed a puppet dictator. Backslash against his regime was what caused the revolution in 1979 and the rise of radical Islam. The West's actions since that time have only served to create the situation we now see in the region.

The thing is, all these secular dictators kept order in their nations, were actually westernizing, and were compared to the more religious nations were jewels of human rights. However we decide that we want to get these guys out and commence to create power vacuums that allow for these religious nuts to come to power. We are reaping what we have sown, it is the continuation of Wilsonian Foreign policy, a policy that has no basis in reality when confronted by human nature. Whan this nation needs is less idealism and a good injection of realism into its foreign policy.


Our actions should be as John Quincy Adams said, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her (America's) heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."


I firmly recommend that everyone read the speech in its entirety: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/r...o-destroy/

(11-03-2014 10:01 AM)DChambers Wrote:  Problem. Reaction. Solution.

As the Romans said, "who stands to gain?"

What changed was the U.S. and British involvement in the Middle East following World War 2. The CIA and MI6 overthrew the secular and democratically elected President of Iran in 1951 and installed a puppet dictator. Backslash against his regime was what caused the revolution in 1979 and the rise of radical Islam. The West's actions since that time have only served to create the situation we now see in the region.

The thing is, all these secular dictators kept order in their nations, were actually westernizing, and were compared to the more religious nations were jewels of human rights. However we decide that we want to get these guys out and commence to create power vacuums that allow for these religious nuts to come to power. We are reaping what we have sown, it is the continuation of Wilsonian Foreign policy, a policy that has no basis in reality when confronted by human nature. Whan this nation needs is less idealism and a good injection of realism into its foreign policy.

We really weren't all that instrumental in Mossadegh being overthrown. Kermit Roosevelt took credit for a lot of crap he didn't actually have much part in.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/t...-ajax-4761

Quote:What sealed Mossadegh’s fate was the fact that—in contrast to July 1952 when attempts to dismiss him brought four days of unrest by thousands, ending in his reinstatement—in August 1953 his policies had left him with a small base of support. In subsequent years, Iranian nationalists needed a hero, the CIA needed a Victory after a long list of embarrassing defeats (the book Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner is a sobering reminder of these failures), Iranian Marxist proponents of the Cold War needed a villain—and thus the simplified myth of the CIA coup to overthrow Mossadegh was born. The shah, for his part, created his own myth of the national uprising of August 1953 to reaffirm his monarchy.

Furthermore, Islamic radicalism existed before 1979 and it arose in opposition to Soviet forces in and around Iran moreso than Western meddling. We saw similar stuff during the Soviet-Afghan War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fada'iyan-e_Islam

So yes, in conclusion, the myth of us being intimately involved in overthrowing Mossadegh is a left-wing myth that continues to live on.

(11-03-2014 10:27 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  We really weren't all that instrumental in Mossadegh being overthrown. Kermit Roosevelt took credit for a lot of crap he didn't actually have much part in.

So yes, in conclusion, the myth of us being intimately involved in overthrowing Mossadegh is a left-wing myth that continues to live on.

The coup was ordered by President Eisenhower and the CIA publicly admitted carrying it out last year with all the details. The article you posted is outdated.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

Scroll down to read all the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

(11-03-2014 09:26 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 07:39 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I agree with you on the bullshit, excuses and conspiracy theories Muslims, particularly Arabs, engage in. I hear it all of the time.

I agree with you on the "own goal" they score by continued this societal and economic dysfunction. Most Muslim countries are very fucked up. But that also supports my point: how can they be so dangerous if they're so fucked up? Pakistan is the only really dangerous Muslim country, because it has nukes. Arab armies are notoriously ineffective, because of corruption. As far as ISIS being a Muslim "conquest," remember they are only taking over other Muslim lands defended by the corrupt Iraqi Army, the Western-and-Gulf-degraded Syrian Army, and desert.

You really screwed up the block quotes in your post before!

Anyway, the main point for me in the above is the bit I have highlighted. Maybe I come at this from a slightly different angle to you, and that I could be accused of extreme paranoia, but I'm quite concerned about black swan events. I see the world right now as being extremely fragile. There are so many potential flash points in so many potential areas. There is always an asymmetry between construction and destruction, but I see that as being really exaggerated right now because the world has moved into such a fragile state. ISIS might not be able to build anything, but they could certainly destroy a lot of things and/or spread chaos. This could take many forms, but two obvious ones would be either closing the Straits of Hormuz (whether by occupying them or simply making them unsafe, e.g. by mining the Persian Gulf, or a part thereof) or the House of Saud falling. Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to think of at least half a dozen scenarios where oil might plausibly hit $200/barrel. What chain reactions would that set off on distant shores, to say nothing of US or EU citizens returning from the Levant and carrying out bio-terrorist operations on Western soil?

Humans, but particularly the West right now, seem to be really bad at assessing risk, contagion, etc. There's an almost unflappable faith by, and in, the modern high priests of rationality and science to model and predict, and thus to manipulate and control, everything from economics to medicine to warfare. Yet what has the past decade consisted of if not complete repudiations of this faith? So yes, ISIS could simply be a bunch of yahoos clowning around, but that doesn't necessarily make them harmless if they're not approached correctly.

Quote:Thanks for the report on Dubai, I'll watch it. I'm always a little bit on guard, there and elsewhere in the Arab world. Arbitrary justice is a feature of the Arab world, no doubt. You can also get screwed in other places like Thailand, Kenya, and Sri Lanka, of course, but no doubt it's best to avoid the police and watch what you do in these countries. They overstate the danger of getting arrested for "adultery" as an unmarried couple, though. The only cases I know about come out of drunken brawls in hotels.

The lack of rule of law is a problem that plagues the entire undeveloped world. It's probably the defining difference between places that are good to live in and those that aren't, because even if you think you're going out of your way to avoid trouble, trouble can find you, especially if you have something the local kingpin wants. Personally, in most third world countries (and even many first world countries!), I'd always be less concerned about getting in trouble for upsetting social mores as I would of upsetting someone's economic apple cart. A sizable minority, or maybe even majority, of people in any country are willing to forgive you your vices, or at least look the other way, if your behaviour doesn't directly affect them. Getting pissed off about money is pretty much a universal human condition, however. That's when people get a really rude awakening regarding the rule of law and its impartiality regarding locals and foreigners. Frankly, I'd be pretty reluctant to do business in much of the Middle East. Just at a basic level, there were innumerable times where a really minor commercial transaction turned into a bait and switch and then subsequent heated arguments. It was really draining for me (both as a participant and an observer) in many of the third world nations (not just Islamic) in which I've travelled. Most of the time, it didn't seem to lead anywhere particularly threatening as such heated arguments might in the West, if they ever reached that level. Indeed, it seemed like it was all just part of a game. That said, it was really hard to actually judge that, and it could have turned bad for all I had known. Even aside from that though, that lack of rule of law or basic trust between individuals imposes massive economic inefficiencies upon a system, which holds a place back, and that seems to create a feedback loop of frustration, anxiety and low social trust. The whole thing is a massive vicious cycle.

Quote:I'm also certainly not endorsing ISIS, but I do recognize the power of the Islamist ideology in the context of people living within corrupt states of the Western/Westphalian form dominated by immoral elites impoverishing the people and corrupting society, and in places where foreign intervention / occupation is overt. People look for a solution, does not mean they have the right solution at hand. They're limited by their own background.

What I mean by neocolonialism: the West supports the elites, the elites favor imports over domestic industry and give favorable resource extraction concessions to western businesses. The people are then screwed and suppressed by the puppet elites. It's not as if there isn't a history of the installation and support for these puppets, e.g. the coup against Mossadegh. Loathing of the Shah and hatred for his oppression brought in Khomeini.

Well, if you're going to go down that rabbit hole, then I'd agree with you, but wouldn't stop there. Everyone, including Westerners, is suffering a kind of neocolonial screwing by the elites. It may have once been the case that the average Westerner benefited from this arrangement, but I'd say that these days, there are larger and larger swathes of the West who are not. There is also a weird kind of neocolonialism occurring where many Westerners and their cultures are being supplanted in their own countries.

Quote:My overall point isn't that the West is responsible for everything wrong, or that there is not a threat from extremism, it's that the threat would be less if people didn't panic and want to intervene in and bomb these countries so much.

I'm not up to date on the latest opinion polls, but does the average American even want any involvement in the Middle East now? I thought Americans were pretty war weary, especially regarding that region. As for the elites, they might be panicking, but I suspect that a lot of what they do is not based upon decisions taken in the heat of the moment. Rather, I think a lot of it is premeditated, it's just that they incorrectly assess risk, and so screw it up. Obviously, there are different factions competing with one another.

Regardless, I don't disagree with you that less military adventurism would be a good thing. We're probably on the same page there. I don't know that intervention would make anything better, but I also don't know that it wouldn't. In hindsight, perhaps the US should never have gone into Iraq. Yet that's a bit like saying don't play with fire, then starting a forest fire. Do you let it burn, and hope that it burns itself out, or are you then forced to intervene in order to stop it raging out of control and causing massive damage? As I mentioned above, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine multiple ways in which ISIS could become a lot more than a largely abstract problem for the West, though I don't even know how anyone could reasonably expect to deal with ISIS that wouldn't at least have the possibility of unintentionally spreading the chaos further. It seems like a very non-linear, almost fractal situation.

We've reached a kind of consensus, I pretty much agree with you but don't think ISIS will be down at the Straits of Hormuz any time in our lives. Most likely, they'll get attrited by bombing and our (US, UK, Aus, Fr) very capable special operations forces over the next year or two, until the Iraqi army / Peshmerga can cake-walk in.

I also agree with you on the basic neocolonialism of people by their own elites. When I was looking up stuff for this discussion, I was struck by the fact that British colonial rule in the Gulf was a money-losing proposition - they left because they could not afford it. Yet British business interests, then and now, are a dominant feature of those countries economies. And because of their tax laws, not much of that was coming back in tax revenue to pay for the colonial institutions and military. In other words, as in so many of these enterprises, we pay, they profit.

Over the long term, the ideas of these extremists will only be fed by undue interference in these countries, including support for people who should not be supported. In particular I mean the Saudis, who are really paying for all of this Al Qaeda stuff and spreading extremism around the world, but are protected and even supported because our elites make money off of them.

In that regard I recommend this article I just read:

Europe and the Islamic State within

(11-03-2014 10:39 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:27 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  We really weren't all that instrumental in Mossadegh being overthrown. Kermit Roosevelt took credit for a lot of crap he didn't actually have much part in.

So yes, in conclusion, the myth of us being intimately involved in overthrowing Mossadegh is a left-wing myth that continues to live on.

The coup was ordered by President Eisenhower and the CIA publicly admitted carrying it out last year with all the details. The article you posted is outdated.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

Scroll down to read all the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

I see nothing in these documents to indicate the coup was planned, orchestrated, and successfully implemented by the United States. Our CIA is not some super competent Machiavellian spy organization.

More like they wanted it to happen because he was a moron and it did, but not because of their ham-handed attempts at employing rent-a-crowds and spreading propaganda. The people already had plenty of reasons to hate Mossadegh and take to the streets.

The religious were pissed at Mossadegh, the Communists hated him, the British loathed him. He had no allies and he was a complete idiot. That's why he was overthrown.

We didn't want to back him because he was a loser. We wanted him gone and replaced with someone more stable and more reliably anti-Communist.

Frankly speaking, I think Democracy and our structure of government in the US is kind of stupid. I'm not passionate about politics/elections since they divide and bring out the worst in people. I wasn't even going to vote in this election, but went ahead after my Mom got me an absentee ballot. I've voted for mostly Libertarians and some key Republicans in the last few elections. I've voted for Gary Johnson for prez in '12. I've voted for like 2 Democrats at the local level, candidates in offices needed for looking out for workers/commoners and standing up to corporate excess.

I wish more of you would follow me and stop defaulting to one party or "the lesser of 2 evils" philosophy. That's so mainstream and narrow-minded. A few friends/relatives try to lecture me on this bullshit every 2 years, followed by insufferable bumper-sticker-caliber Left/Right dogma. As one of my friends said "Voting is like saying 'this is what I want' ". If you are sour on both parties or the Democratic process in general, send a message this year and vote for some third party candidates, write-in, or just don't vote. In fact, I think if many of us just started a voting boycott, and voter turn-out became noticeably in decline, it could force the 2 party system to re-evaluate itself, at least somewhat.

(11-03-2014 12:56 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  If you are sour on both parties or the Democratic process in general, send a message this year and vote for some third party candidates, write-in, or just don't vote. In fact, I think if many of us just started a voting boycott, and voter turn-out became noticeably in decline, it could force the 2 party system to re-evaluate itself, at least somewhat.

I can understand the reasons for voting 3rd parties, or not voting at all, but the above bolded part has been wishful thinking for a long time.

Think about years when there is record low, or record high turnout in different elections (this can apply to municipal, federal, etc.).

Do you think the winner sits in office considering the implications of those numbers very long? No, they won, that's all that matters!

As long as they clear the necessary voting participation rate for it to be legal, there are no serious consequences.