Paris attacks - ongoing

[Crni Vuk]

In some sense the common history of the middle east and Europe go as far back as the crusades. Yeah, people can get pretty crazy over history, particularly if it can be used to make the other side the bad guy.

It's easier killing someone if you don't have to see him as a human beeing. This counts for every side.

 

[Dr Fallout]

In some sense the common history of the middle east and Europe go as far back as the crussades. Yeah, people can get pretty crazy over history, particularly if it can be used to make the other side the bad guy.

It's easier killing someone if you don't have to see him as a human beeing. This counts for every side.

Hah, the Crusades was literally the more warlike version of nowadays, where the Crusaders are ISIS and the Muslims are the West.

 

[SuAside]

Yeah, no. Let's not compare the crusades with anything please...
(the source site is shit, but the map is about correct)

 

[Sander]

That map is utter garbage for numerous reasons. Historians debunked it over at AskHistorians, and I'll just quote that because it's easiest:

There are many problems with this comparison. Just from the top of my head, the picture is flawed for these reasons:

• The pictured compared two very different time-frames, the "Muslim" Conquest extended from 632 to the Ottoman conquests of the 17th Century, whilst the Crusades picture only covered the famous crusades to the Holy Land, not the Fourth Crusade (which conquered Constantinople and other Christian territories), the Reconquista in Spain, and the Baltic Crusades. Not exactly a fair comparison is it?
• What is the definition of a battle? We have no idea about where most of the early battles of the Arab Conquests took place, let alone their size, so the creator of this image definitely just put some random dots in likely places. Visigothic Spain for instance fell in the eighth century seemingly after just one major battle - all those battles in Spain on that map must therefore be the result of later conflicts, which cannot be just characterised as battles between Christians and Muslims, since Al-Andalus was known for its tolerance and internal divisions (though of course this is a generalisation as well).
• Likewise for Crusades map - there were way more than 13 battles, both Tunisia and Egypt were for instance attacked by Louis IX of France. There must have also been many many raids led by crusaders - if we are counting Muslim raids into France, why not the crusaders'?
• The causes of battles between Muslims and Christians were complex. The armies during the rise of Islam for instance definitely included Arab Christians and Jews in their ranks, whilst many Muslims allied with Christian powers during the later Crusades as well. Muslims and Christians did co-exist and we should never see the past as being entirely made up of conflicts or peace - it was mostly a mixture of both.

This comparison is blatantly made to make a political point, not to represent the historical reality. A look through any modern scholarship on the Arab Conquests would for instance reveal that the Conquests, as far as conquests go, were fairly mild. Sieges and massacres were rare and toleration was the norm rather than pogroms or expulsions. I know a lot less about the Crusades, but I know enough to say that they were very complex as well - reducing history to misleading pictures like this is very dangerous and ought to be refuted at every possible opportunity.

There are other issues, too. Ignoring the Reconquista (Christian conquest of the Iberian peninsula), attacks on the Ottoman empire, smaller battles throughout. And the "new battle" crusade is pure insanity, treating Cairo as the site of a Christian crusade. What? It's a ridiculous map.

Also I resized your image because holy crap that thing was way too huge.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Yeah, no. Let's not compare the crusades with anything please...
(the source site is shit, but the map is about correct)

View attachment 2416

Sander helpfully debunked that, but what I mean is that the Crusaders were oppressive and close minded bastards who helped slaughter various innocents while the Muslims were open and who allowed worship of other religions, also supporting science and education.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, yes and no. As usual, history is a bit more complex, just like Sander said. It really depends on the time period and region we are talking about, the Islam had tyranical and religous rulers as well, and not every part of Europe ruled by Christians was always closeminded. I am by no means an expert. Though, the difference between Chrstianity and Islam really isn't that huge honestly. Or at least I think it isn't. Both religions have shown that they can be extremely opressive. Hence why I find it always silly to compare Christian violence with the Islam trough events in history, just to make a point and show that one of them is worse. It's silly. What is true is that the Islam and the Christian world share in some areas a common history, and we still see some of it even today. And that many people, in both the Christian world and the Islam, use history to justify violence.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Well, yes and no. As usual, history is a bit more complex, just like Sander said. It really depends on the time period and region we are talking about, the Islam had tyranical and religous rulers as well, and not every part of Europe ruled by Christians was always closeminded. I am by no means an expert. Though, the difference between Chrstianity and Islam really isn't that huge honestly. Or at least I think it isn't. Both religions have shown that they can be extremely opressive. Hence why I find it always silly to compare Christian violence with the Islam trough events in history, just to make a point and show that one of them is worse. It's silly. What is true is that the Islam and the Christian world share in some areas a common history, and we still see some of it even today. And that many people, in both the Christian world and the Islam, use history to justify violence.

What I mean is that in the past during the Crusades the Muslims were relatively open minded and advanced compared to the Christian 'war mongers' at the time. Nowadays it's the opposite.

They're very similar.

 

[MutantScalper]

A news story about Italian police stopping an illegal shipment of weapons heading for Belgium.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6d_1448607669

I don't think there is a shortcut to preventing these incidents, just have to give the police forces of the EU nations free hands to deal with it.

 

[Riven326]

I guess this is the thread to post this in, considering the topics of conversation:


I would agree that the track record for western armies in the middle east is terrible, but pulling out in and of itself can have dire consequences. I don't know much about this, but it seems America leaves them with the mess.

These people make no sense. First they say the want the Americans to stay. Then they say the want the Americans to leave. But then they go back to wanting them to stay. Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways.

It was wrong to go to war in Afghanistan in the first place; I think most people would agree on that. However, I don't think it's wrong for us to pull out when it's clear that the native population has little to no interest in helping themselves or their country. It was like when the Americans were trying to train the Iraqis. They would interview the soldiers who were trying to train them, and they would admit that it was a lost cause because the people are so inept and just don't care.

And now we're at war with Syria. I know Obama doesn't want to call it that, but when you're bombing the shit out of another country, it's war. During this retarded campaign, we've managed to destabilized yet another country, create an insane refugee crisis, and help kick start another cold war with Russia. I really don't understand why we have to keep fucking around in this region of the world, pretending to be some world police force.

 

[Akratus]

They didn't want the americans there because it heavily destablized the region, but they leave at a bad time, leaving them to handle what the americans handled, which they obviously can't because military industrial complex versus third world country. Both coming there and leaving at the time they did is shitty. I think that's what they mean.

 

[Juza The Cloud]

A very good read I reccomend is Crusades through Arab Eyes, first hand accounts and histores by and accounts from Arab historians living during the era. It paints an interesting picture geo politically at the time of the 1st crusade. The disunity of the differnt warring muslim princes and how Christian rulers slowly adpoted eastern cultureal cues as they ruled Crusader kingdoms. Also some nasty historical tidbits like crusaders succoming to canabalism in one instantance.

 

[Riven326]

They didn't want the americans there because it heavily destablized the region, but they leave at a bad time, leaving them to handle what the americans handled, which they obviously can't because military industrial complex versus third world country. Both coming there and leaving at the time they did is shitty. I think that's what they mean.

I agree that we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. But if we chose to stay we would be there forever. These people complain about our presence there. I understand that. If a foreign army were to occupy my neighborhood, despite their intentions, I wouldn't like it. However, I would also realize that at some point we're going to have to take over and try to fix our own problems.

 

[Crni Vuk]

They didn't want the americans there because it heavily destablized the region, but they leave at a bad time, leaving them to handle what the americans handled, which they obviously can't because military industrial complex versus third world country. Both coming there and leaving at the time they did is shitty. I think that's what they mean.

To stay, will do the people more harm than good I think. Because I see nothing that gives me the feeling that we are there to actually improve something in the long run. We would have to do much more than what we do right now. Most of the presence in Afghanistan, is a military presence. What the nation really needs though, would be a change. A real change. I am talking about 20-30 years of education, raising a whole generation that has no conection with the wars and violent history or fundamentalism, teaching the people how to write and read, building a real infrastracture, modernizing the culture and the whole nation, unyfing the people. Is that possible? I would say it is. But we would probably need 10 maybe even 100 times more people down there than now. More soldiers, more teachers, more engineers, more everything. And I don't see that happen. Not any time soon. We love to preach but we don't love to help. Not really.

From my point of view, I think we have no other choice to leave. The nation might return to chaos. But it will happen anyway, if we stay 1 year or 10, doesn't matter.

 

[Sander]

They didn't want the americans there because it heavily destablized the region, but they leave at a bad time, leaving them to handle what the americans handled, which they obviously can't because military industrial complex versus third world country. Both coming there and leaving at the time they did is shitty. I think that's what they mean.

I agree that we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. But if we chose to stay we would be there forever. These people complain about our presence there. I understand that. If a foreign army were to occupy my neighborhood, despite their intentions, I wouldn't like it. However, I would also realize that at some point we're going to have to take over and try to fix our own problems.

You say this like not fixing your own problems is about a lack of desire, rather than a consequence of material circumstances, foreign intervention causing general destabilization, mass death thanks to decades of war, sectarian divisions, other regional international meddling and just generally a horrible situation. You say it as if the United States has its own problems fixed.

The Iraq War caused a million deaths, for instance. You can't just go into country, kill that many people and then complain when they don't "fix their problems."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The Iraq War caused a million deaths, for instance. You can't just go into country, kill that many people and then complain when they don't "fix their problems."

Not to mention the roughly half a million Iraqi children who died during the 90s from economic sanctions alone, long before the 2003 invasion.

Add in the numbers who suffered from malnutrition and other ailments, yet survived, and you have an entire generation stunted, if not wiped out altogether.

 

[Riven326]

They didn't want the americans there because it heavily destablized the region, but they leave at a bad time, leaving them to handle what the americans handled, which they obviously can't because military industrial complex versus third world country. Both coming there and leaving at the time they did is shitty. I think that's what they mean.

I agree that we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. But if we chose to stay we would be there forever. These people complain about our presence there. I understand that. If a foreign army were to occupy my neighborhood, despite their intentions, I wouldn't like it. However, I would also realize that at some point we're going to have to take over and try to fix our own problems.

You say this like not fixing your own problems is about a lack of desire, rather than a consequence of material circumstances, foreign intervention causing general destabilization, mass death thanks to decades of war, sectarian divisions, other regional international meddling and just generally a horrible situation. You say it as if the United States has its own problems fixed.

The Iraq War caused a million deaths, for instance. You can't just go into country, kill that many people and then complain when they don't "fix their problems."

What I'm saying is there has to be a will and desire to progress. The reason why the US and western civilization in general has progressed to where it is today is largely due to a lot of will and desire to get out of a bad situation. We're starting to leave religion and magical thinking behind, and promoting rational thought. The desire to not want to live in a theocracy. We didn't just hope and pray things would get better either. It was common people most of the time who simply wanted a better way to live.

Part of the problem, and I know that this may not be the politically correct thing to say but, part of the problem is the people living in that region, and the mindset they've adopted. Theocracy is so rooted into these people that it makes it almost impossible to progress. They refuse to give it up too despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that it's killing them. Most Muslims in the Middle East are killed by other Muslims from a different sect. But that fact is swept under the rug most of the time because it's much easier and more convenient to blame ourselves for all of the problems there.

Really, the United States should just leave these places alone and adopt a foreign policy that is more hands-off. I'm not going to deny my government has done a lot of wrong and continues to do wrong in that region of the world. I mean, the fact that Obama believes conducting air strikes in a foreign country against the government there doesn't qualify as "war", is proof that he's just as much of an idiot as Bush was when he was in office. He doesn't know what he's doing over there.

But back to my original point. I don't think you can put all of the blame on the American government. The native population of these countries would still be in the shit even if we did take a hands-off approach, and then they would blame us for not intervening. Either way, we're the ones that get blamed for the mess.

Also, it's important to understands that there is rampant corruption among the Afghan population and the police and military forces there. This makes it pretty much impossible to build a foundation for any sort of civilized society. When the people you call for help are the same people breaking into your house to steal your shit or rape your wife, it's a little difficult to convince the population that you're serious about rebuilding the country.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What I'm saying is there has to be a will and desire to progress. The reason why the US and western civilization in general has progressed to where it is today is largely due to a lot of will and desire to get out of a bad situation.

What?

Sorry ... I really don't mean to insult you. But you can't be serious. The will and desire to go, fuck up and exploit others, yes, this is what made us strong. I do NOT(!) say that this is your opinion, but it seems to be rather popular to think that we Europeans, western Europe to be more accurate, would be some kind of special snowflake, because we are one of the ecnomically most advanced regions on this planet. I doubt this has really much to do with willpower and desire. People in other regions of this world, be it Asia, the Middle East or South America are not so different from us. When it comes to the basics, people want stability, security etc. all that Maslow's hierarchy of needs crap. Most people, are not born as psychopaths or war-loving creatures. And war is for the most part, seen as something negative, for obvious reasons.

The reason, why we as individuals are succesfull today, has in my opinion, absolutely zero to do with our ingenuity, willpower or desires. It's simply luck. Luck to be born on the right side of that wall 60 years ago that pretty much divided the European contintent in two different ideologies. The luck to live today on the right side of the fence, with the Mediterranean see between us and the poor sods that are born on the wrong side. That's pretty much all that counts today, if you ask me. Where you're born, and who your parents are, matters a lot in this world and society. If you're born in a stable region, with relatively wealthy parents, giving you access to good educations, jobs etc.

To say that we achieve those things trough our willpower is like the idea that peasants are peasants because they are simply to lazy to become aristocrats.

 

[DarkCorp]

Luck wouldn't explain why the best and brightest, the folks many of these nations need the most, would rather leave for foreign lands than stay.

Communism and religious extremism is but some of these reasons. Peace land and bread, what a great slogan. Too bad the peasants didn't realise they traded one nightmare for another. Alexei Pazitnov, creator of Tetris for example, got jack shit for his creation.

Abdul Azzam wanted Maktab Al Khidimat, Al Qaedas pre-cursor, to focus on installing an islamic government in post soviet Afghanistan. OBL and Al Zarahiwi fucked that up with their penchant for hardcore sharia and global jihad. ISIS, was once AQ in Iraq. AQ gave them support, helped them recruit, only to see them grow into a competitor un-willing to share power and wealth.

The tri-arab coalition that sneak attacked Israel? The war was all that was needed for them to roll into Palestine and take much more land than what was originally intended.

It was the Qing Dynastys' utter and complete corruption and hubris that made China the worlds bitch at the late 19th and early 20th century.

Sure western imperialism was around but national dis-unity made much of that possible.

Atleast the Japanese woke the fuck up and modernised much faster. It was WW2, not western imperialism, that was responsible for a much more pacifistic Japan.

PS: Just popped into my mind. Your prime directive reference Crni really pushes the belief that some places in the world are craptastic and we should leave them to it while the west in their starship studies them like educational projects.

 

[Crni Vuk]

PS: Just popped into my mind. Your prime directive reference Crni really pushes the belief that some places in the world are craptastic and we should leave them to it while the west in their starship studies them like educational projects.

The altnerative so far havn't really worked well though, millions of dead people, because someone, somewhere thought that you can't just stand on the side line anymore if people are dieing. Not to mention that our help-policy is extremly selective, why do some nations deserve our attentions while others not?

Souverinity can only work, if all stick with it. The US, Euroope, Russia. Everyone. International law has to be respected. What ever if we like it, or not. You would not believe how fast people can actually be turned to support even the shittiest of government the moment they see foreign troops walking on their ground. Happend over and over again.

Luck wouldn't explain why the best and brightest, the folks many of these nations need the most, would rather leave for foreign lands than stay.

Which happend historically speaking in Europe as much like in other places. A lot of Europeans left for the US some 200-100 years ago. Seriously. There is nothing special about Europeans or Americans that makes them more succesfull compared to others. It was, more or less just luck. Did you knew that the Russian revolution could have created a free democracy and society as well? Not unlike European democracies we know today. But because of some unfortunate event, they got kicked out and overtaken by Lenin and his goons. And Stalin pretty much finished it. Who knows what happens if the right people manage to gain power at the wrong moment. This could have happend in the US as well. They had a few very crucial moments in their history. Like the great depression. Or the Civil War. Albeit the chance of the South wining back than, was as we know today, very small, but hey, you never know!

I don't see why the Brits, French or Germans would be something "special" in this world, with billions of people, particularly when you have an excelent example, a real life test subject right at hand. East and West Germany. The only reason why West Germany actually managed to become an economic super power, was because they had the fortune to be the right side of the fence, where the population had enough luck to enjoy a relative safety, stability and freedom.

And that's pretty much my point. The average Arabian, Asian or South American person is not much different to the average German or US American. We all share the same physiology after all. So I don't see why a German for example should be inherently more capable than a Mexican, just because he is a German.

That people, like scientists, intellectuals, artists etc. try to escape and get on the right side of the fence, is a whole different story.

Who knows. In 150 years maybe China or Russia or even a combination of those two will be the place everyone want's to move to while western Europe becomes the next craptastic place, like Somalia.

Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking you. I am just sick and tired of this "If those Africans/Asians/Arabians would be just like us they could have all the prosperity!", which is such a bullshit attitude that it makes me seriously furious. But I won't go in to a rant now.

 

[DarkCorp]

MY whole point is that luck isn't the SOLE determinant in these situations, merely a part of the bigger picture.

Me and my friend both get 100 dollars. I use my money to make more money. He throws his money away at a strip club. This is not luck.

There IS something special thing that the west and some other nations did, its called sorting themselves out in a way. Moving away from superstition (the reformation and secularism), more power to the people (magna carta, representative democracy, modernisation, etc).

You are not seriously going to discount the contributions that many economists, politicians, scientists, among others, brought about and claim that prosperity is soley determined by 'luck'?

Germany for example, had the Marshall Plan (luck). But, they also did wonders with that money (skill). Same with post war Japan. Without terrorist fuckhats screwing shit up, reconstruction is all of a sudden a lot smoother. There could have been an insurgency in thse nations, but there wasn't. The people were sick and tired of the war their governments involved them in and decided enough was enough. Why fight anymore?

Many places are bad because they cannot keep their best and brightest by policies their governments adopt. Gonzalez for example is horrified that Macri is in power. If it turns out bad, that is the fault of the people, not some evil boogeyman.

Again, your Russian/China prediction is not soley based on 'luck', but the policies those nations adopt in the future.