[wayskobfssae]

Captain Awesome, on 30 July 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

When education rises, religion tends to downturn.

Well, that doesn't usually affect the extremists anyhow. We've got some Churches in this country who are pretty darned scary, and just probably haven't taken it further because it's very difficult to actually do anything too despicable in this country anymore and not get caught (Hollywood celebrities excluded, of course).

Regardless, what is your recommended solution? Educate the Middle East and hope the power of the terrorists gets dissolved as a side-effect? Just trying to introduce such a thing is just one more Western act that will be viewed as arrogant and invasive.

[Martin]

As far as war is concerned, it's all just about resources. Today, it's oil, tomorrow it's rare earth minerals. That's why today our governments are carpet bombing the Middle East, and tomorrow they will be dropping nukes on Asia. They say it's to liberate the people of those countries, but that's nonsense in my opinion. They didn't liberate equally-oppressed people who live in countries without large oil reserves. Just the ones with the black gold.

As for religion, it's a moot point. Christians are just as faggoty and blinkered as Muslims. If you want to ban one, you must ban them all. Singling out Islam isn't fair. Yeah, they cut peiople's heads off because the Quran tells them to. The Bible also has some very nasty shit in it. I remember fucking a nice Muslim chick at university. She was scared her friends/family would find out. I wonder if they killed her? Meh.

[wayskobfssae]

Martin, on 30 July 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

As far as war is concerned, it's all just about resources. Today, it's oil, tomorrow it's rare earth minerals. That's why today our governments are carpet bombing the Middle East, and tomorrow they will be dropping nukes on Asia. They say it's to liberate the people of those countries, but that's nonsense in my opinion. They didn't liberate equally-oppressed people who live in countries without large oil reserves. Just the ones with the black gold.

As for religion, it's a moot point. Christians are just as faggoty and blinkered as Muslims. If you want to ban one, you must ban them all. Singling out Islam isn't fair. Yeah, they cut peiople's heads off because the Quran tells them to. The Bible also has some very nasty shit in it. I remember fucking a nice Muslim chick at university. She was scared her friends/family would find out. I wonder if they killed her? Meh.

I had a theory at some point that... IF 9/11 was just one big conspiracy theory and we actually flew the planes into our own buildings as an excuse to attack Iraq, that some speculators looked at the future and saw an America being dangled over a cliff by its balls because there was no more oil here and "Whoever controls the Spice controls the galaxy." So the solution was to conquer a nation that had it.

Only trouble with all these conspiracy theories about foreign oil and such is... how much additional oil has America actually gained from all these wars? We go in, we screw up some stuff, and then we help rebuild. That oil payout never seems to actually happen. The only people who really seem to be profiting from it are the construction contractors who rebuild the ruined cities.

[Jimmy]

This is slightly outdated, but the point Michael Parenti is making here is still true:

Quote

What's the purpose of it? Capitalism would not collapse if Grenada remained revolutionary. And Reagan was right, it wasn't a matter of direct resources that you needed from that country. He said, "Nutmeg is not the question." I mean, that was Grenada's biggest export, we could get perfectly good nutmeg from Africa, you don't need Grenada's nutmeg. So why did they invade Grenada? They invaded Grenada because they were serving notice to the people of the Caribbean, and to the people of Latin America, and to the people of the world, that you cannot drop out of your client-state free-market system. That if you tried to take an independent source, and that if you use your land, your labor, your resources, and your capital, and your markets in a different way, in a collectivist way, if you use them to benefit the needs of your people, rather than to be milked like a cow for foreign investors, if you do that, this is what's going to happen to you.

[wayskobfssae]

You know - this doesn't cross my mind much anymore, but even when I didn't fully understand it all, I can remember raising an eyebrow whenever I heard about a President (I know I heard this from Dubya MANY times, not sure about his Dad, or Bill Clinton) talking about nations that weren't free, and then immediately going on to talk about the spread of Capitalism. At one time the popular talk was about bringing Democracy to nations that didn't have it, and now that had taken a back seat to Capitalism. And this always seemed strange to me at the time, since, "How the heck does Capitalism dictate whether or not a nation has freedom and liberty?" Of course now I know the answer. It doesn't.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

If there was one thing I would always disagree with George Bush on, it was his desire to spread "freedom and democracy" to other countries. That kind of quasi-imperialism is best left in the days of Woodrow Wilson and William McKinley. Of course first-world countries need a lot of resources to grow and sustain themselves. If you want territory and resources so badly, go out and get it without doing a half-assed job of covering up your intentions. No one's really being fooled with this "freedom and democracy" nonsense, and it comes across as deceptive.

Edit: I hope it's clear that my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Going out and invading other countries willy-nilly doesn't do much for global stability.

[Sangman]

This doesn't really have much to do with anything, but;

wayskobfssae, on 30 July 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Educate the Middle East and hope the power of the terrorists gets dissolved as a side-effect?

It's ideas like these (I'm not saying wayskobf has that himself, just in general) that make me think people actually need to meet some people from the Middle East. It really looks as if Westerners assume anyone from the Middle East will turn to terrorism unless they are "educated". This is all bollocks of course. Yeah, there are people who turn to terrorism but they are an absolute minority. The past year I've met people from Iran, Iraq, Oman and whatnot. They're nice people.

The only way a serious discussion about the Middle East can be had is if people stop assuming it's a part of the world filled with potential terrorists.

[Danukem]

Sangman, on 31 July 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

It's ideas like these (I'm not saying wayskobf has that himself, just in general) that make me think people actually need to meet some people from the Middle East. It really looks as if Westerners assume anyone from the Middle East will turn to terrorism unless they are "educated". This is all bollocks of course.

You are right, it is bollocks. Many terrorists are well educated, and some even graduated from respectable universities. It's the height of western arrogance to assume that deeply held ideological convictions can be swept away with some western style education. To be fair, though, that is not what wayskobfssae said. He said that the "power" of the terrorists might get "dissolved" as a "side-effect" of improved education. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sangman, on 31 July 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

Yeah, there are people who turn to terrorism but they are an absolute minority. The past year I've met people from Iran, Iraq, Oman and whatnot. They're nice people.

First of all, whether terrorists are a minority is really beside the point. If terrorism is a serious problem, it's a serious problem whether terrorists and potential terrorists constitute 1% of the population or 50%.

Secondly, the people you are meeting in Europe are not a random sample of the native populations of Iran, Iraq, etc. Either they have enough money to travel, or they have chosen to permanently leave those countries. The very fact that you are meeting them and speaking to them in a language that isn't Arabic already sets them apart.

Third, having a discussion as though "terrorism" is the biggest threat from Muslim countries is very 2002. The question you need to be asking is whether the cultural transformation of Europe that is being brought on by a huge influx of immigrants from Muslim countries is a good thing.

[Sangman]

Trooper Dan, on 31 July 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Secondly, the people you are meeting in Europe are not a random sample of the native populations of Iran, Iraq, etc. Either they have enough money to travel, or they have chosen to permanently leave those countries. The very fact that you are meeting them and speaking to them in a language that isn't Arabic already sets them apart.

I suppose you got a point there.

[Jimmy]

Also, a lot of these cats who do the suicide missions are pretty damn young. Younger than either Sang or I. You give a 16 year old and tell him if he ends his pitiful existence (because they're going to prey on the poor and downtrodden of course) just by blowing a building up, that Allah will show favour upon him and award him 72 virgins? Sign me the fuck up, dude.

[Martin]

Sangman, on 31 July 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

It's ideas like these (I'm not saying wayskobf has that himself, just in general) that make me think people actually need to meet some people from the Middle East. It really looks as if Westerners assume anyone from the Middle East will turn to terrorism unless they are "educated". This is all bollocks of course. Yeah, there are people who turn to terrorism but they are an absolute minority. The past year I've met people from Iran, Iraq, Oman and whatnot. They're nice people.

The only way a serious discussion about the Middle East can be had is if people stop assuming it's a part of the world filled with potential terrorists.

Indeed. People need to get out of the house, more. You see people on the train moving away from a Muslim (or a Sikh, because their ignorance runs so deep that they don't even know the difference) because they think they'll get blown up. It's pretty hilarious in a way, but you've got to feel sorry for the person on the receiving end of the prejudice. It's the equivalent of seeing an American, holding your hands up and screaming "Oh God! Please don't kill me, invade my land and steal my resources!".

[Danukem]

Captain Awesome, on 31 July 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Also, a lot of these cats who do the suicide missions are pretty damn young. Younger than either Sang or I. You give a 16 year old and tell him if he ends his pitiful existence (because they're going to prey on the poor and downtrodden of course) just by blowing a building up, that Allah will show favour upon him and award him 72 virgins? Sign me the fuck up, dude.

From what I've read, the motivation of a suicide bomber is usually more down-to-earth. They are promised that their family will be taken care of, often with a large sum of money. That's pretty good motivation if your are poor and there isn't much upward mobility in your society. Notice that the more well-to-do terrorists (e.g. Osama bin Laden) don't actually blow themselves up, they have other people do the blowing up.

[Mad Max RW]

Interesting bit of information for you guys to think about: the newly founded US Navy was directed by Thomas Jefferson (he actually opposed them at first) to stop the Muslim pirates who were terrorizing American merchant ships off the Barbary Coast. They were kidnapping, killing, and holding them ransom which was costing us a fortune. It's what the "To the shores of Tripoli" part of the Marines' Hymn is referencing. Kinda puts into perspective how the US has been fighting radical Islamic terrorists for almost as long as our country existed.

[Sangman]

Captain Awesome, on 31 July 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

You give a 16 year old and tell him if he ends his pitiful existence (because they're going to prey on the poor and downtrodden of course) just by blowing a building up, that Allah will show favour upon him and award him 72 virgins?

Do you really believe this yourself? I don't know about you but I wasn't this stupid when I was 16.

[wayskobfssae]

Sangman, on 31 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Do you really believe this yourself? I don't know about you but I wasn't this stupid when I was 16.

When you really think about it, is it any different than all the idiots who have unprotected sex? HIV or a big kaboom, both lead to death. People are stupid enough to do anything for sex. We use terms like 'humanity' and 'civilization' because we like to think we're somehow more intellectual, but for most, it still all just boils down to getting in someone's pants.

[Danukem]

Mad Max RW, on 31 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Interesting bit of information for you guys to think about: the newly founded US Navy was directed by Thomas Jefferson (he actually opposed them at first) to stop the Muslim pirates who were terrorizing American merchant ships off the Barbary Coast. They were kidnapping, killing, and holding them ransom which was costing us a fortune. It's what the "To the shores of Tripoli" part of the Marines' Hymn is referencing. Kinda puts into perspective how the US has been fighting radical Islamic terrorists for almost as long as our country existed.

Yeah, that should be well known, but given the current state of our educational system, it's probably not. And if you look at what was said at the time, there was a debate which closely mirrors what we have now:

Quote

There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

One difference, of course, is that no one back then was trying to remake Muslim societies. The goal was to defeat the pirates militarily in order to secure the trading routes and free the captives. And at that they were largely successful.

http://www.city-jour..._jefferson.html

[Sangman]

wayskobfssae, on 31 July 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

When you really think about it, is it any different than all the idiots who have unprotected sex? HIV or a big kaboom, both lead to death. People are stupid enough to do anything for sex.

Are you seriously comparing unprotected sex to suicide missions?

How stupid do you perceive people from the Middle East to be? :|

[wayskobfssae]

Sangman, on 31 July 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Are you seriously comparing unprotected sex to suicide missions?

In the case of virgin-rewarded Jihads, minus the part that gets other people killed in the process, yes.

Quote

How stupid do you perceive people from the Middle East to be? :|

Exactly as stupid as people are in the West.

[Danukem]

Anyone who thinks that being with 72 virgins is a reward has never seen a Girl Scouts meeting.

[wayskobfssae]

Trooper Dan, on 31 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that being with 72 virgins is a reward has never seen a Girl Scouts meeting.

You may have just murdered the thread. Even the idea of analyzing that statement feels wrong.

However... I don't think many suicide bombers are expecting girl scouts.

[Mad Max RW]

Considering what my buddies fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan saw on a daily basis they are really expecting boys. The stuff going on in the Muslim world would make a Catholic priest blush.

[Danukem]

Mad Max RW, on 31 July 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Considering what my buddies fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan saw on a daily basis they are really expecting boys. The stuff going on in the Muslim world would make a Catholic priest blush.

Blush or consider converting to Islam?

I hope that westerners didn't bring this on by making fun of them for doing goats...

[Jimmy]

Martin, on 31 July 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Indeed. People need to get out of the house, more. You see people on the train moving away from a Muslim (or a Sikh, because their ignorance runs so deep that they don't even know the difference) because they think they'll get blown up. It's pretty hilarious in a way, but you've got to feel sorry for the person on the receiving end of the prejudice. It's the equivalent of seeing an American, holding your hands up and screaming "Oh God! Please don't kill me, invade my land and steal my resources!".

I'd move right next to the Sikh. Those guys are pretty much bound to protect the innocent.

Trooper Dan, on 31 July 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

From what I've read, the motivation of a suicide bomber is usually more down-to-earth. They are promised that their family will be taken care of, often with a large sum of money. That's pretty good motivation if your are poor and there isn't much upward mobility in your society. Notice that the more well-to-do terrorists (e.g. Osama bin Laden) don't actually blow themselves up, they have other people do the blowing up.

That too. I remember reading an interview with some guy who had managed to speak to quite a few failed suicide bombers who got caught for whatever reason, and he said almost every time they had no idea what the political motive behind the bombing was, nor did they care. It was for personal gain.

[Martin]

wayskobfssae, on 31 July 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

When you really think about it, is it any different than all the idiots who have unprotected sex? HIV or a big kaboom, both lead to death. People are stupid enough to do anything for sex. We use terms like 'humanity' and 'civilization' because we like to think we're somehow more intellectual, but for most, it still all just boils down to getting in someone's pants.

Not, any more. With today's medications, you can live a full life with HIV. I'm not sure what it'd cost you, but it is something you can get on the NHS. Some woman on TV was talking about it. She claimed it was from a blood transfusion. I think she was just a whore. Anyway, the point is that she's been living with HIV for a long time, and is on some modern drug that makes it so that she doesn't get ill and die. From AIDS. She'll still die from growing old, haha. She also is still infectious. It's not a cure, just some advanced HIV meds.

But yeah - HIV no-longer means death. Unless you're in Africa and can't afford the meds.

Trooper Dan, on 31 July 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that being with 72 virgins is a reward has never seen a Girl Scouts meeting.

Or fucked a virgin. Besides how it feels like you're trying to get your dick into a mouse's ear, there's really nothing great about virgins on the sex-front. They spend the whole time complaining of pain and telling you to slow down. I don't know about you guys, but I like to mash a lady's vagina until it's all shot to bits!

[wayskobfssae]

Martin, on 31 July 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Not, any more. With today's medications, you can live a full life with HIV. I'm not sure what it'd cost you, but it is something you can get on the NHS. Some woman on TV was talking about it. She claimed it was from a blood transfusion. I think she was just a whore. Anyway, the point is that she's been living with HIV for a long time, and is on some modern drug that makes it so that she doesn't get ill and die. From AIDS. She'll still die from growing old, haha. She also is still infectious. It's not a cure, just some advanced HIV meds.

But yeah - HIV no-longer means death. Unless you're in Africa and can't afford the meds.

Yeah, but based on the history of HIV and how scary and deadly it was at one time, it's still relevant evidence pointing to the possibility that sexual pleasure often trumps personal safety.

Quote

Or fucked a virgin. Besides how it feels like you're trying to get your dick into a mouse's ear, there's really nothing great about virgins on the sex-front. They spend the whole time complaining of pain and telling you to slow down. I don't know about you guys, but I like to mash a lady's vagina until it's all shot to bits!

Doesn't seem to hinder the serial f***ers who always look at virgins as being high-profile targets, even after they've done it with enough of them to know better.

[Martin]

wayskobfssae, on 31 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Yeah, but based on the history of HIV and how scary and deadly it was at one time, it's still relevant evidence pointing to the possibility that sexual pleasure often trumps personal safety.

Fair enough. I guess drinking and stuff is out of the question? Point is, any kind of pleasure is often at the expense of personal safety.

wayskobfssae, on 31 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Doesn't seem to hinder the serial f***ers who always look at virgins as being high-profile targets, even after they've done it with enough of them to know better.

Three possibilities on that one -

1) The girl wasn't really a virgin.
2) He's masochistic, and so the pain of the recipient is the whole idea.
3) He's a borderline/future paedophile. The idea of corrupting youth brings him much pleasure. He's the 35 year-old dude who your 19 year-old daughter dates.

[wayskobfssae]

Martin, on 31 July 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Fair enough. I guess drinking and stuff is out of the question? Point is, any kind of pleasure is often at the expense of personal safety.

It becomes a ratio of pleasure vs risk though. For instance, biological alcoholics aside, having one drink isn't going to kill anyone. Same goes for smoking and other similar activities. You can easily moderate your risk.

HIV didn't care how much you did it. Once was enough. Same goes for unwanted pregnancies. The point is, both of those things are easily moderated too, but still folks so often do it unprotected with random people whose history they don't know. Which actually makes the whole thing even sadder.

Quote

Three possibilities on that one -

1) The girl wasn't really a virgin.
2) He's masochistic, and so the pain of the recipient is the whole idea.
3) He's a borderline/future paedophile. The idea of corrupting youth brings him much pleasure. He's the 35 year-old dude who your 19 year-old daughter dates.

True, and considering the typical f'ed up nature of religious extremism, #2 is VERY likely and #3 isn't far behind.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Any objections to renaming this "The Token Political/Religious BS Thread"?

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 01 August 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Any objections to renaming this "The Token Political/Religious BS Thread"?

Don't look at me. I'm not the one who popped into this thread for a whopping 2 posts just to drop off a photo of that idiotic billboard here.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Ah, but regardless, that is the way of all message forum threads that even hint at politics. The specific becomes general, and the sensible becomes stupid.