Tunisia Terrorism - It's time to get tough
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
leggedstruggle  Croydon 06 Jul 15 8.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
I guess the government is trying to win hearts and minds (or at least confuse them) by pretending that the terrorism has nothing to do with Islam by changing the name of Islamic State to 'Daesh'!
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Jul 15 10.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jul 2015 4.56am
Jamie, it sounds like you are about to launch into Sting's 'Russians'. Also Jamie, all the egalitarians on their side will think like you won't they.....They won't have a side because they view themselves as above such petty human conflict. The second world war left families with massive losses, as a population time heals....The hatred aspect is there but over-stated. The jobs and opportunities aspect isn't. Opposition is the nature state of the human condition. Only those use to relative wealth could think otherwise. They have never had to fight to protect their possessions and consider them a right....Quite amusing really considering most of human history. Opposition is the natural state, the best humanity can look to is the fair trading and production of resources between states and the maintenance of alliances and defense. Its how capitalism always wins over it opposition, not militarily, not philosophically, but economically. Obviously, you'll always have some people who are ideologically driven and you'll never stop them, but if you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, its almost always drawn from the poor, economically deprived areas of the middle east for its core support, and then been funded and led by wealthy middle and upper classes in countries like Saudi Arabia. Its important to remember that IS pay a lot of its combatants, and about 12-15,000 of them were previously Iraqi Baathists. The media tends to distort the reality on the ground that IS consists entirely of suicidal fanatics, but that's not entirely true (and it wasn't true of the Afghan Mujahadeen or the Taliban). A lot of people are opportunists, IS pays well and has a lot of money, and that draws affiliate factions and movements to them (along with a shared objective). You'll never put the genie back in the bottle, but most people are drawn into fundermentalism because it constructs an identity of belonging and importance, to people who have nothing and will never have anything. We probably also have to accept certain disadvantageous change in the middle east (at least for us and the US). We cannot divorce our foreign policy. In NI, the reality is that the growth of prospects and the decreasing poverty of Catholics increasingly undermined the Provisionals capacity to enact a violent conflict. People tend towards being more reasonable when they have a participation in the functionality of state and some prospects, for them and their children (not everyone). Where ever you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, and extremism in general, its usually the poorest people who make up the numbers and they tend to be exploited by zeolots and opportunists.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 06 Jul 15 10.56am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Jul 2015 10.08am
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jul 2015 4.56am
Jamie, it sounds like you are about to launch into Sting's 'Russians'. Also Jamie, all the egalitarians on their side will think like you won't they.....They won't have a side because they view themselves as above such petty human conflict. The second world war left families with massive losses, as a population time heals....The hatred aspect is there but over-stated. The jobs and opportunities aspect isn't. Opposition is the nature state of the human condition. Only those use to relative wealth could think otherwise. They have never had to fight to protect their possessions and consider them a right....Quite amusing really considering most of human history. Opposition is the natural state, the best humanity can look to is the fair trading and production of resources between states and the maintenance of alliances and defense. Its how capitalism always wins over it opposition, not militarily, not philosophically, but economically. Obviously, you'll always have some people who are ideologically driven and you'll never stop them, but if you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, its almost always drawn from the poor, economically deprived areas of the middle east for its core support, and then been funded and led by wealthy middle and upper classes in countries like Saudi Arabia. Its important to remember that IS pay a lot of its combatants, and about 12-15,000 of them were previously Iraqi Baathists. The media tends to distort the reality on the ground that IS consists entirely of suicidal fanatics, but that's not entirely true (and it wasn't true of the Afghan Mujahadeen or the Taliban). A lot of people are opportunists, IS pays well and has a lot of money, and that draws affiliate factions and movements to them (along with a shared objective). You'll never put the genie back in the bottle, but most people are drawn into fundermentalism because it constructs an identity of belonging and importance, to people who have nothing and will never have anything. We probably also have to accept certain disadvantageous change in the middle east (at least for us and the US). We cannot divorce our foreign policy. In NI, the reality is that the growth of prospects and the decreasing poverty of Catholics increasingly undermined the Provisionals capacity to enact a violent conflict. People tend towards being more reasonable when they have a participation in the functionality of state and some prospects, for them and their children (not everyone). Where ever you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, and extremism in general, its usually the poorest people who make up the numbers and they tend to be exploited by zeolots and opportunists. By your argument, shouldn’t the people who fund IS be happy as Larry and not want to supply arms and munitions (at great cost) to the terrorists. This ideology that terrorists are skint is laughable, they are well supplied well trained and well motivated and all that comes at a cost, a bloody high one. Find where the money comes from, stop that source enabling the purchase of ammunition, guns, rockets, and bombs, and you stop the terrorist at the end of the weapon.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| TheJudge 06 Jul 15 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 05 Jul 2015 11.45pm
I might take failing to persuade you and Stirling et al as a given of the territory Winning hearts and minds is all about winning over the the not yet (or not yet fully)ideologically committed Judge,You and Stirling fall firmly into the ideological zealot camp in that regard in this area,so its a bit like trying to persuade an inuit to install a swimming pool for those long hot summer days!
Ha ha. Funny, but I wouldn't consider myself a hardliner on this. The only area where I am immovable is religion. The two subjects are somewhat related of course. I am not interested in bending to religious groups of any kind.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Jul 15 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 06 Jul 2015 10.56am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Jul 2015 10.08am
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jul 2015 4.56am
Jamie, it sounds like you are about to launch into Sting's 'Russians'. Also Jamie, all the egalitarians on their side will think like you won't they.....They won't have a side because they view themselves as above such petty human conflict. The second world war left families with massive losses, as a population time heals....The hatred aspect is there but over-stated. The jobs and opportunities aspect isn't. Opposition is the nature state of the human condition. Only those use to relative wealth could think otherwise. They have never had to fight to protect their possessions and consider them a right....Quite amusing really considering most of human history. Opposition is the natural state, the best humanity can look to is the fair trading and production of resources between states and the maintenance of alliances and defense. Its how capitalism always wins over it opposition, not militarily, not philosophically, but economically. Obviously, you'll always have some people who are ideologically driven and you'll never stop them, but if you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, its almost always drawn from the poor, economically deprived areas of the middle east for its core support, and then been funded and led by wealthy middle and upper classes in countries like Saudi Arabia. Its important to remember that IS pay a lot of its combatants, and about 12-15,000 of them were previously Iraqi Baathists. The media tends to distort the reality on the ground that IS consists entirely of suicidal fanatics, but that's not entirely true (and it wasn't true of the Afghan Mujahadeen or the Taliban). A lot of people are opportunists, IS pays well and has a lot of money, and that draws affiliate factions and movements to them (along with a shared objective). You'll never put the genie back in the bottle, but most people are drawn into fundermentalism because it constructs an identity of belonging and importance, to people who have nothing and will never have anything. We probably also have to accept certain disadvantageous change in the middle east (at least for us and the US). We cannot divorce our foreign policy. In NI, the reality is that the growth of prospects and the decreasing poverty of Catholics increasingly undermined the Provisionals capacity to enact a violent conflict. People tend towards being more reasonable when they have a participation in the functionality of state and some prospects, for them and their children (not everyone). Where ever you look at the core support basis of fundermentalism, and extremism in general, its usually the poorest people who make up the numbers and they tend to be exploited by zeolots and opportunists. By your argument, shouldn’t the people who fund IS be happy as Larry and not want to supply arms and munitions (at great cost) to the terrorists. This ideology that terrorists are skint is laughable, they are well supplied well trained and well motivated and all that comes at a cost, a bloody high one. Find where the money comes from, stop that source enabling the purchase of ammunition, guns, rockets, and bombs, and you stop the terrorist at the end of the weapon. IS fulfills their objectives and goals, similar to how any number of countries and organisation fund and support groups and factions overseas. Syria used to be a major player in the Middle East political arena and a curious ally of Iran (the new big player), who are have been a long hated enemy of the Saudi's (and of course the Saudi prime supporter the US). Also it buys good will, in theory, for the Saudi's from groups like IS. Saudi Arabia has big political objectives in the Middle East, which Arab secularism was hampering (Saudi's hated Baathists). So for a lot of the people with money pouring it into groups like IS more about politics, and keeping Islamic extremists focused outside of Saudi Arabia, than any real belief in the cause. Of course it also plays well with the group itself (Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and it plays well with the poor majority of Saudi Arabia who are prone to fundamentalism). Essentially for many of the big contributors, its 'Dane Gold'. Of course, you have to eliminate the financial life blood of a group like IS, but unless you address the key issues that feed into the appeal of Islamic Fundamentalism, other groups simply will take their place. Whilst that includes our own foreign policy to some degree, the root causes that excaberate extremism tend to be found in poverty (the same is true of Facism and Communism, both exploit poverty to their own political ends, whilst tending to be led by either zeolots or politically manipulative individuals, outside of the main stream). Whilst you can't point at a single factor, history generally has demonstrated that 'extreme politics' has always existed, but that it thrives in poverty and oppression.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.