Originally posted by dadudemon
The fact that the video had been posted for almost (or was it "over"😉 a year? There's some pretty damming "intel", right there.
Good job giving him his answer. Saved him a massive google search.
But that in of itself doesn't really mean jack. How many Americans with easy access to information knew about the video a year ago and not for the first time last month, let alone people without easy access to the internet/media.
Originally posted by Robtard
Good job giving him his answer. Saved him a massive google search.
I'm pretty sure he already had that answer: do you see the stuff he frequents? No way he would have been in the dark. I wasn't answering for him: your question's answer was so obvious (and discussed in the "muslims crisis" thread, at length) that it was pretty much rhetorical.
Originally posted by Robtard
But that in of itself doesn't really mean jack. How many Americans with easy access to information knew about the video a year ago and not for the first time last month, let alone people without easy access to the internet/media.
So, arbitrarily, after the movie was release (full movie) and the youtube trailer up for ages, they (Ragey Muslims) decided to shit themselves over it?
Why not in June?: vid was up then, full movie had already been screened. Why not in May? Why not April? Why not July? Why not August? Etc. Bla Bla.
Originally posted by Robtard
No. my point was more to the mass rioters who would have been ignorant; not to the string pullers and it was aside to the 'knowing before' point.
Okay, fair enough.
But then there's this:
So, arbitrarily, after the movie was release (full movie) and the youtube trailer up for ages, they (Ragey Muslims) decided to shit themselves over it?
Why not in June?: vid was up then, full movie had already been screened. Why not in May? Why not April? Why not July? Why not August? Etc. Bla Bla.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, fair enough.But then there's this:
So, arbitrarily, after the movie was release (full movie) and the youtube trailer up for ages, they (Ragey Muslims) decided to shit themselves over it?
Why not in June?: vid was up then, full movie had already been screened. Why not in May? Why not April? Why not July? Why not August? Etc. Bla Bla.
"Okay, fair enough" implies you got what I meant. So your questions are pointless. I'm not arguing that the attacks weren't planned, as it's known now they were.
Originally posted by Robtard
Thoughts?
As usual, ads like that don't tell the whole story. I agree Obama is a failed president and needs to go but the alternative is just as bad. Why don't they say Romney will further increase the debt by increasing military spending so the US can further pursue an interventionist foreign policy while further cutting taxes on the wealthy thus forcing further borrowing.
I would like to vote for Jill Stein but she isn't on the ballot in Nevada where I live so I'll "waste" my vote on Gary Johnson even though I disagree with Libertarian economic philosiphy
Epic Rab Battle of History:
Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It was horrible I am with Mitt Romney but I thought both were acting like little children the way they kepted bulliing each other throughout the whole thing.It was shameful and should had been redone I felt a shame for both of them for the way they acted.
Yell, it's a comedic thing. I guess they didn't want to take position for any of the two, and just made a good laugh out of both ^^
From my point of view, neither man won the debate. Obama controlled it [due to help from the moderator who threw him 2 life lines - Fast and Furious and Libya], but Romney served Americans data. Whether it is true facts or half truths, those are implanted in the minds of Americans. Polls came out that were not Fox News, but CBS and CNN stating that it was Romney 52% - Obama 45%. If Obama doesn't turn it around quick like, he's done. Just simple math, but things can turn around quick.
I'm a Romney supporter, but to all Obama voters, think of these last few days as the World Series. The smallest slip up can cost someone the title. You still have a chance
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, are you trying to say Osama Bin Laden perpetuated the attacks of 9/11? Are you also saying that if the US had cut down their Foreign Military Activities by a massive amount, Bin Laden's warpath would have still be legitimate AND lead up to the attacks on 9/11?
So, I wanted to bring this back up, because it is an interesting topic and I didn't really elaborate my point well enough.
I didn't claim 9/11 would have occurred with an American military draw down, in fact, even with no changes, if the dice of history were rolled again, something like 9/11 is in no way assured to occur again. Too many things could have gone wrong, even if America had done nothing differently. So, no, history would not have been identical and I didn't insinuate that it would have been. What would have been the same, however, is that a) radical Islam would still exist and would still be a very powerful political force around the world and b) they would still consider America to be both an enemy and a target.
So, there are numerous points of origin for modern Islamism, and the further back you go, the more it is British involvement in the region, or other colonial powers, that are the driving force. This is largely because, in the repressive colonial system, the only place that people had to express their ideas about human rights and decency was in religious institutions and in the language of religion. It is why something like Hindu Nationalism rose from Ghandi's movement or the connection between anti-slavery and the black church in early American history. As such, a lot of the very first and influential anti-colonial Islamist works come from India and Pakistan. These aren't the most important or relevant, however, I'm just noting it because they predate American involvement in the region by, what, 100-150 years?
The most relevant place is Egypt at the end of the second world war. Britain had promised the Egyptians (Kingdom of Egypt/Sudan) a free Arab-Muslim Palestinian state in return for their support during the war. Mixed with animosities about colonial rule, the Suez canal, and the lies about Palestine, the Egyptian people had a revolution that brought into power Nasser. Now, it is true both American and the USSR had interests in trying to control this revolution, but Nasser was not only a hero to the Egyptians, but the Arab people more broadly, and was a leader in the non-aligned movement, so to say he was a puppet of either side is blatantly false (hell, he lead the war against Israel). This was no Mubarak or Shah, Nasser ruled with his people's nearly full support.
Egypt had a growing religious movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, that was being funded by the Saudis and largely followed their extremely conservative version of Islam. Again, there are some American fingerprints here, as the CIA hoped to use Arab Muslims as spies against the Russians, but the bigger American contribution to this growth came from trade with Saudi Arabia, something you as a Libertarian would support, and can thus hardly be called "meddling" in this part of the world. American oil money funded the growth and spread of the most radical form of Islam into Egypt at the exact same time Sayyid Qutb was making his trip to the United States.
Qutb only went to America because it had the best schools, and was not anti-American at all when he went abroad. His time in America sullied his opinion of the nation, which he saw as hypocritical and not nearly pious enough, however, he did not promote violence against them at this point. It is only after returning to Egypt and being tortured by Nasser for being an Islamist that he begins to say people should be killed. He justifies this not as some rhetoric against the West, but uses the West (and Communism) as an example of why life without Islam is corrupt. He says because Nasser has given up Islam, it is ok to kill him. Qutb goes on to become the most important ideologue in modern Islamism. Not because of American interference in the region, but because of domestic and local forces as a result of the collapse of colonialism. Zawahiri, the #2 in Al Qaeda, formed Islamic Jihad in Egypt based very much on Qutb's ideas.
It is into this world that America stepped. Bin Laden, while fighting against the Soviets alongside people receiving direct American funding, perceived America as an enemy. One of the greatest offenses he named was American forces defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam's army. For this to be an offense, he would have needed to see Americans as an evil force before they even arrived, which can be further evidenced by the reaction to French special forces in Saudi Arabia during the siege in Mecca.
So, no, I'm not saying 9/11 would have happened exactly as it did with a large draw-down of American forces in the region, I'm saying Libertarian policies would not have made America safe from Islamism regardless of military spending. In fact, the Libertarian idea of opening trade with even the most ruthless regimes on the planet, in this case Saudi Arabia, lead to the creation of the very groups that oppose us. I mean, look at the nationalities of the hijackers: 15 of the 19 from Saudi Arabia, the rest from places like the UAE or Egypt. These are not the places America "meddled" in, they are the places America opened trade with and, more importantly, the ones that are the most influenced by Saudi money and religious ideology, which is spread through Saudi money, from American trade with the Kingdom.
If the hijackers came from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, you know, ok, sure, we could say there is some clear connection between meddling and their actions. But, in terms of the real history, it is really not true at all to say it is American foreign policy that makes it a target from these groups. It doesn't help, by any means, I'm not saying it plays no role at all, but if America had no connections at all, even trade, there would still be groups of radicals who saw American values as so corrupt that it is not a violation of their ethics to murder those who follow them.
Despite the debates Obama still holds a slight edge according to
Originally posted by Oliver North
So, I wanted to bring this back up, because it is an interesting topic and I didn't really elaborate my point well enough.I didn't claim 9/11 would have occurred with an American military draw down, in fact, even with no changes, if the dice of history were rolled again, something like 9/11 is in no way assured to occur again. Too many things could have gone wrong, even if America had done nothing differently. So, no, history would not have been identical and I didn't insinuate that it would have been. What would have been the same, however, is that a) radical Islam would still exist and would still be a very powerful political force around the world and b) they would still consider America to be both an enemy and a target.
So, there are numerous points of origin for modern Islamism, and the further back you go, the more it is British involvement in the region, or other colonial powers, that are the driving force. This is largely because, in the repressive colonial system, the only place that people had to express their ideas about human rights and decency was in religious institutions and in the language of religion. It is why something like Hindu Nationalism rose from Ghandi's movement or the connection between anti-slavery and the black church in early American history. As such, a lot of the very first and influential anti-colonial Islamist works come from India and Pakistan. These aren't the most important or relevant, however, I'm just noting it because they predate American involvement in the region by, what, 100-150 years?
The most relevant place is Egypt at the end of the second world war. Britain had promised the Egyptians (Kingdom of Egypt/Sudan) a free Arab-Muslim Palestinian state in return for their support during the war. Mixed with animosities about colonial rule, the Suez canal, and the lies about Palestine, the Egyptian people had a revolution that brought into power Nasser. Now, it is true both American and the USSR had interests in trying to control this revolution, but Nasser was not only a hero to the Egyptians, but the Arab people more broadly, and was a leader in the non-aligned movement, so to say he was a puppet of either side is blatantly false (hell, he lead the war against Israel). This was no Mubarak or Shah, Nasser ruled with his people's nearly full support.
Egypt had a growing religious movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, that was being funded by the Saudis and largely followed their extremely conservative version of Islam. Again, there are some American fingerprints here, as the CIA hoped to use Arab Muslims as spies against the Russians, but the bigger American contribution to this growth came from trade with Saudi Arabia, something you as a Libertarian would support, and can thus hardly be called "meddling" in this part of the world. American oil money funded the growth and spread of the most radical form of Islam into Egypt at the exact same time Sayyid Qutb was making his trip to the United States.
Qutb only went to America because it had the best schools, and was not anti-American at all when he went abroad. His time in America sullied his opinion of the nation, which he saw as hypocritical and not nearly pious enough, however, he did not promote violence against them at this point. It is only after returning to Egypt and being tortured by Nasser for being an Islamist that he begins to say people should be killed. He justifies this not as some rhetoric against the West, but uses the West (and Communism) as an example of why life without Islam is corrupt. He says because Nasser has given up Islam, it is ok to kill him. Qutb goes on to become the most important ideologue in modern Islamism. Not because of American interference in the region, but because of domestic and local forces as a result of the collapse of colonialism. Zawahiri, the #2 in Al Qaeda, formed Islamic Jihad in Egypt based very much on Qutb's ideas.
It is into this world that America stepped. Bin Laden, while fighting against the Soviets alongside people receiving direct American funding, perceived America as an enemy. One of the greatest offenses he named was American forces defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam's army. For this to be an offense, he would have needed to see Americans as an evil force before they even arrived, which can be further evidenced by the reaction to French special forces in Saudi Arabia during the siege in Mecca.
So, no, I'm not saying 9/11 would have happened exactly as it did with a large draw-down of American forces in the region, I'm saying Libertarian policies would not have made America safe from Islamism regardless of military spending. In fact, the Libertarian idea of opening trade with even the most ruthless regimes on the planet, in this case Saudi Arabia, lead to the creation of the very groups that oppose us. I mean, look at the nationalities of the hijackers: 15 of the 19 from Saudi Arabia, the rest from places like the UAE or Egypt. These are not the places America "meddled" in, they are the places America opened trade with and, more importantly, the ones that are the most influenced by Saudi money and religious ideology, which is spread through Saudi money, from American trade with the Kingdom.
If the hijackers came from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, you know, ok, sure, we could say there is some clear connection between meddling and their actions. But, in terms of the real history, it is really not true at all to say it is American foreign policy that makes it a target from these groups. It doesn't help, by any means, I'm not saying it plays no role at all, but if America had no connections at all, even trade, there would still be groups of radicals who saw American values as so corrupt that it is not a violation of their ethics to murder those who follow them.
Holy shit. I want to read all of that: I'll probably learn something. I got about two paragraphs in. I'll read the whole thing tonight before bed.
I do not like the idea of your "quantum-state histories" being your answer. I would rather stick with the exact history that we have now with the only change being the one I mentioned: cutting down our foreign military activities by 9/10s. For me, that is enough to have prevented the 9/11 attacks. I do not see the Islamic Extremists that have an anti-western agenda, actually pursuing us as much. That decrease in fervor would have probably decreased the chances of the supercell that perpetuated the 9/11 attacks. They have to have some sort of motivation. If that motivation is almost completely destroyed, from whence commeth the motivation? I think their anti-western activities would die down, gradually, until it was pretty much insignificant. They would have to focus their energies elsewhere.
This is just my opinion, of course. My opinion means shit because I am by no means even remotely close to being a global terror expert. I know I don't have to say that but it sometimes makes other people more comfortable digesting another's opinion if they know that person does not think their opinion is fact/right/inexorable.
it is from a number of books, actually... and articles/documentaries. in undergrad, I took enough electives that I could have probably got a minor in Mideast/Mediterranean studies, and I sort of have an obsession with the origins of political Islam... lol
it would be easiest for me to source parts that interest you over just listing things I've read. That being said, A Mosque In Munich is a great book on the CIA trying to use Muslims to spy on the USSR and sort of also supporting the early Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia. The Looming Tower is also good.