Originally posted by red g jacks
i guess the part that interested me the most was in regard to sayyid qutb and the rise of radical islam in egypt funded through american oil money.the CIA book sounds interesting too though.
Mosque in Munich talks about Saudi oil money being funneled into Egypt in support of the early Muslim Brotherhood, though, BBC did a recent series of documentaries called "Jihad and the Petrodollar" that looks at how even contemporary oil revenue gets into the hands of terrorists through the Saudi system.
For Qutb in general, the Wiki page can probably give you better sources than I can. I don't believe Looming Tower talks about him at all, but another BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares absolutely does, and it is a great documentary series anyways.
Qutb and oil money were never really directly tied into one another, but his ideology sort of took off with the same people the Saudis were funding and influencing, so it was like one of those "perfect storm" moments. It was the next generation of Islamists after Qutb, the Zawahiris, who are really a product of this merging.
In terms of post-ww2 Egypt and Nasser, Al Jazeera English has a series of programs on its YouTube page called A Question of Arab Unity that goes into that in more depth.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
http://news.yahoo.com/other-polls-show-tight-race-gallup-stands-apart-020811767.html
Obama is ahead by over 10%, most likely.
The polls, imo, favor Republicans.
It is not a "tight race" as the polls indicate. If it is a tight race, that means Obama is leading between 5 and 10%, easily.
Romney hast to be winning those polls by 10% or more to barely win...if my memory of past presidential elections serves me correctly.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I've been waiting for you to slip up and reveal that you're a Nazi spy.
On another note, I joined the "voting for Romney" page on Facebook. But I'm definitely not voting for Romney.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obama is ahead by over 10%, most likely.The polls, imo, favor Republicans.
And you are basing this on what? I've seen online claims which say just the opposite
It is not a "tight race" as the polls indicate. If it is a tight race, that means Obama is leading between 5 and 10%, easily.Romney hast to be winning those polls by 10% or more to barely win...if my memory of past presidential elections serves me correctly.
Then I guess your memory doesn't serve you correctly. Obama consistantly led by about ten percentage points throughout oct 2008.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html
It's also very clear that the enthusiasm that put Obama in the White House in 2008 is not there today, even among his supporters. Like I said, I will be voting for gary Johnson but between Romney and Obama it's a coin toss right now with probably a slight edge to Romney.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4742
The other question is if Romney wins through intimidation, rigged machines, and voter caging, will Obama challenge it? or will he roll over like pussy little ***** like Al Gore and like he's done on everything he's ever disagreed with the Republicans on.
Originally posted by Oliver North
any lead for Romney is from states that were going red anyways. Obama is consistently ahead in swing states and key demographics.
No, Romney now leads in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
And you are basing this on what? I've seen online claims which say just the opposite
The past 2 presidential elections. Polls showed "close" races 5% or more differences. This last one, between McCain and Obama, showed "close race" and Obama just raaaaped McCain.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Then I guess your memory doesn't serve you correctly. Obama consistantly led by about ten percentage points throughout oct 2008.http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html
It's also very clear that the enthusiasm that put Obama in the White House in 2008 is not there today, even among his supporters. Like I said, I will be voting for gary Johnson but between Romney and Obama it's a coin toss right now with probably a slight edge to Romney.
Actually, my memory serves me quite well.
Going down the list:
CNN Opinion Poll had Obamma winning by over 10%.
APK had McCain winning by 4% as late as September and only losing by 1% by end of October.
Another CNN Poll had McCain within 5%, at one point in october
McCain was winning by 4% the last the Cook Poll shows: June.
McCain losing by 5% with the Diageo Poll
McCain winning by 3% at the end of October in Fox News Poll.
McCain losing by 3% for most of October in the George Washington Battlegroun Poll.
Ipos/McClathy has McCain losing by as much as 9% but as little as 6% in October.
And I'm done. You get the point.
Just showing you my memory served me quite well.
What was the result of the election?
Obama got 54% of the popular vote and McCain got 46%.
Does that match the poll results percentages? For McCain, yes, for Obama, no. McCain's results were usually around 45% and Obama's were all over the place with Obama generally being ahead.
This is what I remembered. This is what was true.
Go back to 2004. Bush was winning by as much as 10% in October 2004, in some trusted polls (Gallup). He only won by a 2.5% margin on popular vote.
Why? Because these polls disfavor Dems (it does not show dems as high as they actually are making the Repulican count mostly accurate and the Dem count lagging behind). In order for a republican to win the presidential election, he or she needs to be polling, in some reputable polls, as much as 10% higher than the other candidate towards he very end.
I really don't see Romney winning based on this polling effect I've mentioned.
But after looking at the numbers, Romney may still be in the game since he is polling over 45%. They will need a miracle to win before the end, however. They need something to bump them up at least 2%...or something to bump them up in key states.
Nice Map as of October 18th:
http://www.270towin.com/2012-election-polling-map/obama-romney/
Shows Obama is going to "obvious" states.
I suspect Romney will take Florida and Obama Iowa. Penn is going to Obama. Ohio to Romney. I need to remember my post so I can see how close I was to accurate.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
No, Romney now leads in the swing states of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
that map shows Obama in the lead?
And as for polls favoring Democrats or Republicans. Right now they are agressively favoring people like me, Independants. I'm tired of the robo calls and people even knocking on my door asking me how I am going to vote. The sad part is the robo calls only give the choice of Romney or obama, I'm voting for neither. I also live in a swing state, Nevada. We'll see.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
The point of the counter-factual history was more just to point out what I am not saying. It is entirely possible 9-11 could have been avoided with efforts much less than a 90% draw down of foreign American troops.
reading memos, for instance, or better communication between the FBI and CIA.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
well, like, you can believe that, but... ok, let me give you a great example.
So, in the years immediately following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and immediately preceding the Taliban taking over (~10 years in the late 80s mid 90s) you have groups of fighters, some local some regional (a few global even) that have amassed in Afghanistan around individual leaders from the Mujaheddin, Bin Laden being one such. This is in the, literal, immediate wake of them defeating the Soviets with direct American support. There were a group of militants who looked around and said, "alright guys, America next?"
They were the minority, for sure, and the Muj generally wanted to focus on local rather than global jihad, but this core group that eventually went on to form Al Qaeda proper (the one resembling what we generally think of) was violently opposed to America and the West while actively being supported by them in military efforts. Their opinion during the conflict was, "we use them now, and attack them later".
Additionally, these are the Saudis and other nationals from the Gulf (Sunni) region. These are the Egyptians. These are the people from nations where America and the West have either been peripheral or outright allies.
The West was, without a doubt, a target of international jihad at an ideological level, not simply because they were angry with our military bases.
I know it is cliche and it was used in a terrible manner, but there is some legitimate truth in the idea "they hate us for our freedom". A cursory reading of Qutb shows this, and his influence on global jihad is undeniable.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
anyone who claims to be a "global terror expert" is a) a right wing ideologue, b) thinks terrorism is an exclusively muslim phenomenon, c) wrong about almost everything they say.
There are some decent academics who look at the strategies of psychological or asymmetric warfare, but 99% of the time, if someone claims they are a terror expert, especially in the news media, they are really an ultra-conservative anti-muslim activist.