Agreed, we're two groups of people with tooth picks attacking each others' brick walls.
:idea2: Lets just all get along.
Printable View
Agreed, we're two groups of people with tooth picks attacking each others' brick walls.
:idea2: Lets just all get along.
Yes, Tajfel's minimal group effect. The are two ways to counter it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
- make the appearance of different groups as unlikely as possible. That means the existence of subcultures is to be extinguished, every would have to fit a norm.
- educate people to accept other groups as they are, let them have their customs as much as possible.
Yes, isolation is dangerous, but having a fun day with your friends has nothing to do with isolation.
How do either of those relate to Tajfel? The experiment was about self and other and he demonstrated that even when you have two similar groups if they compete they will see the opposing group as the "other" above and beyond the confines of the competion.
We have always vilified those we are in competion with, its part of human nature, which is why some vilify all Muslims at the moment, which is wrong.
I suspect that's a rather parochial view - to attribute "the Islamic terrorist problem" to what the US/UK recently did or did not do. I suspect that you have to look at the Islamic countries and what is going on within them to understand the phenomenon. Attributing all their problems to outsiders like the US/UK is playing in to what Blair rightly called a false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
For example, I would look at the Iranian revolution, surely one of the strongest early signs of rising Islamic militancy that predates items 1-5 above. Or look at Algeria, Egypt, Kashmir and Saudi Arabia. I suspect what has been going on in those countries is pretty much unrelated to most items on on your list.
I am pretty sure 9/11 was unrelated to any of the above items with the exception of (3) and even then, did the US/UK "invade Iraq" in 1991? I recall Bush ordering a stop after Kuwait was liberated.
Ditto I am not convinced US/UK "invaded Afghanistan". They merely backed the Northern Alliance. Russia, of course, did invade Afghanistan and that probably played a bigger part in the rise of OBL than most items on your list.
Bottomline: I suspect the roots of Islamic terrorism are long term, complex and grounded in the internal politics, culture etc of Muslim countries, not the foreign policies of Western countries.
EDIT: apologies for straying off the topic of Alton Towers. On that subject, my only positive reaction is that any group of traditionalists that fears the influence of modern music is probably swimming hopelessly against the tide.
Considering the very word assassin comes from a sect that by todays standards would be called terrorists we can safely dismiss the idea that it is a response to what the US/UK have recently done in response to terrorism.
A bit of a farce to blame the response to a situation as causing the situation.
Response to terrorism caused the prior terrorism? So the terrorists now have time machines?
The Iranian Revolution is an example of Islamic militancy, not terrorism. The others are the same. None of this equates to the so called "global terror" directed against thw west.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The foundation of groups such as Al Qaeda, didn't occur overnight. Their main cause of existence, is the US 'involvement' in Israel, and the rest of the middle east. It was an invasion. You are confusing invasion with occupation. The US forces invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, but they didn't occupy it. This was seen by muslims as a sort of "crusade", which is how any sort of activity involving westerner's air power, tanks and bombs on muslim soil generally is perceived. This may be part of the "false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance" thing, but there you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Again, the Invasion/occupation thing. They basically interfered and backed a certain side in a war while flying over dropping bombs. This would be an "invasion of airspace", bombing runs usually entail this. If you don't want to call this an invasion you can call it an attack, or are attacks ok? As I recall 9/11 was an "attack", not an invasion, yet it justified a response by the US and it's allies. The US chose to remove the taliban, a force it had previously no beef with. This was to secure the signing of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline deal, which otherwise, with the Taliban in place, would have been impossible. The very convenient pretext was, that they were going after those behind the perpetatrators of the 9/11 attacks. It seems that muslims are not allowed to respond to aggression though. They have to sit back and take it, because the westerners are only trying to "liberate" them and install "democracies" in their countries. "now try to relax, this is going hurt but it's necessary, we know what's best for you..."Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I truly believe it's a combination of factors. To say that islamic terrorism is "grounded in the culture" of muslim countries would be the same as saying that terrorism is grounded in the culture of Northern Ireland, an interesting point. This sort of terrorism is the reaction of the conquered and those that have no other means with which to wage war on a perceived aggressor. They cannot succeed militarily so terrorist tactics are used. But the crux of it is, that terrorism is almost always a reaction to an aggression, be it an occupation, invasion, attack or political interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Thats a very Partisan view. The first Iraq war, or operation "Desert Strom" lasted 100 hours and barely made it into Iraq, it did not involve any re-drawing of borders and the Saudi's and were very happy for the Americans and others to go in.
The war in was to capture Bin Laden, unless you believe 9/11 was faked, anything else was a bonus but that was definitely the reason.
Its interesting that you should bring up Northern Ireland. Modern terrorism was invented by the IRA at the turn of the last century and suicide bombing was invented by Muslims in the last fifty years, both ethnic groups have a long history of ruthless and bloody guerilla fighting in their native land.
In the case of Islam though the issue is the developement of the concept of Jihad, IIRC never put foward by the Prophet as a military struggle.
Not a partisan view, as I am not a muslim, nor anti-US, and I actually find religion on the whole pretty pointless. Of course the Saudis were 'happy', the 'government' not the general population, why wouldn't they be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
No. No one starts a war like that just to capture one man. That is verging on insane. I don't believe 9/11 was faked, but it happened at an ideal time to serve as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. Just as 9/11 was used as a pretext to attack Iraq, with Bush claiming that there were links between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'athists!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Modern terrorism wasn't invented by the IRA. They're not known to use suicide bombers for one thing, this tactic could be considered one of the defining points of modern terrorism. Suicide attacks go back to biblical times and there's the infamous Kamikaze attacks in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Correct. As I've said before, this is a religion being used as an excuse for vengance, Islam is not the problem it is those that are perverting it to fit their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
You have a short memory. You don't remember the American Embassy hostages? You don't see any similarity between that and what's going on in Lebanon and Palestine now? At one stage the current Iranian president was identified as one of the leaders of the hostage takers (was that ever confirmed or refuted, BTW)? Iran is one of the main backers of Islamic terrorism in Lebanon and now Iraq. Without the Iranian revolution that I identify as pivotal, it would not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I'm half inclined to bring up Lockerbie here too - I've always figured the Iranians much more likely suspects than Gadhafi.
My reading of OBLs words is that he does not really care much about Palestine. He certainty did not oppose action against Iraq in 1991 - rather he wanted it to be his mujahadeen fighting Saddam, not the M1 Abrams. (Maybe we should have let them get on with it.) What really got him riled at the US was their troops defending his own country. And that was not an invasion of his country, in any shape or form, of course. It was a defence of his own country. But because the defenders were despicable infidels, it annoyed him more than the rape of a Muslim neighbour (Kuwait).Quote:
The foundation of groups such as Al Qaeda, didn't occur overnight. Their main cause of existence, is the US 'involvement' in Israel, and the rest of the middle east.
I also suspect US "involvement" in Israel is overplayed. The Israelis seem more than able of looking after themselves. The West helped them not at all in 1948 and they've been going from strength to strength after that. Take out all foreign backing (US, Soviet, Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi etc) and I think Israel's edge over her neighbours would be even greater.
Definitely false but also fairly insignificant in the wider scheme of things. It certainly did not bother the Syrians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Shias in Iraq etc. I'll wager 80%+ Muslims would not cite the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 as a western crusade against them. Even OBL does not bring it up (except to say "why did you not let me do it instead?").Quote:
It was an invasion. You are confusing invasion with occupation. The US forces invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, but they didn't occupy it. This was seen by muslims as a sort of "crusade", which is how any sort of activity involving westerner's air power, tanks and bombs on muslim soil generally is perceived. This may be part of the "false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance" thing, but there you have it.
Yes, it is surprising how sheltering the group that killed 3000 of your civilians will suddenly give you a beef with someone, isn't it? :wall: And do you want a foil hat to go with that Pipeline theory? BTW, 9/11 was not done by one man. OBL and AQ were key props for the Taliban. You don't remember them assassinating the Northern Alliance leader a day or so after 9/11? Rather a clever move to shore up their backers, the Taliban, while waiting for the inevitable American response.Quote:
The US chose to remove the taliban, a force it had previously no beef with. This was to secure the signing of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline deal, which otherwise, with the Taliban in place, would have been impossible.
Interesting not necessarily equating to false. In Northern Ireland, due to centuries of conflict, you have a situation where large numbers of people in the two divided communities find it quite acceptable to harass school children of the opposite group on their way to school, disdain relationships formed across the divide, and frankly are happy to condone terrorism against each other. Reports since the Good Friday agreement seem to indicate these cultural divisions are stronger now than ever before. People in both the Republic and the mainland find these attitudes - you could call them cultural - alien; indeed, the Irish in Eire and the mainland British probably have more in common with each other than with either community in Northern Ireland.Quote:
I truly believe it's a combination of factors. To say that islamic terrorism is "grounded in the culture" of muslim countries would be the same as saying that terrorism is grounded in the culture of Northern Ireland, an interesting point.
I don't know what the exact parallels between Irish and Islamic terrorism are, but I suspect the causes of both extend back centuries. Heck, a lot of the Sunni vs Shia conflict in Iraq seems to date back to the birth of Islam itself. (At which time, it was the Islamicists who were very much the invaders.)
Yes, of course Islamic terrorism is due to a combination of factors. But I'd put Western foreign policy pretty near the bottom of list. What's going on in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran etc is nearly all driven by internal conflicts and disputes. Islamic fundamentalism is primarily focussed on Islamic countries - it is too weak, geopolitically, to have serious ambitions elsewhere. The West is targeted just because it is seen as propping up "the other side". Technically, you might be right - if the West backed off, like Spain after Madrid, maybe they would be "spared" Islamic terrorism. But even then, OBL cites mass conversion of the US as another of the key conditions for a ceasefire. And more importantly, Islamic terrorism in places like Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Plalestine and Saudi Arabia would burn ever more brightly even if the West did turn isolationist.
Google "Unocal" and "pipeline" and see what you come up with. More than a "theory", in fact a real project underway at present involving Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan. The US started making noises about attacking Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. This was always on the agenda, the attacks simply spurred it on. Initially the US backed the Taliban as did Pakistan of course, which is why the Pakistani people were not happy about this sudden "switch of sides". Once the Taliban stopped "playing ball", they had to be removed. This doesn't come from "conspiracy theorist" websites, it's well documented, and was covered in various, decent, newspapers.Quote:
And do you want a foil hat to go with that Pipeline theory?
Wrong, prior to the IRA people did not use IEDs, harrass with morters and machine guns, blow up train-tracks, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Suicide bombing is a very small part of modern terrorism and its mostly confined to the Middle East, the IRA also pioneered the murder of civilians and non-combatants, including children.
No points there, I'm afraid.
The US probably would have worked with the Taliban and given them some nice aid packages to convince them prior to 9/11, war is expensive and un-ecenomic.
Wrong, prior to the IRA people did not use IEDs, harrass with morters and machine guns, blow up train-tracks, etc.
Errrr..... yes they did . Ummmmm....yes they did , oh and ...yes they did etc .:oops: no points there I am afraid .
the IRA also pioneered the murder of civilians and non-combatants, including children.
No points there either , they cartainly are murderous ---------(best to erase that word as I don't want another warning for using normal everyday words), but they are not the first .
Playing crappy "christian" music for the eleventh year in a row? That's one day I wouldn't show up there. What are you going to do about this music party that's made just to exclude me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
http://www.ultimateevents.org.uk/altontowers.aspx
Alton Towers 06 - Saturday 20th May
For the last 11 years the UK's premier theme park has rocked to the beat of some of the top acts on the Contemporary Christian Music Scene. The Ultimate Event has provided the perfect May day outing for 1,000s of thrill seeking young people.
Some of the best white knuckle rides in the UK form the perfect background to the ultimate experience. Groups travel from literally all over the UK to ride Nemesis, Air and the latest addition to the incredible roller coaster family, Rita - Queen of Speed.
The evening brings on an extravaganza of music for the droves of people making their way to our purpose built arena. Over the years we have been proud to host some of the greats of christian music as well as introduce up and coming talent. Delirious?, Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Rebecca St James, All Star United have all wowed the crowd at Alton.
Our driving passion at Ultimate is to put on a great day which Christian young people would be proud to bring their friends. Over the years hundreds of young people have had their lives revolutionized at Alton as they have been impacted with the incredible message of Jesus for the first time.
2004 was a massive hit with three top acts from the USA, Superchick, Rock n Roll Worship Circus and Newsboys. We are currently working on putting together a great line up for 20th May 2006. Negotiations are taking place and we hope to bring you news soon.
As ever we will ensure that the gospel message will be clear, on point and the perfect drawstring to a day of ultimate rides, ultimate entertainment and ultimate truth.
Ok, who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
To be honest I find massed "popular" Christian events intimidatind and somewhat disturbing.Quote:
Alton Towers 06 - Saturday 20th May
For the last 11 years the UK's premier theme park has rocked to the beat of some of the top acts on the Contemporary Christian Music Scene. The Ultimate Event has provided the perfect May day outing for 1,000s of thrill seeking young people.
Some of the best white knuckle rides in the UK form the perfect background to the ultimate experience. Groups travel from literally all over the UK to ride Nemesis, Air and the latest addition to the incredible roller coaster family, Rita - Queen of Speed.
The evening brings on an extravaganza of music for the droves of people making their way to our purpose built arena. Over the years we have been proud to host some of the greats of christian music as well as introduce up and coming talent. Delirious?, Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Rebecca St James, All Star United have all wowed the crowd at Alton.
Our driving passion at Ultimate is to put on a great day which Christian young people would be proud to bring their friends. Over the years hundreds of young people have had their lives revolutionized at Alton as they have been impacted with the incredible message of Jesus for the first time.
2004 was a massive hit with three top acts from the USA, Superchick, Rock n Roll Worship Circus and Newsboys. We are currently working on putting together a great line up for 20th May 2006. Negotiations are taking place and we hope to bring you news soon.
As ever we will ensure that the gospel message will be clear, on point and the perfect drawstring to a day of ultimate rides, ultimate entertainment and ultimate truth.
It feels like 50% "pop" sellout and 50% stealth conversion.
However, most of the Christians I have met participate in wider society, I haven't met many Muslims, precisely because they don't, not where I live anyway.
Ok, who?
Where would you like to start ? Naradonya Volya ? Cape commandos ?Pancho Villa ? or do you want to go all the way back to the Sicarri and Zealots(though the latter did not have IEDs or firearms) .:book:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
Wassup Wigferth , didn't your claims stand up to a moments scrutiny ?:no:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
So now you want to talk timing devices and detonators , oops ...the russian anarchists beat the IRA to it again , would you like to try another claim ?
You aren't doing very well so far . :laugh4:
Without wanting to derail this thread any further, in refutation of the above inaccuracy, I shouldn't need to point out the enormous prior art contribution of the British Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
:book2:
Why do you feel the need to be obnoxious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This would be an attempt to define modern terrorism, therefore limiting claims of who started it.Quote:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
I cannot be held resposible for being given faulty information, I shall now go away, do research and reach my own conclusions. This is what I always do when it would appear I have been proven wrong.
I have no problem being proven wrong, I do have a problem with being mocked, you don't need to laugh at people or taunt them. Certainly when they don't do the same to you.
May I suggest you consider whether you would address me in the same manner face to face because the man on the other side of this cable finds your attitude offensive.
Hear, hear Wigferth.
I find your points utterly inaccurate, but not a incorrect as Tribesman's attitude.
Slyspy, I get it.
I was wrong:oops:
How often do you see that in the backroom.