Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 07-11-2005, 12:19 PM

Do Arabs disagree with the terrorist message?

Which message are we talking about? "Get the fuck out of my country?"

"The west is evil, sex-mad, and generally naughty people?"

"Die, infidel pig?"

"In death, we find paradise! Join us my brothers!"

There are lots of messages. And honestly, for all their evil acts, _some_ of the propoganda has a point, and I'd expect some people to agree with it. Some of it is just insane.

Look at Saudi Arabia: The US was proping up a tin-pot dictator (house of Saud) and occupying the holiest land of their religion.

Can you imagine the US response to a Soviet Russian Peacekeeping Force in Washington DC, supporting a corrupt "President for Life" which ruled over half the USA, while the south contained and full of starving people due to "economic sanctions"?

I'm sure you could get many people from the area to agree with one or another of those positions.

The US in the middle east has spent decades supporting tin-pot dictators and the like in order to fight a cold war against the soviets. This helped guarantee freedom, but not freedom for the people oppressed by the tin-pot dictators. You can understand why some people might dislike the USA.

Would those same people support blowing up a building in the USA? I'd suspect that might have alot to do with if anyone they personally know has been hurt by direct American, or indirectly supported American client-state, action.

As yet, "the terrorists" have shown nothing like the firepower needed to even make the west blink. Even a small number of small nuclear weapons (10 to 20 say) would hurt somewhat, but couldn't make the west bend knee. In order to such a movement to gain power, it needs large amounts of active popular support.

Which makes this war, like the last one the USA just won, a war of ideas. The State department, not the Pentagon, should be calling the shots.

On the other hand, given that the terrorists are not a serious military threat to the USA, and that wartime is a great way to increase the popularity of the party in power & excuse government assults on it's own citizens, how direct does the threat have to be for it to be considered 'the terrorists'?

07-11-2005, 12:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Do Arabs disagree with the terrorist message? Which message are we talking about? "Get the fuck out of my country?" "The west is evil, sex-mad, and generally naughty people?" "Die, infidel pig?" "In death, we find paradise! Join us my brothers!" There are lots of messages. And honestly, for all their evil acts, _some_ of the propoganda has a point, and I'd expect some people to agree with it. Some of it is just insane. Look at Saudi Arabia: The US was proping up a tin-pot dictator (house of Saud) and occupying the holiest land of their religion. Can you imagine the US response to a Soviet Russian Peacekeeping Force in Washington DC, supporting a corrupt "President for Life" which ruled over half the USA, while the south contained and full of starving people due to "economic sanctions"? I'm sure you could get many people from the area to agree with one or another of those positions. The US in the middle east has spent decades supporting tin-pot dictators and the like in order to fight a cold war against the soviets. This helped guarantee freedom, but not freedom for the people oppressed by the tin-pot dictators. You can understand why some people might dislike the USA. Would those same people support blowing up a building in the USA? I'd suspect that might have alot to do with if anyone they personally know has been hurt by direct American, or indirectly supported American client-state, action. As yet, "the terrorists" have shown nothing like the firepower needed to even make the west blink. Even a small number of small nuclear weapons (10 to 20 say) would hurt somewhat, but couldn't make the west bend knee. In order to such a movement to gain power, it needs large amounts of active popular support. Which makes this war, like the last one the USA just won, a war of ideas. The State department, not the Pentagon, should be calling the shots. On the other hand, given that the terrorists are not a serious military threat to the USA, and that wartime is a great way to increase the popularity of the party in power & excuse government assults on it's own citizens, how direct does the threat have to be for it to be considered 'the terrorists'? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.