Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
Laurence Drake wrote:I WOULDN'T EXPECT THE CHINESE TO HAVE SYMPATHY
LOL china didnt throw bomb on syria
That's true, but it's also completely irrelevant to Chinese sympathy. Unless you are saying Chinese should not have sympathy if they have no direct responsibility? In that case, I think you're mistaking sympathy for guilt...
It is silly, and it looks very impractical or hard to put into practice. But I don't think we have any better practical method to prevent these attacks in the future.
We didn't have any of these things during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. It all started once the USA got involved in Iraq. And since then it all snowballed into a bigger clusterfuck.
The bigger picture is that the Middle East and the Muslim world is in a crisis. Globalism has infiltrated their countries, via transfer of capital, labour, products, media. They feel this is putting pressure on them to change. Different Muslim orientations react differently to this global culture influence. Taliban started as a movement to go back to the roots of Islam, and to reject any Western habits or material products. Al Qaeda was created based on Taliban beliefs, but it was lead by Osama who hailed from Saudi rich elites (so he wouldn't follow beliefs that the masses would follow). ISIS was also born out of this movement of Islamic revivalism, which wants to go back to roots in order to preserve their lifestyle in the face of Western corrupt culture that is being spread via globalist channels. So, these guys are not singular, they are part of an older movement which started back in the late 1970s during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, with mujahideens and later with Talibans. Even if they now reject Al Qaeda and Talibans for not being traditional enough, not going far enough in terms of respecting the Koran a la lettre.
So what can come out of this? Some muslims may embrace modernity in different ways. Like for example in Saudi Arabia women are allowed to have a job, own a smartphone, etc. Even though the Saudi regime is Wahhabist, which is also a hardline interpretation of the Koran -- that's why they apply some parts of sharia (cutting thieves' hands, stoning adulterers to death, beheading apostates). So this is one example of how one Arab country reacted to the pressures of globalism. Others like Afghanistan made fewer compromises and continued to practice older traditions. Syria was probably one of the more modern countries in the area, even though it was more than 70% populated by Sunnites. By contrast Iraq is mostly populated by Shiites and these two denominations hate each other. So it's a very complicated picture, both how these confessions relate to each other, the politics on top of these religion divides and how they reacted to modernity.
I don't know why should we deal with this clusterfuck that the Middle East is and try to fix anything about it. It's their problem, they should manage their own issues, and we should stop dabbling in their affairs. It's a first step. But try telling that to the USA, whose military doctrine says they must extend their sphere of influence all around Russia, by installing client governments in the whole Middle East. The long-term plan for the USA is to isolate Russia completely. And they won't give up just because a bunch of people got squashed by a truck in Nice.
What bothers me with those who point out the Arab/Muslim aspect is that the guy who did this and those before WERE NOT pious Muslims. The last night guy used to smoke weed and drink.
Strangely enough, those who perpetrate terrorist acts don't have a clean or a pious background. That's why they are so easy to recruit for ISIS, because they want to repent and stuff like that. A pious guy obviously doesn't need that. Therefore, you and I should rather feel safer when we see an Arab/Muslim wearing a djellaba than blue jeans.
Dolan wrote:It is silly, and it looks very impractical or hard to put into practice. But I don't think we have any better practical method to prevent these attacks in the future.
We didn't have any of these things during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. It all started once the USA got involved in Iraq. And since then it all snowballed into a bigger clusterfuck.
The bigger picture is that the Middle East and the Muslim world is in a crisis. Globalism has infiltrated their countries, via transfer of capital, labour, products, media. They feel this is putting pressure on them to change. Different Muslim orientations react differently to this global culture influence. Taliban started as a movement to go back to the roots of Islam, and to reject any Western habits or material products. Al Qaeda was created based on Taliban beliefs, but it was lead by Osama who hailed from Saudi rich elites. ISIS was also born out of this movement of Islamic revivalism, which wants to go back to roots in order to preserve their lifestyle in the face of Western corrupt culture that is being spread via globalist channels. So, these guys are not singular, they are part of an older movement which started back in the late 1970s during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, with mujahideens and later with Talibans. Even if they now reject Al Qaeda and Talibans for not being traditional enough, not going far enough in terms of respecting the Koran a la lettre.
So what can come out of this? Some muslims may embrace modernity in different ways. Like for example in Saudi Arabia women are allowed to have a job, own a smartphone, etc. Even though the Saudi regime is Wahhabist, which is also a hardline interpretation of the Koran -- that's why they apply some parts of sharia (cutting thieves' hands, stoning adulterers to death, beheading apostates). So this is one example of how one Arab country reacted to the pressures of globalism. Others like Afghanistan made fewer compromises and continued to practice older traditions. Syria was probably one of the more modern countries in the area, even though it was more than 70% populated by Sunnites. By contrast Iraq is mostly populated by Shiites and these two denominations hate each other. So it's a very complicated picture, both how these confessions relate to each other, the politics on top of these religion divides and how they reacted to modernity.
I don't know why should we deal with this clusterfuck that the Middle East is and try to fix anything about it. It's their problem, they should manage their own issues, and we should stop dabbling in their affairs. It's a first step. But try telling that to the USA, whose military doctrine says they must extend their sphere of influence all around Russia, by installing client governments in the whole Middle East. The long-term plan for the USA is to isolate Russia completely. And they won't give up just because a bunch of people got squashed by a truck in Nice.
These things did happen before US involvement in Iraq.
@Dolan Well, I recently read a book about the Six Days war that was really interesting. After Israel was created in the late 40's, the idea of Arab Nationalism rose. Arab nationalism believed that the Arab people were united and attempts at a Pan-Arab state were attempted. However, after losing the Six Day war and the crippling of the Egyptian military by Israeli forces, Arab nationalism essentially died. The death of Arab nationalism gave rise to other ideas, one of these being Islamic fundamentalism.
As for examples, I will have to go look up exact dates and details, but I can outline some events:
- 1972 Olympic Munich Olympics - 1980 Iranian Embassy Seige in the UK
There are more examples, a lot of PLO attacks, and I'll look some up later. It also depends on which Iraq you are referring too. Dessert Storm or Iraqi Freedom.
Mimsy for President wrote:What bothers me with those who point out the Arab/Muslim aspect is that the guy who did this and those before WERE NOT pious Muslims. The last night guy used to smoke weed and drink.
Strangely enough, those who perpetrate terrorist acts don't have a clean or a pious background. That's why they are so easy to recruit for ISIS, because they want to repent and stuff like that. A pious guy obviously doesn't need that. Therefore, you and I should rather feel safer when we see an Arab/Muslim wearing a djellaba than blue jeans.
Yeah he was non-religious, so why did he do it?
The Orlando shooter was also non-religious but acted in the name of ISIS.
On one hand, you have pious Muslims who aren't involved in this chaos AFAIK and on the other hand, repentants who are in ISIS' pay, a terrorist group founded by a secular and socialist organization such as the Ba'ath party.
Terrorist attacks before the 90s were much smaller in scale, had fewer victims, were not so motivated by religion or hatred for the West. They were mostly anti-Israel or local acts. It was a far-cry from this new era of Arab/Muslim terrorist which started with 9/11.
Arab nationalism died for similar reasons why all attempts in the Middle East to use a modern political system failed. Socialism failed too in the Arab world. It was just too incompatible with their religious beliefs. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon, which places the nation (the people) at the top of the political legitimacy chain. Nationalism appeared thanks to the French Revolution, which basically wanted to abolish monarchy and install a new type of regime, in which divine command (which gave monarchy the legitimacy to rule) would be replaced by the will of the people (the nation). The nation literally replaced god as a source of political legitimacy, which launched political modernity in Europe. Many such nationalist revolutions followed in Europe which proclaimed the will of the nation the most important thing in a political system. Both nationalism and the declaration of universal human rights were spread during those revolutions.
The Muslim world could not have adopted either nationalism or any modern political system, since that would mean they would have to replace Allah as the source of authority in politics with the nation/the people. This was the biggest stumbling block. Muslims were already divided by different confessions too, which were far more important to them, than nationality. So Arab nationalism failed, because it was a cultural form imported from the West, which didn't fit their own culture. Just as modern political systems failed to take root there.
Terrorist attacks before the 90s were much smaller in scale, had fewer victims, were not so motivated by religion or hatred for the West. They were mostly anti-Israel or local acts. It was a far-cry from this new era of Arab/Muslim terrorist which started with 9/11.
Arab nationalism died for similar reasons why all attempts in the Middle East to use a modern political system failed. Socialism failed too in the Arab world. It was just too incompatible with their religious beliefs. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon, which places the nation (the people) at the top of the political legitimacy chain. Nationalism appeared thanks to the French Revolution, which basically wanted to abolish monarchy and install a new type of regime, in which divine command (which gave monarchy the legitimacy to rule) would be replaced by the will of the people (the nation). The nation literally replaced god as a source of political legitimacy, which launched political modernity in Europe. Many such nationalist revolutions followed in Europe which proclaimed the will of the nation the most important thing in a political system. Both nationalism and the declaration of universal human rights were spread during those revolutions.
The Muslim world could not have adopted either nationalism or any modern political system, since that would mean they would have to replace Allah as the source of authority in politics with the nation/the people. This was the biggest stumbling block. Muslims were already divided by different confessions too, which were far more important to them, than nationality. So Arab nationalism failed, because it was a cultural form imported from the West, which didn't fit their own culture. Just as modern political systems failed to take root there.
Fair enough.
I often wonder what the middle east would be like of the Ottoman Empire stayed in tact.
Terrorist attacks before the 90s were much smaller in scale, had fewer victims, were not so motivated by religion or hatred for the West. They were mostly anti-Israel or local acts. It was a far-cry from this new era of Arab/Muslim terrorist which started with 9/11.
Arab nationalism died for similar reasons why all attempts in the Middle East to use a modern political system failed. Socialism failed too in the Arab world. It was just too incompatible with their religious beliefs. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon, which places the nation (the people) at the top of the political legitimacy chain. Nationalism appeared thanks to the French Revolution, which basically wanted to abolish monarchy and install a new type of regime, in which divine command (which gave monarchy the legitimacy to rule) would be replaced by the will of the people (the nation). The nation literally replaced god as a source of political legitimacy, which launched political modernity in Europe. Many such nationalist revolutions followed in Europe which proclaimed the will of the nation the most important thing in a political system. Both nationalism and the declaration of universal human rights were spread during those revolutions.
The Muslim world could not have adopted either nationalism or any modern political system, since that would mean they would have to replace Allah as the source of authority in politics with the nation/the people. This was the biggest stumbling block. Muslims were already divided by different confessions too, which were far more important to them, than nationality. So Arab nationalism failed, because it was a cultural form imported from the West, which didn't fit their own culture. Just as modern political systems failed to take root there.
Fair enough.
I often wonder what the middle east would be like of the Ottoman Empire stayed in tact.
Couprider wrote:1. dont take part in middle east conflicts 2. dont accept immigrates
poor people: they vote for the bosses to become presidents, the presidents destroy the home of immigrates, and the immigrates kill the people. a ridiculous circle.
A Chinese person failing to see the point of immigration and refugee relief.
MIND = BLOWN
Why is it relevant that he is chinese? can you stop being an asshole for once?
France should seriously reconsider its foreign policy. I don't by any means justify this monstrous terrorist act, but bear in mind that "oil hunt" in middle east has a price. I don't know if France and all other participants in middle east carnage are willing to bear consequences for their involvement.
Terrorist attacks before the 90s were much smaller in scale, had fewer victims, were not so motivated by religion or hatred for the West. They were mostly anti-Israel or local acts. It was a far-cry from this new era of Arab/Muslim terrorist which started with 9/11.
Arab nationalism died for similar reasons why all attempts in the Middle East to use a modern political system failed. Socialism failed too in the Arab world. It was just too incompatible with their religious beliefs. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon, which places the nation (the people) at the top of the political legitimacy chain. Nationalism appeared thanks to the French Revolution, which basically wanted to abolish monarchy and install a new type of regime, in which divine command (which gave monarchy the legitimacy to rule) would be replaced by the will of the people (the nation). The nation literally replaced god as a source of political legitimacy, which launched political modernity in Europe. Many such nationalist revolutions followed in Europe which proclaimed the will of the nation the most important thing in a political system. Both nationalism and the declaration of universal human rights were spread during those revolutions.
The Muslim world could not have adopted either nationalism or any modern political system, since that would mean they would have to replace Allah as the source of authority in politics with the nation/the people. This was the biggest stumbling block. Muslims were already divided by different confessions too, which were far more important to them, than nationality. So Arab nationalism failed, because it was a cultural form imported from the West, which didn't fit their own culture. Just as modern political systems failed to take root there.
Fair enough.
I often wonder what the middle east would be like of the Ottoman Empire stayed in tact.
Rich and strong
Yeah ISIS wouldn't be able to counter the Janissary rush
Couprider wrote:1. dont take part in middle east conflicts 2. dont accept immigrates
poor people: they vote for the bosses to become presidents, the presidents destroy the home of immigrates, and the immigrates kill the people. a ridiculous circle.
A Chinese person failing to see the point of immigration and refugee relief.
MIND = BLOWN
Why is it relevant that he is chinese? can you stop being an asshole for once?
I don't know that it's relevant to the topic, but it's related to my cumulative impression of the scope of Chinese sympathy which, suffice to say, is not exactly based on speculation. Besides, out of sheer consideration on my part I even restrained myself from additionally highlighting the irony of a Chinese person pitying others for living in a "democratic" society, as if to say a definitely totalitarian, falsely-communist (although fortunately so) dictatorship is a vastly superior alternative – but at least he's able to post on ESOC for now.
I'm perfectly aware and readily claim that I often communicate myself in a brutally honest and straightforward manner (pointing out logical observations that people are both unable and unwilling to realize – just as I am coincidentally doing to you with this very post) which some might indeed consider mean. Personally, however, I find calling others names for the aforementioned conduct a lot meaner, although not quite as mean as encouraging them to refrain from offering refugees relief. Your opinion apparently differs, or perhaps you are just lacking perspective again...
Thank you for swallowing one of my many hooks of bait like a shark though – you asshole!
zoom wrote: Thank you for swallowing one of my many hooks of bait like a shark though – you asshole!
Just because you hide your asinine behaviour behind the excuse of trolling doesn't make you less of an annoying asshole. When you are constantly trying to be funny in racist ways, it's stops being a joke. They aren't even funny or clever, you are just being intentionally obnoxious.
Your constantly trying to cross the line with your unneeded use of nigga, jap, chinese emoticons and what not, while quickly stepping back over it when someone calls you out on it, pretending to just be setting "bait". I'm not sure why the mods haven't banned you yet since you are repeatedly making the same offense thats against the rules.
zoom wrote: Thank you for swallowing one of my many hooks of bait like a shark though – you asshole!
Just because you hide your asinine behaviour behind the excuse of trolling doesn't make you less of an annoying asshole. When you are constantly trying to be funny in racist ways, it's stops being a joke. They aren't even funny or clever, you are just being intentionally obnoxious.
zoom wrote: Thank you for swallowing one of my many hooks of bait like a shark though – you asshole!
Just because you hide your asinine behaviour behind the excuse of trolling doesn't make you less of an annoying asshole. When you are constantly trying to be funny in racist ways, it's stops being a joke. They aren't even funny or clever, you are just being intentionally obnoxious.