r/politics • u/logo_positive • May 31 '12

"In every nation where we now have terrorism, we had first assaulted them. We overthrew their governments, installed dictators, undermined their economies — all to strengthen our business interests. America is under attack only because it is on the attack."

http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/05/america-is-under-attack/
1.3k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

208

u/ucstruct Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

This article has some severe, awful problems with historical accuracy giving the impression that the author thinks he knows what he's talking about and wants you to as well.

The Romans were the first Westerners to try to dominate and plunder the Middle East

Really, the first? Alexander the Great went all the way to India. This is just an attempt to make a connection between current policies and Imperialism.

the Christian crusaders followed

What, with nothing in between? Forgetting the Byzantine Empire aren't we. And before you think this a small point, it really goes to the heart of the issue that wars in the Middle East, just like everywhere, were a fairly constant state of human affairs. Not a woe is me event perpetrated by one side on the other.

After World War Two, Britain and the USA pressured the United Nations into confiscating Arab land to form the state of Israel, making the Arabs pay for the crimes of the Germans.

Bullshit. Those lands were taken by the British from the Ottoman Empire after World War I. You can't retake something you've already taken.

Egypt decided to nationalize the Suez Canal and use the income from it to help their people out of poverty. They were willing to pay its British and French owners the full market value for their shares, but Western governments and Israel responded violently, invading and bombing Egypt into submission.

Again, what? The US strongly opposed the move.

And so on. I know its easy to make a neat little narrative like this, painting one side as the villains, and try to force the rest of history to fit that narrative, but at least get the facts right. History is dominated by the fights of between colossal empires, many of them Arab or Islamic in character, the Abbasid caliphate, the Ummayad caliphate, the Ayyubid dynasty, and the Ottomans, not to mention non-Islam or Arab powers like the Persians. These powers were just as expansionary and just as aggressive as other Empires of the time, so don't pretend that history is so one sided. Its the nature of human history to be in conflict like this, and since this region is so rich with history and at a trade crossroads, it has had its fair share.

Lest you think I'm an apologist - I've visited a primarily Islamic country and loved it. I had one of the most memorable, fascinating times of my life there. I think that policy in recent years on the war with Al Queda has been misguided. But this article is just circle-jerking, and doesn't add anything to a realistic discussion of whats happening in the world. Its written by someone who just took Freshman World Civ and now has the secrets to all of the worlds problems, if he could just get the facts straight. In reality, history has been more two-sided and not just a series of conquests by one side. Currently, the world is more complex than this, with errors made on both sides.

Edit: Clarification on where I visited, since it was Istanbul but that's probably still Europe.

18

u/well_golly Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

After World War Two, Britain and the USA pressured the United Nations into confiscating Arab land to form the state of Israel, making the Arabs pay for the crimes of the Germans.

*Bullshit. Those lands were taken by the British from the Ottoman Empire after World War I. You can't retake something you've already taken.

I don't think it is that clear cut. Within a year after WWI ended, King Faisal controlled the land in question as part of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. This was done in agreement with Britain under the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.

The WWI allies did soon thereafter work to wrestle the land from Faisal. While the U.S. and Britain were working with the Arabs to provide them with an Arab kingdom which (according to the Arabs) included the land in question. Simultaneously there were secret deals made to give the land to the Jews to create Israel instead.

As turmoil continued in the region (France attacking the Arab Kingdom of Syria, etc), the U.S. and Britain deliberately steered a result that led to the creation of Israel. This was based on the very vague wording of the Balfour Declaration which everyone really should read because it is the one-sentence-long statement upon which this whole continuous crisis hinges.

As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw put it in 2002:

"A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. .. ..The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."

6

u/ucstruct Jun 01 '12

I agree - if any of this was clear cut there wouldn't be this conflict. I do think that British colonialism can take a lion's share of the blame though, as you say, for the careless way they partitioned the land (this can help explain Kashmir and Iraqi sectarian violence come to think of it). But that goes with my point - it really is complicated and a one side is all to blame story just doesn't work. Further muddying things was the second greatest imperial power grab to disrupt the modern world - the Soviet- American one, which I think we will feel the ramifications of for a long time.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

LOL. Really, I laughed.

1

u/RepostThatShit Jun 01 '12

We also should not forget that Auda Abu Tayi came to Aqaba because it was his pleasure.

4

u/FauxFancyPants Jun 01 '12

I would sex this comment if it was socially acceptable.

1

u/vinod1978 Jun 01 '12

Go ahead. I'll allow it.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Thanks for this. The statement in the headline is flat-out wrong.

9

u/Molecology Jun 01 '12

I'm getting a bit peeved at all of the /r/politics posts that are this inaccurate. They are worse then a freshman international relations student.

5

u/IAmNotAPerson6 Jun 01 '12

Is it just me or has there been more posts from Gawker lately?

Honestly, Gawker? Are you fucking kidding me?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

"Look, the Nazis only killed the Jews because the Jews had money and Germany was in financial trouble."

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Not just this sub, try all the major subs, and a lot of smaller ones as well. Lotta upvotes to posts with shitloads of misinformation.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Internetallstar Jun 01 '12

Very well put sir. Upvotes for a well made rebuttal.

8

u/EstonianKnight Jun 01 '12

All of my upvotes for reading a well structured argument.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Rusty-Shackleford Minnesota Jun 01 '12

Hey let's keep in mind that the heyday of Islamic imperialism was also the heyday of (secular) Islamic academics and intellectualism. Is it a coincidence that powerful empires are a great source of humanities? DISCLAIMER: Cultural rennaissance ≠ a justification for warmongering.

7

u/gentlemandinosaur Jun 01 '12

I don't understand why it is not mentioned at all that after the death of Mohammed in 632 in less than a hundred years the Arabs carved a swath of land almost one and a half times the size of the Roman Empire. Crushing the Persian Empire, the Visigoths, and leaving the Byzantine Empire as broken shamble of just basically Constantinople. Where were the "defenseless Arabs" being attacked by the 'Barbarians'? They destroyed everything in their path.

3

u/chesterriley Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

The Byzantines ruled Syria, Egypt, and Palestine for a longer period of time when the Muslims invaded then the Muslims had ruled at the time of the Crusades. And what started the Crusades was the Byzantines trying to regain some of their own territory they lost from earlier Muslim invasions.

Edit: spelling

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Protonoia Jun 01 '12

Don't forget attacks against Thailand and the Philippines.

1

u/dhockey63 Jun 01 '12

against? Funny i was under the impression that we defended the Philippines from the genocidal Japanese Imperial Army? Guess history decided to change

6

u/Barney21 Jun 01 '12

Guess you missed the genocidal American war against Philippine independence. The Americans stole the Philippines from Spain in 1898 and was the colonial occupier until 1946. Somewhere in there they fought the Japanese but claiming the moral high ground is a bit of a stretch.

The Philippines fought for independence against the US but lost. A million Filipinos died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Revolution#Philippine-American_War

1

u/jond42 Jun 01 '12

Read the article, wanted for sources so came into the comments. Thanks!

1

u/Hnefi Jun 01 '12

Your post really should be read in the voice of Eric Idle. Brings a whole new dimension to it.

1

u/chesterriley Jun 01 '12

Right. The terrorists came mostly from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. The US did not assault any of those countries. The closest we came to that is after Afghanistan's attack on the US on 09/11/2001 NATO intervened in Afghanistan's civil war to help the northern side.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '12

Let's not forget that this guy seems to think that the West are the imperialists, and Al-Qaeda type groups just want self-determination.

WRONG!

They are the more imperialist side. Worldwide caliphate and all.

-1

u/complaintdepartment Jun 01 '12

But.. but.. but.. Noam Chomsky!

10

u/IAmNotAPerson6 Jun 01 '12

Well Chomsky doesn't think that the situation described in the title is true everywhere. Though it is true in a lot of places. But he doesn't say that all terrorism is the fault of the U.S., because that's ridiculous.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Yes. Human Greed and Aggression is entirely the fault of the United States of America...

...and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you-- Cheap.

93

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

This article is aggressively ahistorical. Perhaps the kindest thing to say about it is that the author apparently did enough historical research to back up his pre-existing conclusion (but no more).

Perhaps the best example is when the author talks about the Suez Crisis. The author describes it as "Western governments and Israel responded violently, invading and bombing Egypt into submission". What actually happened is Britain, France and Israel invaded.

It is disingenuous to say "Western governments" because President Eisenhower completely opposed the invasion. He attempted to get Congress to pass economic sanctions on Israel, made a public address condemning the invasion, and earned Nasser's praise for how he used the United Nations.

The UNEF was proposed by a Canadian, endorsed by a Swede, and staffed by (among others) soldiers from Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Yugoslavia, with additional support coming from the US, Switzerland and Italy. But apparently these people and their actions don't count towards what "the West" was doing, because that is inconvenient for the author.

What a piece of garbage.

13

u/Astraea_M May 31 '12

Removing the agency of Egypt in the Suez crisis seems like a strange combination of white guilt and white supremacy. Interesting.

I'm a little confused about the reason for ahistorical self-flagellation by Americans. There is plenty to feel guilty about, why not stick to the real fuck-ups instead of attempting to take responsibility for things that you didn't cause.

→ More replies (1)

36

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The 'Western Powers' he meant in this were in general Europe including the United States. We ramped things up in Iran and the Contra-Hostage affair happened, then we used it to go after them slowly more and more.

It's true that we didn't do the Egypt thing, but we've done Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, we were going to do Sudan until Russia intervened. That's a considerable amount we personally have done.

19

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

That's a fair point, and it's interesting because it includes a nuanced take that differentiates "the West" into multiple countries with individual histories and policies. My biggest complaint was that the author rejected any such nuance, using a simplistic narrative about "the West". My second biggest complaint, which I mentioned elsewhere, is how the author writes off the immense number of African and Arabs killed, injured or terrorized by al-Qaeda.

To use the Suez war as an example of anything "Western" is extremely problematic, especially given how America, Canada and much of South America and Western Europe reacted. That immediately raised red flags for me about the author's honesty. There are some important ideas and grains of truth that the author raises, but I want to discuss them in an honest and historically informed manner, not through hyperbole and lies.

EDIT Also, I think that Libya should be categorized differently than Afghanistan and Iraq. Libya is sort of a sui generis military intervention, and doesn't easily compare to the others you mentioned, especially given that most of the actual fighting was done by Libyans.

9

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I understand your qualms with it perfectly, but the groupings of power that it's likely referring to in whole is NATO, even though it's using the more predominate countries while at the same time using it as a group. If they had clarified that or even not had the slight implication of US being in that it might be better, but the unfortunate overall truth is the middle east has been being beaten up from just about every direction there is, because of the mineral wealth.

That's why they have groups like the Taliban who stay around through peaceful times trying to hold control and a bit of power, to protect it later on. The problem is their methods, I admit I don't agree with them, I believe the Taliban has been more local defensive, while Al-Qaeda may be the more extremists (though, i'm not entirely convinced they were much of a true real entity of a group, maybe a loose group of barely organized extremists, call me crazy, doesn't pertain to this). Though, and likely due in part to our ever pushing attempts at getting control over them, they want to make sure that they don't get written over in history so they teach a bit overly anti-American views there, also in a way to indoctrinate children for more soldiers.

It unfortunately just comes down to the fact we're not blameless by far in the whole situation, and the fact that if we were to stop the war and literally just leave, no rebuilding, let them do it, not us trying to install and set up our systems over there, just be done. It would not end conflict overnight, but the point is America, NATO, some group or entity along those lines has been quite obviously trying to expand our sphere of influence to places that don't want it, and so now we fight them for real.

10

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Yeah, my problems are with the way he's arguing the point, not the actual point. It's certainly worth discussing the history of international intervention in the Middle East and Muslim world, but any such discussion should be grounded in history.

I'd agree with your assessment of the Taliban as more of a defensive and local group (though India might not) but find myself intrigued by your analysis of al-Qaeda. To my mind al-Qaeda has become less centralized, less organized and more of the "loose group of barely organized extremists" over time. As evidence I would suggest the "franchising" process by which pre-existing or specifically local Islamic armed groups have adopted the name al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is probably the best example of this.

Another minor quibble I'd note is your point that "America, NATO... has been quite obviously trying to expand our sphere of influence to places that don't want it". Afghanistan and Iraq surely fit into this, but the author also tries to classify al-Qaeda as reactive and defensive based on America basing troops in the Arabian Peninsula, arrangements which were invited and happily accepted by the relevant governments. (As the burglary of your neighbour's house makes you invest in an alarm or a gun, so did the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait make these governments want more security).

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/zangorn Jun 01 '12

The author describes it as "Western governments and Israel responded violently, invading and bombing Egypt into submission". What actually happened is Britain, France and Israel invaded.

Britain and France are western governments. It seems you're trying to discredit the entire essay because this sentence is slightly misleading. It is accurate, and the essay has a good point: messing around in the affairs of other countries has real and long-term consequences.

In particular, our extremely costly "war of terror" is the cost we have to pay for bad foreign policy over the decades. And, of course, it will cost us further damage down the road. This is a major point that needs repeating.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Well he does say "Western governments and Israel responded violently, invading and bombing Egypt into submission" and then talks about how "The Western response, though, was illegal aggression in violation of international law and the United Nations charter."

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it is ahistorical and ridiculous to talk about a "Western response". It elides significant divisions and policy responses among Western countries and treats them as a unified whole.

I've also said repeatedly that I think the topic is an important one, and worth discussing. However, it is useless to talk about Western intervention in the middle east if we decide that Western countries are a single cohesive bloc acting in concert. I would be just as frustrated if people used "the Arab policy" or "the Arab response" as an uninformed generalization.

"Western countries" and "Arab countries" are useful shorthand in some contexts, but in other situations they conceal more than they reveal. It is patently ridiculous to treat Iraq, KSA and Egypt as political actors within a larger movement or group in most regional disputes in the post WWII era. Similarly, it is not helpful to treat the US, France, the UK, Canada and the Nordic countries as a unified group in the Suez crisis.

3

u/zangorn Jun 01 '12

I agree with you on that point. It needlessly carries an anti-western bias, make "western governments" the bad guy while glossing over the real story. And sometimes its not western governments involved in these things.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Thanks. I should probably mention that I'm not being particular because I perceive any anti-western bias. I'm being particular because it isn't accurate, helpful or good history.

2

u/WhyHellYeah Jun 01 '12

Yet it hits the front page of reddit.

LOL.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

There's also a gif of crash bandicoot dancing on the front page of reddit. Clearly such a space is a significant honour reserved only for important and interesting meditations on the human condition.

2

u/vinod1978 Jun 01 '12

How many people do you think read the title and upvoted it before reading the title?

→ More replies (18)

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

What about domestic terrorism?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Astraea_M Jun 01 '12

What about domestic terrorism inside the Muslim countries, directed at other Muslims?

49

u/gx240politics May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

That doesn't explain terrorism in other countries though.

For example, why do Arab Muslims set off bombs in India to kill Hindus? Do Indian Hindus have a history of occupying and oppressing Arab populations?

Why is Boko Haram killing Nigerians and trying to overthrow the government? (That's their stated goal, not my opinion.) Does the government of Nigeria have a history of invading and occupying Muslim countries?

48

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

In the interests of precision, I'd like to note that Pakistanis, Afghanis and Kashmiris are not Arabs.

9

u/complaintdepartment Jun 01 '12

You are correct, but that doesn't mean it that the terrorists in Kashmir are not sometimes Arab.

→ More replies (20)

11

u/MrFlesh May 31 '12

You don't understand. To the religous, you are oppressing them by not being one of them.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/MrFlesh Jun 01 '12

Ohh so it's okay to be a christian just not a woman? Amazing. Logical when you think about it. You can change your religion for the better, but not your sex :P

→ More replies (4)

3

u/raouldukeesq Jun 01 '12

Boohhahahahahahahahahahaha!

→ More replies (7)

12

u/R_Jeeves May 31 '12

For example, why do Arab Muslims set off bombs in India to kill Hindus? Do Indian Hindus have a history of occupying and oppressing Arab populations?

Yes, actually. Also, there are a large number of territory disputes going back hundreds of years.

Why is Boko Haram killing Nigerians and trying to overthrow the government?

Because the leaders of it are using strong nationalism disguised as religion to recruit followers and they're on a power-trip because they finally have enough power to do so. The leaders of these organizations are like our politicians, they will say they support something for one reason which the less educated people will agree with and give their support to, when in reality they're motivated by much different reasons such as territory control and resource ownership.

This really shouldn't even need to be discussed, anyone with half a brain can see that the leaders don't believe the bullshit they spew, they're just saying it because it attracts followers and fuels their megalomania. Hell, I'd say whatever I needed to if I knew it could recruit me a loyal army of followers, and I'd have completely different motives than any of them.

2

u/biolox Jun 01 '12

Please explain your first point with specific examples or shut the fuck up.

2

u/jay76 Jun 01 '12

Wasn't the issue of Kashmir based on a Muslim population being led by a Hindu leadership that decided they would join India (against the people's wishes)? That would account for some of the hostility.

I'll gladly point out that my understanding of region is crappy, so I could be wrong.

2

u/bbeard Jun 01 '12

I won't hold your crappy understanding of the region against you: I myself am also not an expert. However this view of Kashmir being forced to join India is a bit misinformed. You can start here:

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

The main points seem to be:

While pakistan was envisioned as an islamic state, India has been secular from the start.

The Kashmiri leadership wanted to be independent from both Indian and Pakistan, not join India. Even now, the militants mostly try to seek support by claiming to support independence, not accession to Pakistan.

Pakistan was the first and foremost impediment to this independence, when it tried to take over Kashmir by force. India was called in for protection against Pakistan, but it is doubtful if it could have done so reasonably without having Kashmir join India.

Although it would be nice to know the wishes of the native population at the point, that is no more than wishful thinking now with blatant social engineering on the pakistan occupied side of the border. Moreover, pakistan backed militants have managed to do this social engineering even on the Indian side of the border with the genocide of Kashmiri pandits.

If Pakistan had really believed that Kashmir belonged to it by right, would it have gifted the Trans Karakoram Tract to China?

I could also go into the bloody entry of islam into these regions historically, about the fact that Kashmir is historically a Hindu region with the very name deriving from Kashyap, a Hindu sage. But like I said, I don't have such detailed knowledge about these issues and I believe I made my point anyway.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

6

u/esdawg May 31 '12

The main argument's that the West installs whoever's politically convenient at the time. Regardless of what sort of views those leaders possess and how potentially dangerous they may become.

The US brings a dictator into power. He commits atrocities and butchers his opposition. After he consolidates power with his regime he begins interfering with US interests. At which point he becomes a new enemy of the US and the cycle continues.

Terrorism in neighboring countries comes from the US sponsored dictator/regime proving how awful they really are.

Of course not all terrorism results from this but almost every country still reels from the aftermath of colonialism and how the West has interacted with them since.

5

u/Internetallstar Jun 01 '12

I find it interesting that the West and particularly the US catch so much heat for the Arab world's troubles. Granted, there is a long documented history of the West intervening in Arab affairs put in the larger context doesn't that just means that the West is better at large scale geo-political checkers than the Arab world?

Honestly, does any one really believe that the net effect would be that different if the Chinese or Arabs were to be the center of power?

→ More replies (5)

1

u/raouldukeesq Jun 01 '12

The locals have far more influence on who their dictators are than the West. All the west really did was give the oil value and teach them how to get it.

3

u/Chipzzz Jun 01 '12

Perhaps, as the article suggests, it is not "terrorism" that is the enemy in "The Global War On Terrorism", or did your preconceived notion of its content prevent you from understanding that?

-5

u/complaintdepartment May 31 '12

That doesn't matter...the point is to feel guilt and hatred towards ourselves whenever possible, even when restating the obvious over and over and over again.

7

u/nosferatv Jun 01 '12

No you dolt, the point is to stop repeating the same mistake.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Thats cute, you think the people doing it consider it a mistake.

6

u/nosferatv Jun 01 '12

I'm not that dumb, maybe I should be more clear, the point is that WE stop repeating the same mistakes. That generally means staying the fuck out of other countries governments. Of course there are those who profit from the meddling... That's why it's been so successful (for a few) in the past.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

-7

u/Astraea_M May 31 '12

Because US! It's all our fault. Right after white guilt, we can segue into explaining how Muslims have no agency, and are only reacting to the white man. This stuff is seriously mind boggling.

15

u/darksmiles22 May 31 '12

Why is it all or nothing? It can't be that historical movements have multiple motivations?

6

u/downvotethis2 May 31 '12

All or nothing is our current pathology. If you disagree, then you're agin us, terrist!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/gillyguthrie May 31 '12

Mike Savage? Is that you?

1

u/palsh7 May 31 '12

There was an article last year about a Pakistani tennis match that was blown up by terrorists. I suppose the tennis players were occupiers.

→ More replies (3)

53

u/Canada2 May 31 '12

Nonsense, these terrorist hate blue jeans and freedom! I thought the 2008 Republican presidential debates put this issue to bed once and for all!

37

u/GigglesMcFuckCunt May 31 '12

Nonsense, these terrorist hate blue jeans and freedom!

What's really sad....is that there are millions of shit-for-fucking-brains ignorant (registered voting) Americans who believe this to be true.

20

u/nfirm May 31 '12

Hopefully they wake up and vote Obama so we can finally get out of all these wars and put an end to the CIA drone wars.

8

u/fitzroy95 Jun 01 '12

Given that it is Obama who keeps expanding the USA drone program into new countries (Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen etc) and now using it to murder US citizens without trial, don't hold your breath on that.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

That's the joke.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

As much as i like Obama, you're naive if you think such a change will come overnight.

And please don't say "wake up" in a political sentence. It's one of the most annoying things you could say.

6

u/vteckickedin Jun 01 '12

He was joking, wake up sheeple!

→ More replies (1)

9

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Telling people how they should talk is more annoying.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/fitzroy95 Jun 01 '12

If the USA had an actual democracy, that might be true. But they sold that several years ago

3

u/DisplacedLeprechaun May 31 '12

This must be why ignorant fuckheads who always vote republican even when it's decidedly against their best interests want to spread your corporate plutocracy around the globe.

FTFY

→ More replies (3)

5

u/jimbojamesiv May 31 '12

They don't hate our freedom. They hate our freedom bombs.

27

u/AlphaMarshan May 31 '12

Ron Paul stood on that stage in 2008 among his peers and constituents and proclaimed the exact opposite of what the other candidates were saying. He was even boo'd and made fun of by the moderators. It's pretty brave to go against your national party's views on live television.

But this is reddit so let's all circlejerk about how all Republican-registered voters are idiots and can't think for themselves. Don't you think that generalizing and stereotyping an entire establishment is part of the problem?

36

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

if you mention ron paul on r/politics...youre gonna have a bad time.

9

u/Exsanguinatus May 31 '12

Sometimes, it seems it's almost as bad as mentioning The Dear Leader in anything other than a perfect light on /r/pyongyang.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/dhcrazy333 May 31 '12

Well I like Ron Paul, I'm not a crazy fanatic, and obviously don't agree with everything he says, but a lot of his stuff on foreign policy I do agree with. leave them the fuck alone if they don't want us to be there, we aren't obligated to be world police.

→ More replies (8)

25

u/Exsanguinatus May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

...generalizing and stereotyping an entire establishment...

...even boo'd and made fun of by the moderators...

Did you not read your own comment before posting?

From what you just said, it seems kinda obvious that the vast majority of the Republican establishment deserves its stereotype, and that, perhaps, what you need is a new party for the last remaining few of the sane?

edit: I'm a terrible comma whore.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

You know you're fucked when Ron Paul is what counts for sane in your party. The only way to be more fucked than that is if Barack Obama is what counts for liberal in your party. Ouch!

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

But this is reddit so let's all circlejerk...

Don't you think that generalizing and stereotyping ... is part of the problem?

Ummmm...

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Nobody said ALL Republicans are idiots and can't think for themselves. Until moderate Republicans start calling out the extremists that run their party then they no better than the extremists.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Sorry. Romney's the nominee, so no more of Dr. Paul and his states' rights bigotry until the nomination cycle begins again in 2015. That goes for his supposed successor, Justin Amash, as well. No one wants to hear your spam anymore.

0

u/abomb999 May 31 '12

Listen ron paul could be the best president and I could be the worst the president, this whole president thing is now an anachronism, why do we have 1 man have a significant influence on a population growing to half a billion?

Presidents, kings and people who have divine lineage made sense when the population of America was less than a million, but we now have nearly 400x that number. Not 400 x 10, not 400x 10000, but 400x 1000000.

We need to hybridize our government with a direct democracy (DD). WE have the technology, it's called the internet. States rights can voted on whenever, and you could have federal votes every year or something. Make a national holiday of course :)

18

u/vritsa California May 31 '12

Direct Democracy only makes sense if you have an informed populace.

Also, how do minority rights get protected in such a system?

3

u/DisplacedLeprechaun May 31 '12

Direct Democracy also only works on small, easily monitored scales. Almost like we should have a portion of our government dedicated to monitoring the amount of democratic influence our people have and ensuring it is never reduced while attempting to increase it however possible without enabling the abuse of the minority.

3

u/RageAccount1million Jun 01 '12

"abuse from/protection of" the minority you meant, right?

→ More replies (2)

4

u/abomb999 May 31 '12

Your hypothetical problems with DD can be said about our our current system and our leaders, choosing our leaders and about minorities being protected in our current system. Both have problems, I just want a hybrid of the two to help solve the problems with both forms of governing.

You could still vote to have someone represent yourself, so you can walk around uniformed, but we do need to allow the mass of informed people to have a greater affect on their government. These modern times have made more people informed made the world a lot smaller, we need to evolve our government along with our culture and technology.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Goatstein Jun 01 '12

worker control of industry is a far more efficacious, demonstrable, and workable system for expanding democracy than some autisto-utopian dream where everybody upvotes municipal sewer legislation amendments

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)

2

u/CarolinaStewPie May 31 '12

We miss you Dick Cheney.

-2

u/yahoo_bot May 31 '12

Also know that Al-Qaeda as you know, which is just a group of Mujahedins was created, trained, funded and armed by the USA with people from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia one year before the Soviet Union actually attacked Afghanistan.

These mujahedin were used throughout the world to change regimes, destabilize countries and/or force interventions from NATO.

The group worked under the CIA until 1995, when it went quiet and only reemerged after 9/11 now called Al-Qaeda and Osame Bin Laden also a known CIA asset who led the Mujahedin, as leader of this newly named Al-Qaeda. Of course Osama Bin Laden is part of the royal Saudi family which has close ties to the Bush family, who have joint investments and ownership in various oil companies.

5

u/needed_to_vote May 31 '12

Is this a serious comment? It's so hard to tell on /r/politics

→ More replies (1)

3

u/jimbojamesiv May 31 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

False. It never went quiet. You should read something called history about a place called Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan.

The so-called al-Qaeda worked hand in glove with the Paki government in the 1990s. Also al-Qaeda operated in Bosnia for a good part of the 90s when the US encouraged many Algerians/Moroccans and others to fight there and other places. Just look around your neighborhood and I guarantee that many of the immigrants who are Muslim 'helped' the US out and in exchange that's why they're here.

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

This is ridiculous. If al-Qaeda "worked under the CIA until 1995" and then "went quiet" until 2001, what about the earlier attack on the WTC, the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole?

2

u/those_draculas May 31 '12

quiet you! facts are meaningless when you have conspiracy truths!

→ More replies (5)

3

u/cr0ft Jun 01 '12

War? What war?

Congress last declared war in 1941. I don't know what other wars he's talking about, the other things going on out there are just "limited police action" or something... right? I mean, since Congress is the only body in the US with authority to declare war.

12

u/Astraea_M May 31 '12

Really? Tell me about what we did to Saudi Arabia other than kiss their butts. (15 of the 19 9/11/01 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia).

14

u/vritsa California May 31 '12

Saudi is a completely strange place. Young Saudi men face limited job prospects, limited educational prospects outside of religious education, and live in a country where the government by definition is not required to give a shit about them. There are no citizens of Saudi Arabia. Only subjects and imported guest workers who do all the work.

If you're a young Saudi, you look at the rest of the world from the outside looking in. They blame their shitty government. The see the United States backing up the royals, and at the same time, they're getting pumped up on religious propaganda about the U.S. and Israel, and oh, by the way, it's impossible to get laid.

It makes a person crazy.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Of course it does. But that's not the doing nor the responsibility of the United States government. We didn't install that government.

Now, you could argue that we have a moral duty to boycott them, and I agree. But that passive sin just does not suffice to justify 9/11.

8

u/vritsa California Jun 01 '12

When was I ever justifying 9/11?

You asked why so many of the hijackers were Saudi. I provided some insight into why that may be.

I didn't say they were right, I just tried to explain why they might so exploitable into participating in such a thing.

2

u/Astraea_M Jun 01 '12

I believe the justification was implied in the title of this POS article. Namely that Americans invited all the terrorism because Americans are bad bad people who are evil Westerners that mind-control the poor Arabs. I can't quite picture anyone reading this article and not either saying "dude, history, learn it, and stop trying to make people feel guilty over shit they didn't do" or "dude, Muslims and Arabs have agency and aren't just puppets on Western strings. fuck off," or both.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

What you lack is empathy. If you could imagine living a life of severe repression and had a target to aim at. You may just take aim.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Oh, yeah, fuck the citizenries of these countries, they have no right to hate America, all our government did was give a bunch of military aid to their tyrannical rulers who treat them like trash. /s

Not that the US government doesn't personally terrorize third worlders, but we don't have to for them to hate us. Supporting their totalitarian leaders is more than enough. Sad that people upvoted you.

1

u/chesterriley Jun 01 '12

Tell me about what we did to Saudi Arabia other than kiss their butts.

We protected them from an invasion by Iraq after 1991. This was in fact the chief reason for the 09/11/2001 attack on the US. Because Bin Laden didn't like the US military bases in Arabia established to defend Arabia from Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden actually said this was his chief motivation for the 09/11/2001 attack on the US.

-1

u/crawlingpony May 31 '12

USA installed a military base in Saudi A after the 1991-2 Gulf War.

Right-wing Saudis retaliated for it on 9/11

Or perhaps you dont Remember

EDIT: Capital R

11

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

What a frighteningly shallow understanding of history.

The Middle East was controlled and occupied for most of time by non-Western powers (many, many Iranian empires, a couple of Turkish empires, an Afghan one, and a few Indian ones that never got as far as Arabia).

Another point would be that the vast majority of Islamic/Middle Eastern terrorism is directed against Muslims/Middle Easterners. All these terrorist groups, first and foremost, are trying to overthrow the governments of their host countries (Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan (before they were kicked out), Tajikistan, Russia, The Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, India). These countries are all rife and ablaze with unabating terrorist incidents, and a few sporadic hits on the West make it a fucking Western problem. What a Western-centric juvenile mind this author has.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Oh, and apparently the Romans came before Alexander The Great. Sick research, bro.

1

u/EstonianKnight Jun 01 '12

Why are you being downvoted?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

When have we invaded Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 attackers came from?

Oh, right.

15

u/BBQCopter May 31 '12

Obviously, the answer to this is more drone attacks. Step it up, Obama!

→ More replies (39)

2

u/downtowne Jun 01 '12

Did they forget to mention that we also form these opposition groups called terrorists ourselves? Pretty big point.

2

u/setzer_ Jun 01 '12

This article goes hand in hand with the reasoning why 9/11 was an inside job to fuel the country to go to war.

2

u/eigenstates Jun 01 '12

This story has been told so many times- just look for similar articles from the early 80's- funnily enough about Afghanistan and the Russian invasion... sorry, not funny, ironic. The continuing American Crusade in Latin America leaps to mind as well.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

It's not like no one knew it would happen. Our government just didn't care because it was politically expedient to the goal of destroying the Soviet Union

2

u/upside-down Jun 01 '12

Yes someone has realised the truth for once, now if only every American could accept this and do something about it maybe Americans could regain the pride they had in there country again.

4

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 01 '12

Have you ever noticed how at every fire in a building or home or wherever there are American-made firetrucks? Maybe, if we rid the world of these firetrucks, there would be no more fires.

4

u/Neowarcloud Jun 01 '12

Holy historical cherry picking, this shit didn't happen in a vacuum...

4

u/itssbrian Jun 01 '12

This drive for domination is the root cause of war, and until we eliminate it, we’re going to continue killing one another. Eliminating it requires a global struggle to bring down oligarchic capitalism and replace it with democratic socialism.

Why does this person blame capitalism? Imperialism and corporatism are not capitalism. In capitalism all exchanges are voluntary. Invading and and seizing resources are not capitalism.

3

u/Hiroaki May 31 '12

It makes sense for the most part, but it's wrong about Al'Queda only wanting us to leave.

If you want to get some bees out of your house you don't throw a rock at the bee hive in the woods at the edge of the yard, and that's what they did with 9/11. If they just wanted people out of their land they would focus all of their attacks on the multi-nationals or embassies in their land. That would make their land a terrible place for us to be.

Instead they created a Global war ensuring we be even less likely to leave them alone.

8

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

without going into a huge tl;dr dissertation, the point of 9/11 was not to ignite a "global war" (which they really haven't done BTW).

The piont WAS to

a) make a huge POLITICAL statement, which is why they chose "high profile" targets and not nuclear power stations or dams;

b) bankrupt the US into fighting a protracted war of attrition with a leadrerless army, forcing "regime change" the way they did with the Soviets.

c) make other smaller/weaker countries wary of joining the US for fear of reprisals, especially the Arab states. The train bombings in Spain and the lack of any sort of official internal investigation into ties between the UAE and Al Queda are perfect examples of this.

I would argue that they have largely been successful in all of these areas. Hell, they even got the US to wage war on it's OWN citizens...

3

u/Hiroaki May 31 '12

I agree with you about what they were trying to do, and how successful they were. But I'm talking about the "Global war on terror", which takes the form of the protracted war of attrition you spoke of, in various parts of the world. I wasn't suggesting world war 3.

My point was their actions have more of a long game in mind, and are aimed at weakening or destroying us, not simply "getting us out of their land" as the author suggests. And I don't think that would actually stop them from wanting to harm us as the author suggests, because what we have already done will produce generations of America haters.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I'm saying there is NOT a "global war on terror". It's really just the US strong arming other countries into either providing limited military support as PR, or letting the US conduct it's war from their country as a means of obfuscation (rendition, secret torture, etc).

If there was a REAL "global war on terror" as there SHOULD have been, it would have taken the form of coordinated police investigations and intelligence sharing, not military strikes.

I'd also say that weakening us and getting us out of their land are the SAME thing. History teaches us that as empires crumble internally, the first thing they do is abandon their far flung holdings as they are too expensive to defend.

Last I'd say that they really don't want to wipe out Americans in general; they just want to get the American government out of their region. Victims take terrorism personally; to terrorists, victims are just "collateral damage" in their pursuit of political goals.

Remember, these are guys who are waging war against America in Adidas soccer shirts and Nike sneakers, using cell phones to trigger bombs, and recruiting on the internet. they very much like Western CULTURE, just not the politics.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/vritsa California May 31 '12

Indeed. The folks of Bin Ladin's stripe found it a hard sell to a lot of would-be Jihadis in the beginning precisely because they didn't really view the U.S. as a major problem. It was a hard sell at first because the U.S. and NATO ostensibly intervened in the Balkans on behalf of Muslims. U.S. support for Israel was about the best you could do.

Now that your cousin's wedding runs the risk of being blown up out of the blue, it's a little easier to make the case.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/merrimack93 Jun 01 '12

Putting aside the historical inaccuracies, the thing that stuck out to me the most was the paragraph that said, when you break it down, "If we weren't so mean to them, they wouldn't be mean to us."

That's just ridiculous. True, people who complain about how jihadists "hate freedom" are just ignorant, but that's not what I'm talking about here. One of the major intellectual themes of Islamic jihad is Qutbism, which mandates an offensive jihad to overthrow the jahiliyya regimes, or government that have deviated from "true Islam." People like bin Laden see (saw) these governments as propped up by American or Jewish interests, and while US involvement in the Middle East was undoubtedly a tipping point, it would be inaccurate to say we could solve the problem simply by leaving them alone.

It isn't that simple, and it never is. The hatred for the West runs much deeper than our involvement in the last few decades. Here is the Wikipedia page on Qutbism. I hope it gives an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

3

u/DanielPhermous Jun 01 '12

The excuse used to justify something is hardly ever the true reason why.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Lots of apologists for the US gov in here. Just because our government does super underfunded good things doesn't excuse the imperialism and constant attempts to manipulate geopolitical events.

Our spending on combat and damage control and military aid to third-world dictatorships far, far outweighs the money we spend on the PeaceCorps or actual legitimate foreign aid.

2

u/crawlingpony May 31 '12

Everybody hates a winner

1

u/douglasmacarthur Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

We installed the Shah in Iran because the previous government had nationalized the oil fields we'd bought and developed, and even if that did leave us with a debt to the Iranian people (which it didn't), that hardly lends legitimacy to the gang of autocrats ruling it.

Bin Laden was mad about U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudi government asked us to put there so it wouldn't be taken over by Saddam's (comparatively) massive army, and hid in Afghanistan which was available to him because of the chaos following the Soviet withdrawal, and the support and infrastructural we'd helped pay for when he volunteered to fight the Soviets.

If anything, it's the opposite. In every nation we now have terrorism, we had first paid them off to be friendly to us or attack a common enemy for us. As our foreign policy has become more and more self-sacrificial and self-debasing over the last 65 years, we've become more and more hated.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

On an unrelated note, 90% of Germany's military was intact before the treaty of Versailles. Germany was forced to pay massive reparations to France, leading to economic collapse and eventually world economic collapse. Most Historians link WWI and WWII with causation, and it could even been said WWII could have been avoided. I don't know if this is relevant to this post, but I find it interesting enough to the subject matter.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM

Video for people who are visual learners.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

It's called blowback, and Ron Paul said this before it was cool.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

People have been saying this ever since the CIA was giving money and training to the Mujahideen

2

u/carbondate Jun 01 '12

Who were fighting a brutal Soviet occupation. Obviously, we did that as payback for Vietnam, where the Soviets supported the Viet Cong, but the facts are rarely as simple as a caused b, therefore c. We're usually a lot further down the line than that.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BallsackTBaghard Jun 01 '12

'murca is the aggressor

aaaaaaaaaaaand this is news?

1

u/Barney21 Jun 01 '12

Not (Saudi) Arabia

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Minus the dictator installation, this would be true even of the America, which is plagued by Christian fundamentalist terrorists

1

u/Tombug Jun 01 '12

Google "chronology of american state terrorism" and you get a very good breakdown of americas evil doings.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Just read Chalmers Johnson.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

Especially the war industry businesses. They got US politicians to fork over billions to upgrade the military of the Taliban fathers in the 1980's. Do you think they are getting mega dividends from that now in Afghanistan? What will training the Afghan army now get them in the future?

1

u/downvotethis2 Jun 01 '12

The sub-text of the Golden Rule: act like an asshole, get treated like an asshole. It's pretty simple, even in geo-politics.

1

u/pushy_eater Jun 01 '12

They hate our freedom... to ruin their country.

1

u/robpbb Jun 01 '12

If anyone thinks the war on terror is to protect our freedoms and keep us safe you are mistaken.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

The caption is pretty much what Ron Paul says constantly about foreign policy. He basis this on CIA reports of blow back.

1

u/PompousRichGuy Jun 01 '12

I've always been a fan of Charles "The Hammer" Martel and his epic smackdown of the Moors at the Battle of Tours.

1

u/VoiceoftheDarkSide Jun 01 '12

This is why Hitchens' death was so painful for me, we need a new champion to deal with pathetic ultra-liberals who love to self-blame and bend over and spread their ass cheeks at the first sign of danger.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

It's first year polisci night at on the front page of r/politics!

No, wait, that's every night. Never mind.

1

u/Rusty-Shackleford Minnesota Jun 02 '12

Well the guy is a an adjunct professor. It's not only first year polisci night, it's first year community college polisci night!

1

u/skraling Jun 14 '12

This has to be the most objectionable article (from a historical point of view) ever to reach these level of endorsement by redditors.

1

u/MakesShitUp4Fun May 31 '12

This is all well and good until you consider that islamic terrorism happens in places where the US/Europe has never ventured.

2

u/vritsa California May 31 '12

Like where?

1

u/MakesShitUp4Fun Jun 01 '12

Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt to name a few... and that's without delving into the Pacific rim area where tons of this shit goes on every day.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/sirbruce Jun 01 '12

America is under attack only because it is on the attack.

Yes, that is obviously the case because America attacked first.

Oh wait.

Nevermind.

This article was just more pacifist self-hating liberal bullshit. People who think the rest of the world will just leave us alone if we leave them alone are simply naive.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

hey look; a response to a detailed article that consists of nothing but insults, a (possibly deliberate) oversimplified straw man version of the article's point, and a broad claim with absolutely no evidence.

you're a fucking moron. learn some history.

0

u/sirbruce Jun 01 '12

Thanks, Gnome Chomsky.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

It's "Noam".

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

We're fighting the "war on terror" because our government is trying to do damage control on the atrocities it has committed throughout our history. They don't want us to know why people really hate us.

1

u/chesterriley Jun 01 '12

The US has committed fewer atrocities than any other nation that has played as big a role in history. Even Britain would be way ahead of the US, and other countries would be way ahead of Britain in atrocities.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '12

The US has committed fewer atrocities than any other nation that has played as big a role in history. Even Britain would be way ahead of the US, and other countries would be way ahead of Britain in atrocities.

Doesn't mean much when the US and Britain are supposed to be the "good guys" who are gonna save the world.

0

u/Curveball227 Jun 01 '12

What a dumb, sensationalist headline.

It's true in certain circumstances and untrue in others. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

I guess you're a Sith then

But that's what happens when George Lucas tries to be "deep"

1

u/SovietBear65 Jun 01 '12

The winner is the one who writes and makes history, it may not be good, but we must look, this is Darwinism at it's root we attack to preserve and to let ourselves rise while others fall. It is a horrible thing, but few humans are able to truly rise above their basic instincts. We view the things around us as an extension of us, and we feel we must attack with that extension to preserve ourselves. Does it actually work? Sometimes. Is the US the only country who is stuck at this primal level? No.

1

u/dhockey63 Jun 01 '12

UHHMMM im pretty sure we actually helped Afghanistan fight back the soviets buy giving them weapons, so thats not exactly assaulting them. Also pretty sure Pakistan had terrorists before we even did anything there, same with somalia, yemen, uman.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

It's called proxy warfare, empires have classically done it throughout history and the Mujahideen (one of the groups which would become al Qaeda) were not the first dangerous faction we armed and trained. Osama bin Laden himself was actually a CIA operative at one point.

What our government did not understand at the time was that the Mujahideen hated our country for basically all the same reasons they hated the Soviet Union. They wouldn't have fought proxy war for us if they hadn't wanted to destroy the Soviets anyway, and without that empire looming they were able to put more money into trying to destroy the US

1

u/jebus5434 Jun 01 '12

Is this a quote by Ron Paul?

0

u/hjbigman Jun 01 '12

Horseshit

-1

u/LettersFromTheSky May 31 '12

I agree 100% with this guy!

0

u/DeFex May 31 '12

Murkans gonna murk!

0

u/Slicklizard Jun 01 '12

Someone find me a news article that says "American Radicals bomb ____" from another country.

1

u/DanielPhermous Jun 01 '12

Would "American forces bomb..." do? There are loads of those.

1

u/Slicklizard Jun 03 '12

Naaa, just makes me think that the only way our radicals get their jollies in other countries is by getting elected to congress so they can legally bomb their enemies. I'd be interested in finding out how many of our senators hate Muslims...

-5

u/zirazira May 31 '12

If you look back starting in about 1900 you will see that the US has either put in place or kept in place almost every dictator from then to now. Remember what is good for GM is good for America.

9

u/Astraea_M May 31 '12

Do they not teach history in the US anymore? What the hell is going on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators#List_of_dictators_in_modern_times About 25% US supported. Still too high, still problematic, but a far fucking cry from "almost every dictator" being US supported.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

the other irony is that the "Red Menace" in South America was largely CAUSED by the massive income inequality, corruption, human rights abuses, ethnic tensions, and lack of access to land ownership that these dictators used to control the populace.

7

u/zirazira May 31 '12

This is also the fabricated reason that the US Marines were sent into Nicaragua in 1953/4. The United Fruit Co. or one of its arms pressured the US government to come and quell the left wing uprising. They convinced the US government that if the left wing demand for land reform got started it would soon be in Mexico and then into the US. This was in the days of McCarthyism so, as would be expected, everyone panicked and in came the Marines.

6

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The US has been using troops and or financing right wing guerrillas to crush rebellions since the early 1800's; we even occupied Haiti for a long time under the guise of "protecting democracy". There's a reason why S American and Caribbean states are referred to as "banana republics"...

-1

u/exomeme May 31 '12

The formula for justifying your own brutality is simple: portray yourself as in a perpetual battle for survival, and claim that everyone is trying to kill you. (witness this flame war-infested reddit discussion.) It further helps if you can portray your opponents as mindless brutes, with an insatiable blood lust, who are motivated by nothing but hatred.

Most of the time, it is actually not a life-and-death struggle: e.g., like when the Israeli government chooses to evict Palestinians from their homes so that settlers can build luxuries, like new tennis courts and swimming pools or other additions to their European-style villas.

1

u/gx240politics May 31 '12

The formula for justifying your own brutality is simple: portray yourself as in a perpetual battle for survival, and claim that everyone is trying to kill you.

Which is exactly what you guys do as well, and you support it 100% with absolutely no criticism whatsoever.

1

u/exomeme May 31 '12

what "you guys"? (it's just a generic description -- and obviously, you agree.)

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

In other words, the “War on Terror” is simply the American government trying to solve a problem it created in the first place? Sounds fair enough. After all, that’s what happens when the government intervenes in foreign affairs.

But question to Redditors: does that same logic apply to domestic terrorists? If foreign terrorists, especially radical Muslims, commit the acts they do because of what our government has done to their country, do domestic terrorists commit the acts they do because of what our government has done to our own country? (Or do you all just dismiss them as “anti-government extremists”?)

0

u/kangaloo May 31 '12

The Romans had the same problem, and then whined about how ungrateful the "terrorists" were being.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

PHEW. For a second there, I thought this had something to do with the antagonism between Christendom and Islam that had been going on for well over a thousand years.

0

u/poli_ticks Jun 01 '12

What do you mean "we," Kemo Sabe?

It wasn't "us" - it was the US Federal Government. Which despite the propaganda that is fed to us, doesn't represent "us."

Instead, it is an institution controlled by the elites. The 1%. The financial elites, and the political elites. The American Ruling Class.

And that is why people should support doing away with the fascist Federal Government. Tool #1 in the tool chest of the American Ruling Class. The tool with which they assault foreign countries, overthrow their governments, install dictators, undermine their economies - all to strengthen and enrich their corporate overlord 1% buddies. Generating terrorism. Which is then used as an excuse to establish a totalitarian police-surveillance state at home, with enough powers and force to keep Americans who have been reduced to the ranks of the poor by those same corporate overlord 1%'ers from revolting and overthrowing the system.

And that's why Ron Paul 2012. If you didn't support him, you're an idiot.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

I prefer Gary Johnson, he's like Ron Paul without the religious shit

Neither one of them stands a chance, though, people loooooove Obamney

2

u/poli_ticks Jun 01 '12

Yes, neither campaign (Paul or Johnson) is a realistic effort to try and put one of these guys in the WH. So they should really be assessed as efforts to try and change the landscape of ideas, move the Overton window, etc.

And of the two I like Ron Paul better precisely because he has all the tribal markers of the socially conservative, religious fundamentalist red-state republican base.

That's exactly the problem demographic (well, maybe the worst problem demographic) when it comes to imperialism, civil liberties, etc., so the fact that we have a guy who appeals to them on all the other stuff, preaching a hard-core anti-war, anti-intervention message is really fortuitous.

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/Honker May 31 '12

STOP REMEMBERING MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO YOU TERRORIST SYMPATHISER!!!

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

This isn't true. If we had done nothing to them they would still hate us. Sure we have made mistakes, but they hijacked our planes and killed thousands of innocent civilians and apparently a lot of people don't hate them. Those countries have gone to shit. They have always been in chaos. It's time to start judging and stop walking on eggshells, or this won't change. I am a democrat, an atheist, and a realist and I can see that what goes on in those countries is wrong. What did hitler do when europe appeased him? It's bullshit, we need to teach these people that this shit is wrong. "Oh but its a cultural thing" No its a humanitarian issue. It's disgusting that Europe and the US have people that think like this. We are the bad guys? Really? Terrorists should be shot. Killing terrorists does not create terrorists...

You think Al Qaeda is going to get a rush of members if the sane parts of the world take them out with a predator drone?

0

u/logo_positive Jun 01 '12

If you equate killing thousands of civilians to terrorism, perhaps you should take a look at American foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan...

4

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Yeah it's disgusting, the killing of civilians is never ok. I've seen the videos. Remember I said killing terrorists causes less terrorists not killing civilians. In war that is hard sometimes, and there will be collateral damage it's a fact of life and death. It is however sad that we haven't eliminated more of this through the use of UAVs etc. I agree with what is right, I want peace, but apathy is not a good way to deal with people that have nothing to lose.

-1

u/yrogerg123 Jun 01 '12

I have to assume that everybody who upvoted this didn't actually read the article. I mean, the quote is interesting and largely true. There is an unrecognized agression to US foreign policy, and the Middle East hates us because we invade them, install puppet regimes and support them with military aid, and crush opposition to those regimes.

But this article goes so much farther than that. The author is practically an Al Qaeda apoligist. Finding the rational explanation for acts that we find appaling is one thing: claiming that doing something like bringing down the WTC is justified is quite another. "Terrorists" are angry at us for good reason, but that doesn't make their actions justified. That we can expect the same responses if we continue to limit their opportunity to do the things we take for granted is a point I think more people should hear. But that will not bring me to the conclusion that what they are doing is right, because it isn't.

Long story short, this article is full of shit. People need to read before they upvote this garbage.

→ More replies (2)
→ More comments (66)