Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

when have groups like the Taliban ever won an election?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Resulting in an Islamic holy war.


If they want to Jihad each other, then let them Jihad each other. Then again, that will upset the price of oil even further and I don't want to pay more than the $3.50 a gallon I am now.

Should just build Disneylands all over the desserts, that will keep them content and passive. Let them drink Coca-Cola I say.

Originally posted by inimalist
when have groups like the Taliban ever won an election?

So because something like that hasn't happened means it cant happen?

Denying that extremist Islam is having a greater influence and more worryingly, a general population more sympathetic to their cause, in the Arab world is just as dangerous a rhetorical stance as scaremongering by saying that they definitely will take control of all these countries.

No point in ignoring the possibility that some of these countries might become more radicalised.

Also worth pointing out that democratization of these countries may have 2 polar opposite affects....1 is that extremist organisations may be brought into the mainstream political debate and therefore their views might be listened to and dealt with without the need for them to resort to violence...Which is a good thing...But it might also mean that bringing them into the democratic fold helps them legitimise their skewed view. which does nothing to help rid the world of these frankly racist groups.

Same thing applies anywhere in the world...Here in the UK, on the one hand I don't think it's right to deny free speech but I also think that allowing groups like the BNP to stand for election hasn't really worked the way the mainstream parties hoped...It was thought that allowing them on programmes such as Newsnight would show them up for the bumbling racist idiots that they are but if anything it just opened up their views to more people and have since become more popular because of it which has lead to increased polarisation of the UK.

Originally posted by jaden101
So because something like that hasn't happened means it cant happen?

Denying that extremist Islam is having a greater influence and more worryingly, a general population more sympathetic to their cause, in the Arab world is just as dangerous a rhetorical stance as scaremongering by saying that they definitely will take control of all these countries.

No point in ignoring the possibility that some of these countries might become more radicalised.

Also worth pointing out that democratization of these countries may have 2 polar opposite affects....1 is that extremist organisations may be brought into the mainstream political debate and therefore their views might be listened to and dealt with without the need for them to resort to violence...Which is a good thing...But it might also mean that bringing them into the democratic fold helps them legitimise their skewed view. which does nothing to help rid the world of these frankly racist groups.

Same thing applies anywhere in the world...Here in the UK, on the one hand I don't think it's right to deny free speech but I also think that allowing groups like the BNP to stand for election hasn't really worked the way the mainstream parties hoped...It was thought that allowing them on programmes such as Newsnight would show them up for the bumbling racist idiots that they are but if anything it just opened up their views to more people and have since become more popular because of it which has lead to increased polarisation of the UK.

ok, but the mere possibility of something surely doesn't warrant "omgz, arabs are getting democracy, the west is screwed"

Violent responses to protests:

Bahrain

B6RCBOC-MAM

Lybia

Ky00YrHXzr0

so, I'm thinking, now that these leaders can see the writing on the wall, response to protests is going to be increasingly violent. Its like a cornered dog.

Hearts and minds with people fighting for freedom everywhere, as always.

Also, an excellent look at social media's role in Tunisia et al:

441HJTSUpXw

Islamists are not going to gain control just because it happened in Iran... for god's sake, Iran isn't even an arab country (its persian) and culturally has very little in common with the arab states other than "those guys who aren't christians out there".

US still not clear on support for protests:

JZ7An2o1Yz8

"we want democracy, but we really don't want it to upset the fact that we assume we own the world when it comes to foreign, energy and resource policy"

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but the mere possibility of something surely doesn't warrant "omgz, arabs are getting democracy, the west is screwed"

And that's what you read into Bicnarok's post?

Says more about your fears than his.

Originally posted by jaden101
And that's what you read into Bicnarok's post?

Says more about your fears than his.

actually, I asked him to back up the claim that these movements are going to lead to the Taliban

I'd make the same challange to you

it should be a fairly easy claim to back up, where have groups like the Taliban been elected?

History is rife with totalarian regimes being born out of discontent with the old totalaritan regime

Iran ousted the Shah and got Kohmeni.
Cuba ousted Batista and got Castro
Russia ousted the Czar and got Lenin/Stalin

These proststs aren't so much about the "lack of freedom" as they are high food prices and high unemployment.

Whichever faction offers the most "stability" will come to power...and there's a good chance god (allah) will fill that role.

Originally posted by Bicnarok

I wonder what is behind all this,


George Soros

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
...and there's a good chance god (allah) will fill that role.

source?

Originally posted by inimalist
source?

My opinion. It doesn't have to be the Imans directly but Saudi Arabia, which technically is a Monarchy, is in reality a theocracy. It's laws are based on the Quran, as are those of post Taliban Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries. I simply do not believe true democracy is possible...for any culture, even western ones...ours is controlled by bankers and other corporate interests so we basically aren't free either. Much of that part of the world is very deeply steeped in religion though Sunnis (as most of the protestors are) are less likely to follow religious leaders absolutely as opposed to Shiites, which Iranians primarily are.

Time will tell and nobody knows what's going to come of this...or maybey someone does...and that's the scary part.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
though Sunnis (as most of the protestors are) are less likely to follow religious leaders absolutely as opposed to Shiites, which Iranians primarily are.

where do you get this idea from?

Originally posted by inimalist
where do you get this idea from?

From a conversation I had with two Muslim co workers right after 09/11. One was an Iranian Shiite who had fled Iran shortly before the Iranian revolution in 1979. The other was a Lebenase Sunni who's family had come to the US in the late 80s. At the time I had no idea the two even existed seperate from each other. They explained a lot to me about the beliefs of Islam how it began, how the two split apart, and the differences between them. Shias are taught to believe that religious leaders per the will of God have absolute authority over evryday life. Sunnis tend to view their religious leaders as spiritual leaders and guides. They view each other as heretics. In spite of this the two were friends and got along fine...in the setting of an American place of business. I got the distinct impression that both felt the US got what it had coming on 09/11 but were careful about how they related their feelings about it because they were talking to me. Both HATED Israel and as one called it.."It's the 51st state".

Fair enough

I'd say the history of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suggest that this "hyper-religiosity" isn't unique or more rabid in Shia though.

most 9/11 hijackers were sunni, AQ is a sunni organization, Wahabbis are sunni, Taliban are sunni, etc

Originally posted by inimalist
Fair enough

I'd say the history of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suggest that this "hyper-religiosity" isn't unique or more rabid in Shia though.

most 9/11 hijackers were sunni, AQ is a sunni organization, Wahabbis are sunni, Taliban are sunni, etc

I concur, which is why I feel there is a real danger of Islamic leaders taking over some of the countries where all this protesting is happening. Mabey I'm wrong...but I feel all these western "experts" predicting what is going to happen are as about as accurate as I am. Things often have a way of turning out as we least expect.

from what I can tell, most western "experts" see it the way you do

even people who are experts in a lot of these places have no idea what is to come, its just that, in almost all cases (even Yemen, where the clerics are only now getting involved in the protests or rather in trying to mediate them) it is not an Islamic movement that is taking hold here, which is in stark contrast to what was seen when revolutions or other types of action saw places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan taken over by religious zealots.

Like, I'd never argue that the protests on the peninsula (Bahrain) wouldn't become Islamicized, because of the Saudi influence, but the ones we have seen so far (Egypt, Tunisia, now in Lybia) are not going to turn into radical islamic rule and almost certainly will fall into another military dictatorship that has to contend with the mosque, that is, if democracy doesn't take.

Basically, none of these dictators were challanging people's identity as Muslims, which is what happened in Iran, and Islam isn't a major part of the identity of those seeking political change, as it was in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. For that reason, there is no impetus to make Islam any more important in people's lives, no motivation to Islamicize the movements themselves.

What we will see, especially in places like Egypt, is political Islam. Like, it was funny to see people treat the Muslim Brotherhood as if they were the Islamic Jihad, but in any real sense, the brotherhood will likely be a major political party in Egypt, which is ultimately a good thing. They aren't actually a "radical" organization (the same way American politicians aren't radical Christians, even though they would say God helps in their decisions) so much as they are guided by strict interpretations of Muslim doctrine, and they will now be within the fold of the system, not against it. Having Islam as an option for political involvement actually cuts against AQ and IJ type groups, because they say straight up that violence is the only way for Muslims to get recognition.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I asked him to back up the claim that these movements are going to lead to the Taliban

I'd make the same challange to you

it should be a fairly easy claim to back up, where have groups like the Taliban been elected?

Uhhh...Hamas in Palestine?

Regardless it brings us full circle to my original question and my points from that. That simply denying the possibility that it might is completely pointless.

Originally posted by jaden101
Uhhh...Hamas in Palestine?

can you explain how Hamas is the same as the Taliban? (though, ya, tbh, I came up with that answer myself after I asked it. I dont see Hamas as even close to the same, but lets have at it)

also, there are very significant issues involved in the election of Hamas, the civil war that followed in gaza, etc.

god, this is going to sound pompus, but I mean it as a general question, not as a gotcha, have you seen anything on the Palestinian Papers?

Originally posted by jaden101
Regardless it brings us full circle to my original question and my points from that. That simply denying the possibility that it might is completely pointless.

I'm not denying the fact that it is possible, I'm saying, in pretty much every case we have seen, a very unlikely outcome, at least when we talk about the nations that have had revolutions thus far.

Like, Abdul Aziz conquored SA for wahabbi islam, and eventually fought against the mosque because he wanted to reform, the Taliban movement surfaced as an islamic movement to fill the void in post soviet afghanistan, and the iranian revolution saw islam as a form of protest. The protests we have seen so far arent in this vein at all, and even in the most devout of places, on the penisula (Yemen), the clerics are late to the show.

I guess, my reaction to this is similar to how I would react if someone was like: "zomg! western deomcracy is going to produce nazis." Like, we can both agree that America or any other western democracy is probablyfar away from electing Nazis, why cant we agree that islamo-fascist states aren't what muslims want to vote for

Q: How do you tell a Sunni from a Shiite?
A: The Sunnis are the ones with the Shiite blown out of them.

So you don't see them both as extremist organisations that have committed atrocities in the name of religion against those of other faiths? You don't see them as mentioned above and becoming the controlling force in their respective parts of the world and neither being a force for good primarily because of their skewed view of their own religion?



And we cannot discount the fact that in a country like Egypt...Just because their tyrannical leader has been ousted that the transition to democracy and freedom will come with smooth sailing and without more blood shed.




Even in recent history there are hardly any shining beacons of success in Africa or the Arab world of countries who have gone through civil wars or uprisings and have come out as free, democratic and successful countries. Somalia, Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan...None of those have exactly been success stories and they went through their revolutions and uprisings before the increasing trend towards extremist Islam groups becoming more prevalent.



I've only briefly seen some of the latest furore surrounding the concessions being offered but haven't looked into it all that much.




Again it's pretty clear that Bicnarok's post was even close to being "OMGZ THE EVIL ISLAMISTS WILL TAKE OVER"

He's simply asking the question of whether it's possible but you're admitting to reacting as if he's saying it was a forgone conclusion when he wasn't even close to arguing that.

Originally posted by inimalist


B6RCBOC-MAM


Damn, those people are hairy...

Gadaffi has killed hundreds of protesters according to some reports...

Yeah, looks like Lybia is going to be the next government to fall.

Well, we'll see about that one... unlike Mubarak I don't think he will ever give up power willingly... in fact there are reports of him using artillery on protesters...

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, we'll see about that one... unlike Mubarak I don't think he will ever give up power willingly... in fact there are reports of him using artillery on protesters...

Ben Ali and Mubarak both went though a few stages:

1) Ignore it.
2) Use force.
3) Making a speech in which you explicitly do not concede any ground to the protesters and hope they don't notice.
4) Flee.

Gadaffi (or his son?) has already gotten to the speech and Reuters reported that parts of the military had turned on Gadaffi. Of course, like in Egypt, the military has basically been in power anyway.


Something interesting, to me, about these protests. We live in an age where recording equipment is amazingly common and yet the best images we can get are shaky low-res videos and photos snapped after the fact. I realize these aren't wealthy countries but I've sort of hoped that in the 21st century we'd be able to see these kinds of things and get some idea of what happened.

I mean there are thousands of hours of video from WWII and Vietnam but these riots, which have the potential to alter the Middle East and Persia just as much seem like they might leave just a few choice photo ops. Maybe it's just my use of internet news, maybe the footage is going up on TV.

I don't think they have computers in the middle east, Sym.

Al-qaeda posts its videos on a typewriter which then gets mailed to the U.S. The Americans then gracefully act it out.

Exactly. They're good at improv, they're not techno-wizards!

Mubarak, Qadaffi, Castro, Jong Il....why is it that SOB's like those always live to ripe-old ages, yet guys like JFK and Bobby get assassinated young.

Just one of those questions for the ages I guess...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Mubarak, Qadaffi, Castro, Jong Il....why is it that SOB's like those always live to ripe-old ages, yet guys like JFK and Bobby get assassinated young.

Just one of those questions for the ages I guess...

Actually a good point, as long as you aren't intentionally leaving out MKL, X and Ghandi.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Mubarak, Qadaffi, Castro, Jong Il....why is it that SOB's like those always live to ripe-old ages, yet guys like JFK and Bobby get assassinated young.

Just one of those questions for the ages I guess... Jack and Bobby were Zionist Freemasons with ties to the Illuminati. That's why.

You know, why do people love JFK so much? From what I've seen from various documentaries and the like... the man was actually kind of a scumbag. Politically and morally.

He banged Monroe and repelled a zombie attack on the Pentagon. What more do you want from a president?

... you're right, what am I saying. Best. President. Ever.

He was also a badass marine who saved his buddies from Japs and sharks.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You know, why do people love JFK so much? From what I've seen from various documentaries and the like... the man was actually kind of a scumbag. Politically and morally.

Yeah, he cheated on his wife. He also had some skeletons in his closet (as did every other man who presided from the Oval Office). He may not have been Gandhi (who also got shot), but he certainly isn't near any those modern-day Caligula's I named. I think most American politicians are scumbags, but they definitely aren't in the same league as Jong Il or Qaddafi, that's for damn sure. I can think of 2 US presidents I would consider downright bloodthirsty: Andrew Jackson (against Native Americans) and James K. Polk (against Mexicans; U.S. Grant and Lincoln both referred to Polk as "immoral" for instigating the Mexican-American War), but there were none in the 20th Century who could be labeled "tyrants". Unless you're one of those people who think Truman was a monster for dropping the A-bomb.

And people love JFK, because he's one of those great "what if" stories where people can speculate about all day long. He was also a young, popular, non-WASP.

Originally posted by skekUng
Actually a good point, as long as you aren't intentionally leaving out MKL, X and Ghandi.

Yeah. MLK is an excellent example. Gandhi wasn't young when he was gunned down, but still fitting. Malcolm-X was an ******* though. A racist, Afro-Centrist thug who doesn't deserve to be counted among the likes of MLK or Gandhi. He got what was coming to him.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah. MLK is an excellent example. Gandhi wasn't young when he was gunned down, but still fitting. Malcolm-X was an ******* though. A racist, Afro-Centrist thug who doesn't deserve to be counted among the likes of MLK or Gandhi. He got what was coming to him.
You do know, at the end of his life he no longer believed in those views? He had an epiphany...

Originally posted by King Kandy
You do know, at the end of his life he no longer believed in those views? He had an epiphany...

Yes I know that he publicly renounced his Black Militant rhetoric, but as they say; "sorry doesn't cut it". And his past obviously caught up with him in that theater in New York.

Regardless, MLK accomplished what X never could. Malcolm X--aka: Malik Shabazz--was far more detrimental to the cause for black equality, then he ever was helpful to it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes I know that he publicly renounced his Black Militant rhetoric, but as they say; "sorry doesn't cut it". And his past obviously caught up with him in that theater in New York.

Regardless, MLK accomplished what X never could. Malcolm X--aka: Malik Shabazz--was far more detrimental to the cause for black equality, then he ever was helpful to it.
If completely renouncing his beliefs and doing everything possible to correct them doesn't cut it, i'm curious what you think he would have had to do to repent...

Lybia

KlvwhCNQbOQ

in stark contrast:

Bahrain

BZav6E_smnE

more Lybia:

OWbwAlDVADE

and a short clip from protests apparently in tehran

gVsqI2mX5Mk

Originally posted by King Kandy
If completely renouncing his beliefs and doing everything possible to correct them doesn't cut it, i'm curious what you think he would have had to do to repent...

After he renounced his beliefs, he should have become a yesterday's-celebrity. Just retire to his house, lay low, keep quiet and avoid the public eye. That in itself would have shown sincerity, and would have been enough. Instead, he continued to hog the limelight, talking about his personal transformation and saying things along the lines of "I aint like that anymore, you really gotta trust me". It just seemed like he was over-compensating, who was he trying to convince; us...or himself.

Yemen

s0QrlZs1i3Y

craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
After he renounced his beliefs, he should have become a yesterday's-celebrity. Just retire to his house, lay low, keep quiet and avoid the public eye. That in itself would have shown sincerity, and would have been enough. Instead, he continued to hog the limelight, talking about his personal transformation and saying things along the lines of "I aint like that anymore, you really gotta trust me". It just seemed like he was over-compensating, who was he trying to convince; us...or himself.

People always paint Malcolm X as the bad guy. I would rather side with him than MLK. MLK had his supporters getting hit, and sitting in restaurants with people throwing food and drinks on them, and getting sprayed by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs. Black people were being lynched all over the south and MLK just wanted to resort the crap peacefully. Obviously the government wanted to work with MLK, they didn't really care about how Black people felt, and they cared more about how the world saw them. Would you really side with MLK, if you lived in that time? I would be behind Malcolm X, but screw that Muslim stuff. Malcolm had the northern civil rights movement down locked.

Looks like Libya is succeeding in getting rid of their dictator from what Ive seen on the news today. I thought the army would just kill everyone like they did in China in that square.

Amazing how this uprising is spreading, surely there must be something behind all this,, has the Mahdi arrived??

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
People always paint Malcolm X as the bad guy. I would rather side with him than MLK. MLK had his supporters getting hit, and sitting in restaurants with people throwing food and drinks on them, and getting sprayed by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs. Black people were being lynched all over the south and MLK just wanted to resort the crap peacefully. Obviously the government wanted to work with MLK, they didn't really care about how Black people felt, and they cared more about how the world saw them. Would you really side with MLK, if you lived in that time? I would be behind Malcolm X, but screw that Muslim stuff. Malcolm had the northern civil rights movement down locked. You're right from a certain point of view, but the thing about that, is... well. The Black panthers are a representation of Malcolm X's line of thinking. People like Obama, who show passiveness and are cerebral, represent MLK's line of thinking.

There are no more black panthers.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah. MLK is an excellent example. Gandhi wasn't young when he was gunned down, but still fitting. Malcolm-X was an ******* though. A racist, Afro-Centrist thug who doesn't deserve to be counted among the likes of MLK or Gandhi. He got what was coming to him.

Well, I would disagree with your comments on Malcom X, but I can see why you wouldn't think he belonged in the company of the other. I don't think he was a bad guy, just ****ing tired of being heaped upon. I will always understand the blatant hatred angle someone has when they suffer the kind of indignities African American's did in this country. Even less severe examples of bigotry, like homosexuals running down a straight couple for daring to hold hands in public. But, realistically, that will accomplish little. X mellowed as he got older.

a good look at the Lybia protests, focuses on Ghadaffi and other economic issues in the nation, like the trillions of barrels of oil.

not to just spam up the thread, but this is totally relevant, etc:

iV22rbo8Itw

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
People always paint Malcolm X as the bad guy. I would rather side with him than MLK. MLK had his supporters getting hit, and sitting in restaurants with people throwing food and drinks on them, and getting sprayed by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs. Black people were being lynched all over the south and MLK just wanted to resort the crap peacefully. Obviously the government wanted to work with MLK, they didn't really care about how Black people felt, and they cared more about how the world saw them. Would you really side with MLK, if you lived in that time? I would be behind Malcolm X, but screw that Muslim stuff. Malcolm had the northern civil rights movement down locked.

MLK's way: the ACTUAL Christian way of "turn the other cheek." That means if someone smacks you in the face, you turn to the other side to allow them to smack that cheek, too. MLK's way was more effective, in the end.

X's way ended up polarizing and inciting more hate from the haters, bring some neutrals to the hate side of things, and made the supporters cringe. Depending on the situation, of course.

MLK was also what I call a genuinely righteous man.


/fanboyism



That type of approach is not possible, I believe, in many of the countries experienceing their protests/unrest.

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
I mostly posted that first post out of anger at Quiero Mota.

Dude, you're completely fine. I took no offense to anything said.

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
Malcolm X relates more with the gritty urban community.

What, exactly, does this mean?

Originally posted by skekUng
What, exactly, does this mean? That's a euphemism for "black people".

M@lc()lm X and M@rt1n @r3 g@y s() 1$ gh@ndi

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's a euphemism for "black people".

It's a euphemism for "ghetto black people" to be exact.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The death toll is already being reported at 600 or more. I'd call it bloody.

So where's the "UN" now? What about NATO? What about "I police the shit out of everything" US?

Oh, that's right, there has to be some sort of tangible economic or political gain from interfering from mass murder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So where's the "UN" now? What about NATO? What about "I police the shit out of everything" US?

Oh, that's right, there has to be some sort of tangible economic or political gain from interfering from mass murder.

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. Lybians have asked the UN to place a no fly zone over the country but it doesn't seem like anything is happening.

post removed

4OispaOm8r4

omfg, the army is turning, its going to happen... this is HUGE

also, that scene at the beginning with the protestors ripping pages out of the green book, made me smile. The rest of the report, not so much

FREE LIBYA, DEATH TO TYRANTS

post removed

The best thing that could ever happen for the middle east is Israel being surrounded by truely democratic arab states

/fact

I agree. This is really going to improve the political landscape of the world.

Originally posted by inimalist
The best thing that could ever happen for the middle east is Israel being surrounded by truely democratic arab states

/fact egypt have opened the border crossing at gaza

its going to be interesting to see what israel's response is going to be.

Originally posted by inimalist
The best thing that could ever happen for the middle east is Israel being surrounded by truely democratic arab states

/fact

This may sound ignorant, but why?

if you thought conspiracies were insane in America, see Libya:

l0DXhTruWT0

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The death toll is already being reported at 600 or more. I'd call it bloody.

Just wait until he unleashes his Amazonian Guard on the insurgents.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's a euphemism for "ghetto black people" to be exact.



So where's the "UN" now? What about NATO? What about "I police the shit out of everything" US?

Oh, that's right, there has to be some sort of tangible economic or political gain from interfering from mass murder.
Same reason Mexico isn't getting any kind of assistance despite sharing a border with us.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Same reason Mexico isn't getting any kind of assistance despite sharing a border with us. Same with Canada. The Eskimo Wars have been raging for years, but the U.S. has offered only token assistance.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Same with Canada. The Eskimo Wars have been raging for years, but the U.S. has offered only token assistance.
Have you seen what's going on in Mexico right now?

They sleep in the afternoons?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you seen what's going on in Mexico right now?

have you been to Nunavut?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you seen what's going on in Mexico right now? Yeah, some drug war. Honestly though, the media over hype its significance, at least by comparison to what's going on in Nunavut.

Originally posted by inimalist
have you been to Nunavut?

I'm not seeing it. They do seem to have unusually high rates of domestic violence.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Same with Canada. The Eskimo Wars have been raging for years, but the U.S. has offered only token assistance.

Eskimo wars? That's a new one to me.
I thought you would have brought up the baby seal hunt instead.

Quaddafi's time is up; you can see him flailing in all directions now. First his son blames the BBC for drugging the minds of young people in his country; today it's Osama and his boys doing the drugging.
This is a like a tidal wave that's just getting bigger. Was it like this a hundred years ago in Russia, seeing the revolution sweep out the Tsar?

Yeah, just, there were no jet fighters. I remember it like it was yesterday...

Originally posted by King Kandy
"The Arabs"?

I guess I forgot all countries of that ethnicity were one and the same.

C'mon, he meant the Arab World.

Tunisia

UUguRQTL09c

There's just no pleasing some people.

I mean, it's been, what, 2 months since the Tunisian revolution? everyone isn't employed? FAIL

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not seeing it. They do seem to have unusually high rates of domestic violence.

lol, you got Rick rolled my friend

Things are looking brutal for the protesters in Libya, mass executions and huge fatal attacks on peaceful demonstrations are rocking the country.

And of course what has NATO decided to do? Stay well away and make idle talks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12576427
Some news out of Tripoli.

Here's some interesting news out of Iraq as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12576613

Turns out all that forceful "democracy": wasn't really a good idea after all was it Mr. Bush?

What happens now that they're out their fighting for real democracy? Surely the capitalist nations will want to defend their filthy hands on the oil market.

Addition:
"With the armed people we can defeat all aggression. When necessary we will open all arms depots to arm the Libyan people. Libya will become a red flame."

Col. Gaddafi.

Oh dear...

Originally posted by Liberator
Addition:
"With the armed people we can defeat all aggression. When necessary we will open all arms depots to arm the Libyan people. Libya will become a red flame."

Col. Gaddafi.

Oh dear...

he is desperate at this point though, and the army doesn't support him at all, so its unlikely they are going to attack the protesters, and the common Libyan, I guess I'm just assuming, probably wont either.

all the guns lying around in the aftermath will be tough, especially given that Gadaffi kept his army weak to avoid coups, but unless the "Libyans" he is talking about arming are the African mercenaries he is hiring to slaughter his own people, he is just grasping at straws. At this point it is a matter of time, whether its the protesters, a tribe, a faction of the military, Gadaffi is done, and I'm sure he sees the writing on the wall.

on a more fun note: 2 libyan pilots who were tasked with bombing a revolutionary stronghold ejected and crashed their migs rather than fire on Libyans. It is OVER for the regime

Originally posted by roughrider
Eskimo wars? That's a new one to me.
I thought you would have brought up the baby seal hunt instead.

Quaddafi's time is up; you can see him flailing in all directions now. First his son blames the BBC for drugging the minds of young people in his country; today it's Osama and his boys doing the drugging.
This is a like a tidal wave that's just getting bigger. Was it like this a hundred years ago in Russia, seeing the revolution sweep out the Tsar?
No, it took years for Russia to go from Tsarist to Communist. This is much, much faster.

I've seen more comparisons to the 1848 Revolutions than the Russian. Started in one place and spread to another and didn't take very long. Main difference being that most of them were put down with their primary goals only being realized decades later. This time round they might succeed.


Or they may all just be replacing dictators with dictators.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've seen more comparisons to the 1848 Revolutions than the Russian. Started in one place and spread to another and didn't take very long. Main difference being that most of them were put down with their primary goals only being realized decades later. This time round they might succeed.


Or they may all just be replacing dictators with dictators.
In 1848 the revolutions were put down after Russia Hulked out, swept into Europe and locked shit down.

The only countries that I could see doing the same in the Arab World would be Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither of them have sufficient cause to intervene in the current revolutions/protests and in Iran's case that would be seen as an overt power play and probably do more harm than good for Iran.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
C'mon, he meant the Arab World.


Glad you got the jist, some people are picky and expect you to name every country, tribe and person participating. Nothing better to do that scour the posts for minor mistakes or generalizations.

What really bothers me now is the pathetic response or help from Europe (& the USA), they are having a meeting on Tuesday!! It could be all over by then, with a massive loss of life and demolition in the process.

Just shows we are led by sheep.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Just shows we are led by sheep.

I thought we were led by the global elite.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
C'mon, he meant the Arab World.
And i'm saying you can't make a general judgment on "the arab world" based on what any single arab country does, any more than you could say a single US state represents the interests of the entire USA...

The post was especially dumb in light of how Iran isn't even part of the "arab world".

Not really a good comparison there, imo.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really a good comparison there, imo.

no, its fairly apt

actually, its even more egrigeous than what KK said. It would be like lumping every carribean, latin and south american nation together as a single block of people

there is no "Arab world" outside of geographic boundaries, and the "Muslim World" stretches from the Phillipeans to the west coast of africa, with regions of chinese, indian and dozens of other nationalities not normally associeted with "muslim" issues.

Sure, but only a pedantic nerd would hear "the arab world" and think " he's talking about the Philippines". I'm relatively sure that society is not supposed to cater to pedantic nerds, as they're the reason for why we can't have anything nice.

Admadinejad has come out and condemned the Libyan government killing its own people.

http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/feb/ahmadinejad-condemns-qaddafi

LoLz.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, but only a pedantic nerd would hear "the arab world" and think " he's talking about the Philippines". I'm relatively sure that society is not supposed to cater to pedantic nerds, as they're the reason for why we can't have anything nice.

tbh, I'm not as critial of your point on the line KK is, but I do understand his point

I get you were using short hand, but the problem is that the way we refer to things does affect the way we percieve them, but ya, again, I replied with the clash of civs thing

Originally posted by Robtard
Admadinejad has come out and condemned the Libyan government killing its own people.

http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/feb/ahmadinejad-condemns-qaddafi

LoLz.

epic facepalm

I'm messing with you, mein frugen. I understand his point, lol. I just like to be contrary.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, but only a pedantic nerd would hear "the arab world" and think " he's talking about the Philippines". I'm relatively sure that society is not supposed to cater to pedantic nerds, as they're the reason for why we can't have anything nice.

Exactly. The words "Arab World" and "Muslim World" are often used interchangeably, and its perfectly reasonable. The Philippines has Muslims in it, but its a Catholic country. China and India both have Muslim minorities, but Muslims in both nations are utterly outnumbered by the older native religions. In order for a country to be included in the Muslim World, Islam must be the majority religion, and the Arabic language for it to be considered a part of the Arab World.

And it just so happens--uncoincidentally--that Arabic-speaking countries are also Muslim-majority countries.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm messing with you, mein frugen. I understand his point, lol. I just like to be contrary.

lol, let me take my foot out of my mouth here then

Iraq

BNqZdB1yz4E

yo

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Exactly. The words "Arab World" and "Muslim World" are often used interchangeably, and its perfectly reasonable. The Philippines has Muslims in it, but its a Catholic country. China and India both have Muslim minorities, but Muslims in both nations are utterly outnumbered by the older native religions. In order for a country to be included in the Muslim World, Islam must be the majority religion, and the Arabic language for it to be considered a part of the Arab World.

And it just so happens--uncoincidentally--that Arabic-speaking countries are also Muslim-majority countries.
Which, I hope you understand, does not include Iran.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Which, I hope you understand, does not include Iran.

I know. But its a Muslim country. So are Pakistan and Indonesia, even though they aren't Arab nations.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you seen what's going on in Mexico right now?

I missed this post, and yeah; the drug wars (aka: America's Third War). Last month I was visiting family down in Sonora, and thoughout the day we could hear gun shots, some were in the distance and others were closer. The locals were telling me that they've learned to tune out the sounds, and over time they blend in with the other city sounds; traffic, honking, city-bustle etc. Many of the smaller border towns literally have no cops because the cartels have killed them all. The drug lords are basically running the towns. The state of Sonora is pretty much owned by Los Zetas. Northern Mexico is a No-Man's-Land, and President Calderon is impotent and a joke.

"A draft resolution, backed by Britain, France, Germany and the US, calls for an arms embargo, a travel ban and the freezing of assets in response to the bloodshed. There is also a proposal to refer Col Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity."

oooooo...!!! A proposal!

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12587078

Sanctions! That always causes people to quickly stop what they're doing.

How can the UN be that unwilling to send in Peacekeepers? How about medical aid? I can't see doctors producing controversy.

Why would the UN care about any of this? There isn't really a whole lot to gain from this.

Last night on the News Hour I saw an interview of a Libyan man who was saying that the people of Libya need aid from America and Europe, but not aid as in canned goods and blankets, he meant they needed guns and armaments.

Which just proves that no one ever needs American proxy-military intervention...


...until they need it. america

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
...500?

ok I added 200 too many, sue me

Originally posted by Bicnarok
In fact there are numerous tribes in N.Africa so where do we draw the line.

generally at countries considered part of the Maghrab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb

(though Ive seen maps where Egypt is included in the region)

I don't actually know if there are any majority Arab states in Africa that aren't part of it

No. Western World gives military aid in the form of national armies/weapons then it's going to end poorly.

Originally posted by King Kandy
America itself was a "previously undemocratic country".

when it was part of another nation?

Yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
when it was part of another nation? Don't drag Mexico in to this.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't drag Mexico in to this.

What about Mexico?

These uprisings are doing wonders for oil prices

Finally.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What about Mexico? Its "illegal" annexation of the southern United States following the Nevada Border Skirmish was entirely justified, IMO. Little Mexico may not have been a democratic nation, but it did stop American aggression in to Mexico proper.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Its "illegal" annexation of the southern United States following the Nevada Border Skirmish was entirely justified, IMO. Little Mexico may not have been a democratic nation, but it did stop American aggression in to Mexico proper.

Not familiar with US history, maybe could explain what went on in a few words-

We (America) basically stole like half of Mexico's shit. They kind of owned most of the southwest. So, there were a whole lot of border clashes between Mexico and the US. That's the era where things like the alamo became famous from.

Unless Lucien is talking about something entirely different.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Not familiar with US history, maybe could explain what went on in a few words- What Blax said. During the Mexican-American War, Mexico occupied most of the southern States, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida etc. California was the only one that resisted. The governments in charge of these occupied states were rather undemocratic in nature. Most people were sent to labor camps and forced in to servitude.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Not familiar with US history, maybe could explain what went on in a few words-

California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming were all Mexico, until the Gringos, specifically, President James K. Polk stole it all. In fact, the later presidents Abe Lincoln and US Grant both stated that Polk was in the wrong for instigating the war, and harshly criticized him for it.

The so-called "border wars" today between America and Mexico are--believe it or not--partial remnants of a war that happened 160 years ago.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What Blax said. During the Mexican-American War, Mexico occupied most of the southern States, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida etc. California was the only one that resisted. The governments in charge of these occupied states were rather undemocratic in nature. Most people were sent to labor camps and forced in to servitude.
Mexico never owned Florida.

Florida was a part of New Spain until 1819 when the Adams-Onis treaty gave it to the US.

Apparently the Egyptian military is now cracking down on the latest protest against them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't drag Mexico in to this.

I-I was dragging the Brits...

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Not familiar with US history, maybe could explain what went on in a few words-

Just don't watch the History channel. They advertised The Alamo as being where Texas won its independence from Mexico.

http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/funny-facebook-fails-history-channel-fail.jpg

Originally posted by jaden101
Just don't watch the History channel. They advertised The Alamo as being where Texas won its independence from Mexico.

http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/funny-facebook-fails-history-channel-fail.jpg
I remember a a documentary about the Battle of Wake Island that talked about how while the marines were defending Wake from the Japanese they received news that people considered their struggle to be like that of the Alamo. Knowing how that ended for the Texans the marines weren't exactly thrilled by the comparison.

lol, epic fail x2

In "History Channel's" Defense, it could be the mentality of Texan independence, that they were referring to...because, from that point on, they certainly fought like they had earned their independence. Sometimes, "defeat" is actually a victory.

Originally posted by inimalist
I-I was dragging the Brits... Oh. Why? The Brits never owned America, they owned Canada and the Louisiana Purchase.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh. Why? The Brits never owned America, they owned Canada and the Louisiana Purchase.

thats what my point was

when Britain controlled the land, it wasn't democratic, when America became independant, it was. KK's remark was that there was an America-before-it-was-democratic.

Obviously I got the point he was making, it was more of a joke

Originally posted by inimalist
thats what my point was

when Britain controlled the land, it wasn't democratic, when America became independant, it was. KK's remark was that there was an America-before-it-was-democratic.

Obviously I got the point he was making, it was more of a joke "Wawawait... who was before the cat?"

ZFvF8s_V62A

Yes I do too and I guess we will have to wait to see what happens.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Malcolm-X was an ******* though. A racist, Afro-Centrist thug who doesn't deserve to be counted among the likes of MLK or Gandhi. He got what was coming to him.

Why do you think that?

Probably because he was a racist ass. Granted, towards the end of his life he seemed to mellow-out some.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The Black panthers are a representation of Malcolm X's line of thinking.

The panthers were birthed directly from the acts of assassinating Malcom X and MLK, and they saw it as an act of war against black people ("They're killing our leaders!" and felt it was time to take an aggressive military stance against a people with a history of violence against them or be beaten down forever. Malcolm felt the same basically... that everyone needed to protect themselves from violent oppresion using violence if necessary... and he didn't change that POV when he got older, nor should he have. That's certainly not a "racist" concept, just a common sense one.


What changed was the Nation of Islam idea that whites were inherently evil (devils), a concept that is definitely racist. Malcolm stopped believing that when he was exposed to orthodox Islam during his trip overseas.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably because he was a racist ass.

In my experience, people who think that usually have a weird, highly inaccurate, grotesquely caricatured, Magneto-type understanding of what Malcolm X was actually about.