Saddam on trial
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Actually, I was talking about this bit:
As well as that, I find nothing in the pdf file that holds much ground, or at least not in the Netherlands. Issues are very rarely about Islamic nationals, but about Maroccans, Turks or others, Muslims are rarely seen as one monogomous group, even though that's what the pdf's saying. I can only speak for the Netherlands, though.
Even moreso, the problem of muslims is not a problem of muslims at all, here. It is a problem of allochtones. Whenever you see something in the newspaper about acts and something about an ethnic group is mentioned, the ethnic group is never "muslim" but rather "turk", "antillean" or "morrocan".
I haven't read the entire pdf, because I don't have the time, but I haven't seen a single shred of actual proof, instead of simple rhetoric. I have seen many suppositions, but no support for the suppositions. "Europeans view muslims as a monolith." No, they don't.
"Muslims feel that they can't make a change politically", well we have one muslim political group in total, and that group barely gets votes. Maybe they don't make a change, not because there are too few, but because many don't want to make changes as a group. This also seems to be contradicting the previous point that there are many different muslims: how can you make a difference as a group, if the group is divided within itself?
I'll not deny the fact that immigrants have a hard time, but I don't see how that is any better in the USA. If immigrants here *want* to integrate, they can. One of the people who just graduated from my school is the son of an Iranian, his sister is one class lower, and there are several others in a region where there are extremely few allochtones.
You drum up a huge bunch of things about how things work in the USA, yet I can see no difference with Europe.
As well as that, I find nothing in the pdf file that holds much ground, or at least not in the Netherlands. Issues are very rarely about Islamic nationals, but about Maroccans, Turks or others, Muslims are rarely seen as one monogomous group, even though that's what the pdf's saying. I can only speak for the Netherlands, though.
Even moreso, the problem of muslims is not a problem of muslims at all, here. It is a problem of allochtones. Whenever you see something in the newspaper about acts and something about an ethnic group is mentioned, the ethnic group is never "muslim" but rather "turk", "antillean" or "morrocan".
I haven't read the entire pdf, because I don't have the time, but I haven't seen a single shred of actual proof, instead of simple rhetoric. I have seen many suppositions, but no support for the suppositions. "Europeans view muslims as a monolith." No, they don't.
"Muslims feel that they can't make a change politically", well we have one muslim political group in total, and that group barely gets votes. Maybe they don't make a change, not because there are too few, but because many don't want to make changes as a group. This also seems to be contradicting the previous point that there are many different muslims: how can you make a difference as a group, if the group is divided within itself?
I'll not deny the fact that immigrants have a hard time, but I don't see how that is any better in the USA. If immigrants here *want* to integrate, they can. One of the people who just graduated from my school is the son of an Iranian, his sister is one class lower, and there are several others in a region where there are extremely few allochtones.
I had a quick look and it does seem to be Indonesia, India, Pakistan in that order. All the studies I found seemed to be from 95-96 (or thereabouts), so they will be somewhat inaccurate, but the numbers on them were:alec said:
Indonesia: ~180m
India: ~144m
Pakistan: ~140m
As to the accuracy of the studies, I would doubt them, most of them gave Afghanistan exactly 100% (22,664,136total, 22,664,136muslim), which I would doubt. I'm sure there is at least one non-muslim living there.
I shouldn't really expect any better from 5 minutes Googling.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Quite a few Afghans are Buddhists, and there's a schimastic quasi-Christain group that belives that Jesus went to Afghanistan there. So you're instinct was right.
welsh
Junkmaster
Oh Alec- my bad. Indonesia beats Islam by one rung on the "largest population of Muslims" chart.
Sander- if you don't have the time, then don't make the argument. Are muslims, monolithic? No. They come from many different places. That might be one of the reasons the Muslim population in the US is different than that of Europe. Many Muslims in the US come from Southeast Asia, and many of the Arabs are not Muslims. Furthermore a large population of our Muslim population are African-Americans who converted or come from a family of converts- the Black Muslim phenomena.
However, that does not dispute a couple things that the links pointed out. Including that - where Muslims are generally seeing themselves as marginalized, American muslims don't. In fact the Arab population has done very well for itself in the US.
My points are simple on this issue-
(1) If Muslims are being radicalized in Europe, than it might be worth while in figuring out why?
(2) If Muslims are feeling marginalized in Europe but not in the US, why?
(3) Could the reasons that Muslims become radicalized in Europe have anything to do with the inequalities of European society?
Painful thoughts to Europeans no doubt, but don't you think it's worth consideration? Because it certainly is worth it in the US. I knew a muslim fellow in New York who was becoming radicalized (and trying to draw in this really hot paki girl). But much of that had to do with his own defensivenss of culture and identity within the melting pot of cultures that is New York. I knew another guy who was fairly radical at my U, an Iranian fellow who somehow mixed marxism with islam. But that might have something to do with him being very lonely.
I am not saying Muslims have suffered under the current administration. To some extent that's a consequence of 9/11 and the expansion of the security state. But as social bias? No. In fact the increase in hate crimes against Muslims in the US has been virtually insignificant since 9-11.
And one thing I notice-
When this issue is raised you folks go off and say-
(1) the studies are all biased- yeah right.
(2) it's the same thing in the US- no, that's wrong.
So there is a guy instinct at being defensive- why? Is it so hard to be reflective?
And that's the point I am making to Alec- Europe, if it wants to lead has to be both more responsible and reflective. But you guys won't even reflect on this issue. Why not? The best you do is deny a problem- well ok, Kharn is at least trying to explain it. But you guys it's just a gut reaction that says "Not true!" And then you make a short-sighted comment about McCarthiesm? Are you telling me radicals weren't wiped out at point in Spain during Franco, in much of Europe either after World War 2 or during? Remember, most of the resistance movements in World War 2 were communist movements- so what happened to them afterwards? One answer- Europe's prosperity after World War 2 made the ideological basis for worker's revolution lose legitimacy. The other might be because governments cracked down on them.
Ok so the difference between Muslims and Arabs in the US and Europe-
There is a good explanation- part of it is that the Muslim population in the Europe is more ethnically homogenius, and that many were laborers looking for work. In contrast most many of the Muslims and Arabs in the US were upper class or professionals who are looking for new opportunities for themselves and their children. Secondly, the recent immigration of Muslims to the US (often Asians more than Arabs) have benefitted from the victories won during the US Civil Rights movement and thus notions of discrimination as a social concept have been deligitimized. For an example- much of the US South has moved away from deepingly held social discrimination against blacks. In Europe there was no civil rights movement perhaps because you didn't need one. There's a difference.
But you guys are to damn lazy to figure it out. WHy? Because it's too much work?
Going off and saying that all the radicalism in the US is gone because of McCarthism is just silly. You are neglecting that the 1960s was a strong rise in radical ideologies that surpassed that of the rather conservative 1950s. The McCarthy movement was less a social movement against communist than a opportunistic politicians use of fear and prejudice to gain political advantage- a phenomena similar to what you in Europe saw in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. And least we forget, in the 1960s and 70s we had groups of radical and violent blacks, students, and reactionary groups.
And there is a further point I am making- If you are to preach that the US is bad, than you should at least acknowledge-
(1) Europe has done similar things
(2) Europe benefits from US policies.
I really appreciate the liberal values that Europe has shown, and I believe that it's possible to create a better world through dialogue and not violence. So when Alec goes off and says- you guys need another 9/11 as a wake up call- that's an advocation of virtues of violence- and if that's a common cry among Europeans, than you are much better than the terrorists who act on those values?
Both are advocating violence against ordinary people who are neither more responsible or blameworthy than you are.
Has Europe done good things in the world? Of course. Terrible things too. But if you are going to take a stand that Europe is high and mighty and the new Europe is better than the current America- than let's see some proof.
Sander- if you don't have the time, then don't make the argument. Are muslims, monolithic? No. They come from many different places. That might be one of the reasons the Muslim population in the US is different than that of Europe. Many Muslims in the US come from Southeast Asia, and many of the Arabs are not Muslims. Furthermore a large population of our Muslim population are African-Americans who converted or come from a family of converts- the Black Muslim phenomena.
However, that does not dispute a couple things that the links pointed out. Including that - where Muslims are generally seeing themselves as marginalized, American muslims don't. In fact the Arab population has done very well for itself in the US.
My points are simple on this issue-
(1) If Muslims are being radicalized in Europe, than it might be worth while in figuring out why?
(2) If Muslims are feeling marginalized in Europe but not in the US, why?
(3) Could the reasons that Muslims become radicalized in Europe have anything to do with the inequalities of European society?
Painful thoughts to Europeans no doubt, but don't you think it's worth consideration? Because it certainly is worth it in the US. I knew a muslim fellow in New York who was becoming radicalized (and trying to draw in this really hot paki girl). But much of that had to do with his own defensivenss of culture and identity within the melting pot of cultures that is New York. I knew another guy who was fairly radical at my U, an Iranian fellow who somehow mixed marxism with islam. But that might have something to do with him being very lonely.
I am not saying Muslims have suffered under the current administration. To some extent that's a consequence of 9/11 and the expansion of the security state. But as social bias? No. In fact the increase in hate crimes against Muslims in the US has been virtually insignificant since 9-11.
And one thing I notice-
When this issue is raised you folks go off and say-
(1) the studies are all biased- yeah right.
(2) it's the same thing in the US- no, that's wrong.
So there is a guy instinct at being defensive- why? Is it so hard to be reflective?
And that's the point I am making to Alec- Europe, if it wants to lead has to be both more responsible and reflective. But you guys won't even reflect on this issue. Why not? The best you do is deny a problem- well ok, Kharn is at least trying to explain it. But you guys it's just a gut reaction that says "Not true!" And then you make a short-sighted comment about McCarthiesm? Are you telling me radicals weren't wiped out at point in Spain during Franco, in much of Europe either after World War 2 or during? Remember, most of the resistance movements in World War 2 were communist movements- so what happened to them afterwards? One answer- Europe's prosperity after World War 2 made the ideological basis for worker's revolution lose legitimacy. The other might be because governments cracked down on them.
Ok so the difference between Muslims and Arabs in the US and Europe-
There is a good explanation- part of it is that the Muslim population in the Europe is more ethnically homogenius, and that many were laborers looking for work. In contrast most many of the Muslims and Arabs in the US were upper class or professionals who are looking for new opportunities for themselves and their children. Secondly, the recent immigration of Muslims to the US (often Asians more than Arabs) have benefitted from the victories won during the US Civil Rights movement and thus notions of discrimination as a social concept have been deligitimized. For an example- much of the US South has moved away from deepingly held social discrimination against blacks. In Europe there was no civil rights movement perhaps because you didn't need one. There's a difference.
But you guys are to damn lazy to figure it out. WHy? Because it's too much work?
Going off and saying that all the radicalism in the US is gone because of McCarthism is just silly. You are neglecting that the 1960s was a strong rise in radical ideologies that surpassed that of the rather conservative 1950s. The McCarthy movement was less a social movement against communist than a opportunistic politicians use of fear and prejudice to gain political advantage- a phenomena similar to what you in Europe saw in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. And least we forget, in the 1960s and 70s we had groups of radical and violent blacks, students, and reactionary groups.
And there is a further point I am making- If you are to preach that the US is bad, than you should at least acknowledge-
(1) Europe has done similar things
(2) Europe benefits from US policies.
I really appreciate the liberal values that Europe has shown, and I believe that it's possible to create a better world through dialogue and not violence. So when Alec goes off and says- you guys need another 9/11 as a wake up call- that's an advocation of virtues of violence- and if that's a common cry among Europeans, than you are much better than the terrorists who act on those values?
Both are advocating violence against ordinary people who are neither more responsible or blameworthy than you are.
Has Europe done good things in the world? Of course. Terrible things too. But if you are going to take a stand that Europe is high and mighty and the new Europe is better than the current America- than let's see some proof.
Of course.
Indeed.
Now here you go in a completely different way. This is in fact a sub-question of number 1. Stick to number one, and ask yourself IF Arabs are becoming radicalised in Europe, or if they go to Europe after being radicalised because they have more freedom. Once you solve that problem, look on.
Bullshit. That's not what was being said, what was being said was that there were no ACTUAL studies. There were suppositions, and some rhetoric to accompany it, but no actual facts: cold hard numbers, percentages actual interviews: none of that has been produced. That's vastly different from saying that a study is biased.
No. I've said that what you claimed in that piece of text I just quoted there was no difference whatsoever between the USA and Europe. I have NOT said that everything is the same, neither has Kharn.
And I wholeheartedly agree. But you claim that that's not happening, while there are huge and lively debates going on about what should happen. The most controversial and most watched minster in our country is the minister of integration.
Not true.
Again: not true. I have commented a bit on the things you said in your posts that I felt were wrong. This in no way means that I don't give it any thought, and you must also have noticed that I didn't comment on major parts of your posts. This signifies that i do agree with you on some points
Shut up, welsh. Have you not noticed the complete lack of any support for any radicals in the USA? The general; feeling from all Americans seems to be that moderation is the best way, and this has its effects. What I was saying was that Europe was the only place where radicals could exist and come from, because of the nature of other places.
Did I say that? And since when were we talking about WW2 Europe?
Also, you must remember that right after WW2 the radical movement in Europe was huge. Intellectuals denied, excused or marginalised the communist murders and many countries had a huge communist grouping. Rebels in Greece, one quarter of the votes in both Spain and France. This has a lot to do with WW2 and the role of the radicals, but it also has much to do with the general view of radicals in other countries.
They became influential movements right after the war, and they stayed like that, right until now. The USA has nothing like Greens, Extreme Right Parties, communist parties or socialist parties, so don't say that radicals have (mostly)dissappeared, because this is far removed from the truth.
Indeed. People lost their will to support radicals, in light of the prosperity they gained, and a lot of the people living during WW2 supported the Americans without question because they had been liberated by them. This obedience was questioned throughout the sixties and it was one of the main points of the sixties' revolutionary movements.
But this is just Western Europe, where a free world was allowed to flourish. In Eastern Europe everything was vastly different: radicals were killed because of stalinization, and whenever a radical movement gained a bit of steam after Stalin, it was again repressed, one way or another. When viewing the situation in Europe you inevitably talk about the Western countries that were free, ignoring Spain, Portugal and the Eastern bloc.
We never did need one, no. Segregation and discrimination have never been legitimate since immigrants started to come here.
One thing to note is that immigrants coming here were coming here because we felt we needed them: we didn't have enough simle labourers; everyone seemed to e educated and unwilling to do the things these men were willing to do.
It was also a way of escape for many of the migrants, the migrants generally came from a poor and backwards part of the environment and this can be clearly seen. The muslims that came to this country came from regional places, not from big cities. They valued their traditions and religions much more highly, and they guarded them fiercely. This has caused a mojor conflict with the western world, mostly in the form of the children. The children come to public -places, to schools and such, and they see that their western compatriots have much more freedom, and they ask themselves why they should not have that, and they rebel against their parents. This isn't helping. But that's mostly the females, the males show a completely double moral.
They behave neatly and appropriately in front of their parents, while going loose on the streets. The allochtones that come in the news are almost always seen as margin groupings, stupid children, and many allochtones think that their children don't do these things. Often the kids that do these things, who rob people for instance, are very neat at home but are not watched outside of the home and their parents don't know what they are doing. Parents are often shocked to hear what their kids have done, if they don't just deny it.
These are all problems in integration, and there are many more, and it's probable that the situation in the USA is different, probably because of the kinds of people that go there.
McCarthyism was an example: radicalism has had a very weak history in the USA, and it is generally not accepted. This is even seen in the voting system in the USA; there is no place for radicals.
I do acknowledge these things. But that doesn't mean I agree with what the USA is doing.
You need to realise one thing: many people in Europe see the USA as bad. A couple of days ago I show a short documentary about it, where the ex-president of one of the leading marketing firms in the USA has seen a huge rise in anti-Americanism after the 9/11 attacks and Bush's reactions to it. He mainly blames this on the actions of the government, and he feels that the USA needs to start a form of marketing campaign to fix this. Apparently even American brands are suffering, in Berlin, he claimed, there were ten establishments that refused to serve coca-cola and went to a European brand instead.
Realise that the current reputation of the USA in Europe is extremely poor, but also realise that this is not unjust: the USA has not been behaving appropriately for this day and age. Europe has done similiar things, and Europe is benefitting from the US's actions, but this doesn't mean that people don't see this and this doesn't mean that people agree with the USA's actions either.
Alec is bullshitting. Europeans feel that the USA needs to wake up and see what goes on around them, but they don't feel that three-thousand people should die for this to happen.
Hah. No. We cry that the USA is doing terrible things, but this doesn't mean that the people don't cry just as hard when their governments do these same things. Realise that what governments do is often not what people want.
Spain, for instance, had many men in Iraq, while the people didn't want them. New elections came, and they were pulled out. IN other words: the people have shown there that they are acting upon what they think is better.
This is not Saddam
The man the Americans are parading is not the real Saddam Hussein
When a liar is clever and careful, he is convincing because he is plausible and covers all his tracks. However, the longer the lie is spun out, the more clues are left. The Bush regime has been neither clever, nor careful nor plausible in its disastrous foreign policy, which culminates in parading a "Saddam" before the cameras who is certainly not the real Saddam Hussein, ex-President of Iraq.
The first attempts at justifying the illegal act of butchery called the Second Gulf War started in December 2002 when documents were forged by British and American intelligence operationals, trying to create a link between Niger and Baghdad, which was supposed to be buying yellowcake uranium for its "active nuclear programme". In the event, Mohammed El Baradei, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saw the scam when the papers were presented to him. He said the letterhead was wrong, the names were wrong and the signatures were wrong. Those who showed the papers to him maintained a sullen and embarrassed silence and the issue was forgotten.
Suddenly, Washington stopped talking about Baghdad's "active nuclear programme" and concentrated instead on its Weapons of Mass Destruction and its chemical and biological warfare programme.
"Magnificent intelligence" was presented by Colin Powell at the UN Security Council, complete with maquettes and satellite photographs of "mobile chemical facilities". Soon afterwards, when the international UNMOVIC teams were unable to find the WMD, the Bush administration declared that "we know where they are".
So the act of butchery was launched. In the event, no weapons of mass destruction were found, nor even the production facilities and certainly no active nuclear programme. However, since nobody has spoken about these lies for a year, public opinion has forgotten them.
Next was the story of the murder of Saddam Hussein's sons, Ouday and Qusay, who were mysteriously together (when common sense would tell them to split up) with another man and a boy in a farmstead in the middle of a plain west of Baghdad. The story went as follows: hundreds of troops and a fleet of helicopter gunships finally killed the four after several hours of fighting.
This story sounded like the child trying to justify the fact that he had forgotten his homework, claiming that the dog ate it, the house caught fire and that someone stole his school bag on the way into the classroom. The photographs were not shown to the public immediately and when they did appear, Iraqis across the country shook their heads in disbelief, claiming that these were not Saddam's sons.
Then came the pictures of the hitherto clean-shaven, articulate, educated and proud Saddam Hussein, crawling out of a hole, disheveled, bearded and dirty, supposedly in December but with the date trees laden with mature fruits, which only takes place in August in that part of the world. Another strange occurrence.
The supposed Saddam was shown by an unconvincing Paul Bremer who declared "Ladies and Gentlemen, (pause) we got him!" The pause was telling, an unsaid "I am going to tell a lie". When the ex-President of Iraq's wife was taken to Qatar to see him, she burst out laughing and immediately said that this
was not her husband. Had the Americans fallen for their own trap, or were a small group of Americans fooling the others?
Curiously, the Saddam shown by the Americans has a long beard after capture and continues to wear an unruly beard now, whereas Saddam Hussein the president was always clean-shaven and with a moustache. Why the beard now? To hide the fact that he is not the real Saddam? To hide the jaw line?
Now, the Holy Grail is offered by Joe Vialls, who sent his article "Shaddam Shaddam's new Vaudeville Scam" to Pravda.Ru this morning. In this piece he points out that all photographers were banned from photographing "Saddam" in court for security reasons but then the CNN arrived in the person of
Christiane Amanpour, who immediately started shooting hundreds of metres of video footage, which was then transformed into stills.
Here was the mistake. As Mr. Vialls points out, the real Saddam Hussein had a fine set of teeth, completely even, in which the upper jaw closed over the lower (overbite). The figure paraded in court, as it is easy to see, has highly irregular lower teeth and a condition called "underbite", when the lower teeth close in front of the upper.
Touche. Dental records cannot lie. The set of teeth of the President of Iraq and the set of teeth of the man paraded before the cameras pretending to be Saddam Hussein are wholly and totally different.
The man they have in court is not the real Saddam Hussein. Yet another lie by this Bush administration is exposed. How much lower can this clique of criminals sink?
The man the Americans are parading is not the real Saddam Hussein
When a liar is clever and careful, he is convincing because he is plausible and covers all his tracks. However, the longer the lie is spun out, the more clues are left. The Bush regime has been neither clever, nor careful nor plausible in its disastrous foreign policy, which culminates in parading a "Saddam" before the cameras who is certainly not the real Saddam Hussein, ex-President of Iraq.
The first attempts at justifying the illegal act of butchery called the Second Gulf War started in December 2002 when documents were forged by British and American intelligence operationals, trying to create a link between Niger and Baghdad, which was supposed to be buying yellowcake uranium for its "active nuclear programme". In the event, Mohammed El Baradei, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saw the scam when the papers were presented to him. He said the letterhead was wrong, the names were wrong and the signatures were wrong. Those who showed the papers to him maintained a sullen and embarrassed silence and the issue was forgotten.
Suddenly, Washington stopped talking about Baghdad's "active nuclear programme" and concentrated instead on its Weapons of Mass Destruction and its chemical and biological warfare programme.
"Magnificent intelligence" was presented by Colin Powell at the UN Security Council, complete with maquettes and satellite photographs of "mobile chemical facilities". Soon afterwards, when the international UNMOVIC teams were unable to find the WMD, the Bush administration declared that "we know where they are".
So the act of butchery was launched. In the event, no weapons of mass destruction were found, nor even the production facilities and certainly no active nuclear programme. However, since nobody has spoken about these lies for a year, public opinion has forgotten them.
Next was the story of the murder of Saddam Hussein's sons, Ouday and Qusay, who were mysteriously together (when common sense would tell them to split up) with another man and a boy in a farmstead in the middle of a plain west of Baghdad. The story went as follows: hundreds of troops and a fleet of helicopter gunships finally killed the four after several hours of fighting.
This story sounded like the child trying to justify the fact that he had forgotten his homework, claiming that the dog ate it, the house caught fire and that someone stole his school bag on the way into the classroom. The photographs were not shown to the public immediately and when they did appear, Iraqis across the country shook their heads in disbelief, claiming that these were not Saddam's sons.
Then came the pictures of the hitherto clean-shaven, articulate, educated and proud Saddam Hussein, crawling out of a hole, disheveled, bearded and dirty, supposedly in December but with the date trees laden with mature fruits, which only takes place in August in that part of the world. Another strange occurrence.
The supposed Saddam was shown by an unconvincing Paul Bremer who declared "Ladies and Gentlemen, (pause) we got him!" The pause was telling, an unsaid "I am going to tell a lie". When the ex-President of Iraq's wife was taken to Qatar to see him, she burst out laughing and immediately said that this
was not her husband. Had the Americans fallen for their own trap, or were a small group of Americans fooling the others?
Curiously, the Saddam shown by the Americans has a long beard after capture and continues to wear an unruly beard now, whereas Saddam Hussein the president was always clean-shaven and with a moustache. Why the beard now? To hide the fact that he is not the real Saddam? To hide the jaw line?
Now, the Holy Grail is offered by Joe Vialls, who sent his article "Shaddam Shaddam's new Vaudeville Scam" to Pravda.Ru this morning. In this piece he points out that all photographers were banned from photographing "Saddam" in court for security reasons but then the CNN arrived in the person of
Christiane Amanpour, who immediately started shooting hundreds of metres of video footage, which was then transformed into stills.
Here was the mistake. As Mr. Vialls points out, the real Saddam Hussein had a fine set of teeth, completely even, in which the upper jaw closed over the lower (overbite). The figure paraded in court, as it is easy to see, has highly irregular lower teeth and a condition called "underbite", when the lower teeth close in front of the upper.
Touche. Dental records cannot lie. The set of teeth of the President of Iraq and the set of teeth of the man paraded before the cameras pretending to be Saddam Hussein are wholly and totally different.
The man they have in court is not the real Saddam Hussein. Yet another lie by this Bush administration is exposed. How much lower can this clique of criminals sink?
Someone's buying into the extreme left-wing conspiracy theories a little too much.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No...someone's just a dumbass nOOb.
welsh
Junkmaster
Actually I had heard a similiar argument from someone who used to be Army Intelligence in the middle east that Saddam used to have so many "look alikes" that it was nearly impossible to tell who the real Saddam is.
You saw some of this when the news was covering how difficult it was to find Saddam.
But the case may get more interesting. According to this person, a former student, the theory is that the real Saddam got whacked during the Clinton years in one of Bill Clinton's retaliatory strikes. But the Baath Party kept parading around Saddam look alikes. Since no one could tell the difference, the look-alikes were used as figureheads to control the regime while the Baath Party elite continued to make the real decisions.
Well that was the theory- I'm not really buying it.
You saw some of this when the news was covering how difficult it was to find Saddam.
But the case may get more interesting. According to this person, a former student, the theory is that the real Saddam got whacked during the Clinton years in one of Bill Clinton's retaliatory strikes. But the Baath Party kept parading around Saddam look alikes. Since no one could tell the difference, the look-alikes were used as figureheads to control the regime while the Baath Party elite continued to make the real decisions.
Well that was the theory- I'm not really buying it.
welsh
Junkmaster
Sander said:
But number 1is true, than 3 is may be a plausible causal reason. Agreed, there is the question as to whether the Muslims were radicalized before coming to Europe. But, assuming the articles cited are correct, and that they weren’t (and let’s be honest- most muslims from upper class families are not), than don’t you think that this hypothesis that you are arguing “Muslims have more freedom” might not be true. If muslims in the US are enjoying similar or more freedom than Muslims in France, and the citations above suggest that, than perhaps the question of inequalities is meaningful. Why do you assume that Muslims are becoming radicalized because they are “more free.” Might that “more free” argument plus entrenched inequalities in Europe be the mix of causal forces that creates fanaticism?
Or are you so bold as to dismiss a hypothesis without testing it?
NO Sander, that is what is being said. If you want more studies on the problems of Muslims in Europe I can find them for you. When I look for problems concerning Muslims in the US I find a few articles citing recent discrimination against Muslim by the government, but I don’t find entrenched marginalization or inequalities in society.
The articles I have cited thus far, and which I can find, are based on empirical research on European society. That what you are reading is the conclusions drawn from those studies is perfectly relevant.
Now if you can cite arguments or statistics to the contrary, I’d like to see it. I have present and can present enough evidence and argument from scholarly experts that shifts the burden of persuasion to you. Despites some flimsy efforts to discount those studies (unless you are calling all those studies frauds), you have yet to cite any positive evidence to the contrary.
Why?
And no offence but I have spent time looking for research on stuff that is not germane to what I am actually studying, so don’t ask me to spend more time looking at sources or the references and summaries of sources that you will just dismiss out of hand. You really need to make your case.
Actually I have not claimed that the US and Europe is the same. I have actually said that the life of most Arabs and Muslims in the US is better than in Europe. Part of the argument can be found in the type of immigrants that have come to the US. We have more upperwardly mobile professionals while you have more laborers. It could be access to educational facilities, or it could be density of immigrants- Your Muslim population is much more significant than ours and does look a lot more like our Latin American population. That said, a large part of our Muslim population is Black Muslims, which are different.
That said, the problem is that you are not examining where the differences lie. And that’s a big problem for Europe. True, 9/11 was more catastrophic than anything that has been visited in Europe, but Europe has been struck by muslim terrorism and these were terrorists not bankrolled by Osama Bin Laden.
And those debates lead where? Really? I am curious to hear what those debates are leading to- not from the point of an argument but for information.
The last thing that was posted here on Islam in Europe was whether Turkey should get into the EU and whether French muslim girls can wear headscarves in the classroom.
Again, one of the points of this has been that there is a glaring preoccupation among Europeans at pointing fingers at the US without realizing that-
(1) they are partially responsible for the problems of the world as well as the US
(2) they have done fairly little in response to those problems
(3) They don’t seem to reflect on that and that they generally stand to gain from US policies.
Do you think that’s true?
You will mind that I have yet to respond to you like that, and you will also note who you are speaking to.
I might also say that may be evidence of your own denial.
Again, nonsense. We have had plenty of radicals in the US. That they get often get drowned out in discourse is merely a case of free speech in action. Free speech allows radicals to be moderated in response by opposing and more moderate lines.
And again, proof? What proof do you have that the US is without radicals. And this argument that McCarthism killed them all denies the radicalism of the 1960s and 70s which reflect a bit of short-sightedness. SO that’s bullshit.
Could it be, perhaps, that many of the revolutionary leaders that were radicalized in Europe were from upper classed members from colonies. These people went to Europe to study, became radicalized there because of the glaring disparities between their colonial homes and the opulence of Europe and because of the education they received.
So it was taking advantage of educational opportunities originating from colonial relationships, not “There were no other places?” Do you need the names of some of these leaders?
McCarthy’s red scare is in the early to mid 1950s, about the same time that radicals are being crushed in Europe.
Point is that Europe largely crushed the radical movements following World War 2. In fact it has more to do with the prosperity of rebuilding Europe that de-legitimized communist movements at that time. Considering the economic opportunities and prosperity, calls for violent revolution went unheeded. Even where left-wing parties have come to power, their actual policies have been much more moderate than a radical might espouse.
Why? Could it be that Europe had the opportunity to rebuild. I honestly don’t think the Marshal Plan had much to do with that, because as large as the Marshal Plan was for that time, it was mostly indigenous capital formation that paid off, provided some capital flowed. So I would credit more private capital and public. But that said, the fact that the US was willing to pay for the military costs of security allowed Europeans to invest in social services and infrastructure.
Which again, was the same in the US. The 1960s was a questioning of the status quo raised, in large part, to the Vietnam War but also due to the Civil Rights Movement, which predated the massive involvement in Vietnam.
But that’s where there is a difference. In the US we had a Civil Rights Movement and so social prejudices and discrimination against minorities has generally socially de-legitimized. Of course it still happens, because individuals can still privately hold prejudicial views. I would go so far as to argue that it still exists institutionally, from the state, but the state has learned better how to hide it.
But that seems to be a critical difference for Muslims in the US and in Europe. Having gone through a civil rights movement with significant social change due to reflection, Muslims and Arabs receive less social discrimination today than they might have 50 years ago. That’s a plausible explanation for the difference between Muslims in the US and Europe today.
That’s true because those are the histories that we are primarily concerned with here. Is there a large muslim problem in Poland? In the Czech Republic?
Among which generation? Among the young who look at the immigrants as stealing jobs from them, or among the older folks who look at the immigrants as a source of danger to their notion of being good Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, Swiss?
In Brazil there was no civil rights movement because the country denies there is a discrimination problem. Certain laws exist so that if you call a person of color a derogatory word, you can go to jail. Of course the problem there is that free speech includes all speech, not just “politically correct speech.”
So the Brazilians think there is no discrimination and they tell themselves this. But if you look at the class background and who has the best jobs and who is poor. One finds something interesting. The wealthiest elites and the most of the upper and middle classes are largely white, most of the poor are black. Those who have better education- white, those who don’t black. Is there a race problem in that society?
Now again, the Arab population in the US is one of the highest earning ethnic groups in the US. Muslims are more divided between those who were born in the US and recent immigrants. Some Muslims have done very well and immigrants and their families have had advantages for reaching upper classes. Black Muslims have generally fared less well.
Let’s look at the European Muslim and Arab communities- are they more like the US?(which acknowledges racial and ethnic discrimination) or are they more like Brazil (which denies it has a marginalized population)?
Thus the point made earlier. The demographics are different.
And yet, what you are referring to in the US looks more like the Latin population, and even in that population we don’t see the fanaticism or terrorism.
Do we have Latin gangs- yes. We also have black gangs.
But do we have political terror networks? No.
Why?
I am tempted to say that part of that reason may have to do with the role of the Mosque. In the US black civil rights often got started around the church because it was a means of overcoming collective action problems. In Europe the mosque might be serving a similar purpose. But that would not explain terrorist violence.
But if so, than it pays to ask ourselves why do Mosques play these rolls? Could it be that mosques are offering services to Muslims that society and state are not? But then how does violence originate?
OK, two points then-
(1) Does radicalism have a weak history in the US. Perhaps. I think it might but this may have more to do with levels of urbanization in the US compared to Europe. But I am not sure if the radical movement is smaller compared to Europe, but it might be weaker vis-à-vis the wider society.
(2) If radicalism is weaker in the US than in Europe- why?
One argument might be education- but in the US the tenor system has allowed radical academics to stay on the job despite their arguments. Likewise, radical intellectuals are often very popular in the US because of their insights into debates.
Could it be because of political repression- well since 9/11 perhaps. When an old guy can get in trouble with the FBI for speaking about the cruelty of US bombings, than we have reason to worry.
Before that? Well the key cases in constitutional law regarding free speech concern primarily political speech. The standards for the type of speech that can get you in trouble with the law are very protective of the speech rights of individuals.
OK, so party-wise- well if you ignore that we have had a communist party in the US and then there is Lyndon Larouche, we also have a weak Green Party, Libertarian party and a few others. Meaningful parties, no. Religious movements, yes we have had those too.
But if no radicalism in the US, then you have to ask why? If they were not repressed and if they have not suffered for political speech, could it be that radicals have found the US to be unfertile ground in part because their arguments have little sway over a rather content and prosperous society?
Which goes back to the point. IF the Europeans have been doing the same thing as the Americans, or have been benefiting from American policies, than is merely whipping the US as the “bad guys” a case of denial of your own culpability?
I would hope not.
As stated here before I see much of the US response following 9-11 as an over-response from a society that has suddenly attacked, a violent surprise. Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor there was reason to believe that war was coming. But 9-11 came out of virtually no-where. Attacks in Africa and the Middle East were seen as local attack. The 9-11 attacks were shocking, not only for the damage but for the government’s inability to have stopped this kind of thing.
It’s no wonder that Bush has been covering his ass on this since the incident happened.
But again, that’s part of the problem. Look, Sander, let’s say that the US was not to get involved in trying to stabilize the price of oil, and the price of oil shot up- perhaps the fall of Saudi Arabia, perhaps a choice by the government of Iraq. Then your cost of living becomes more expensive so that you are spending more of your paycheck than you used to on basic consumables. Don’t you think that most of the Europeans would scream bloody murder about it? Don’t you think your politicians would be obligated to act?
That’s how people vote their conscience. Much of the developed world profits from the poverty of the undeveloped. Do you think that most people would be willing to sacrifice their living standards for the prosperity of the rest of the world? I doubt it.
Thus governments often do what the people really want, even if the people don’t have to shout it out. The government knows that to stay in power it must keep the people satisfied. It is that satisfaction that leads to the impoverishment of much of the world.
They pulled out because the terrorists learned that if you blow up a train in Spain you can convince the people to pull out because the world is full of free riders.
Free-riders- people who benefit from a collective good without having to pay for it.
So the terrorists have gotten into the habit- if you don’t want us to kill your national, you will withdraw your soldiers. If you don’t want us to kill your colleague, you will withdraw your company.
Smart really. IF you want people who are contributing to a collective good, you provide them a particular cost to that individual participation, and they are more likely to defect.
If muslims are becoming radical because they are staying in Europe, then yes, this may be the case.
But the hypothesis that they have more freedom stems from the fact that a lot of radical preaching is actually allowed here. Although under public protest at times, no one looks in the mosques to see what is being preached, and there are several radical imams who have lived in Europe for a couple of years, most notably the leader of the Arabian Army (I think....) in Sweden.
Flamebait.
But I am not dismissing, as you should have noticed.I'm not asking you to, and I've read most of what has been cited (not everything, no, but I will), and so far, I haven't come across facts. What I have come across is conclusions, and that's something I sincerely dislike: I prefer to draw my own conclusions from facts.
You're not reading what I said. I said that you claimed in that bit of texts that muslims had it BETTER in the USA. And in that bit of text you gave a lot of examples for that statement, but those things you took as examples do not differ from what is the case in Europe. THAT is what I was saying.
I think that my participation in this debate shows that I am figuring out differences, and I've named quite a few of them in the past post as well.
I can only speak for the Netherlands, of course, but here these debates have recently lead to a much stronger immigrants policy, and the authorities being more attentive to the feelings among the muslims and trying to infiltrate several muslim mosques and communities that might pose a threat.
Turkey in the EU has very little to do with their being muslim, it is never even discussed or brought up in any of the debates or documentaries I've seen.
But we post very little about muslims in Europe, mainly because most of these policies are simply limited to people's own country, and therefore not interesting to debate here.
Partially and for a part of the people. You can't just generalise about a group of a population with such harsh words, especially not in a diverse region as Europe.
However, it is obvious that the EU is responsible for the world's problems as well, and I'm quite certain that most Europeans know this.
I think that number 2 is what most people do realise, which is why they go out and protest, for instance, against the occupation of Iraq by forces from their countries.
As for 3, they don't, no. That's probably because most people here want to be moral when they think about foreign policies. If they realise at all that they stand to gain from US policies, they usually say that they don't want to gain from policies that they don't agree with.
I apologise, welsh.
Though you shouldn't be calling on your prerogative as a mod in a debate.
Yes, you have had plenty of radicals, but they don't get to do anything because they can't. It's absolutely impossible for them to gain any form of political importance because of the way the electoral system works.
The fact that your voting system is so horribly limited that there isn't a single people's representative who isn't either democratic or republican.
Again: that's not what I claimed. I never claimed that McCarthyism killed them all, I claimed that McCarthyism was an example of how radicals are simply not welcome.
What time period are you talking about, exactly? I'm assuming 20th century time period right now.
In any case, you seem to be mixing a lot of different things now. You're comparing the radicalisation of colonial seperation leaders (on which I don't completely agree, you neglected to mention the effect of rising nationalism and the awareness that the colonial oppressor was not unbeatable) with modern day muslim radicals in Europe.
That seems, to me at least, to be a rather bad comparison.
So that's what you were talking about.
Okay, yes, that is what I'm saying. While they were repressed, they were not destroyed, and they continued to exist continually. In the Netherlands we've always had some form of communist, socialist and social-democratic party, until recently.
The only parties that were really really gone were fascist parties. No-one wanted to have anything to do with them anymore.
Yes, because we have differences between social-democratic and social-revolutionary parties. Parties that come to power, to real major power, are rarely radicals, they are almost always moderated by a coalition with other moderates.
But I disagree, I don't think that radical parties have ever been crushed, because they have continued to exist, and they have continued to make a difference in politics.
ANd that gave rise to social-democratic power, which, ironically, probably killed the need for radical socialist power.
I don't know, really. I doubt it, because there never was reason for such a movement in Western Europe. Muslims and blacks were, after the Second World War, never actually discriminated, and discrimination has never become socially acceptable.
Nope. But I believe Portugal and Spain, former fascist countries, do.
Those are margin groupings, having barely any meaning. There isn't a single seat in parliament in the Netherlands for ANY form of discriminating party. The party for Parties or the party for animals has more influence than any random discriminating party.
Several countries do have significant groupings, of course, like France, Belgium and Austria, but Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and other countries don't. I think that discrimination has only been an issue for a decade at the most, and then only in a few countries.
[qutoe]So the Brazilians think there is no discrimination and they tell themselves this. But if you look at the class background and who has the best jobs and who is poor. One finds something interesting. The wealthiest elites and the most of the upper and middle classes are largely white, most of the poor are black. Those who have better education- white, those who don’t black. Is there a race problem in that society?
Now again, the Arab population in the US is one of the highest earning ethnic groups in the US. Muslims are more divided between those who were born in the US and recent immigrants. Some Muslims have done very well and immigrants and their families have had advantages for reaching upper classes. Black Muslims have generally fared less well.
Let’s look at the European Muslim and Arab communities- are they more like the US?(which acknowledges racial and ethnic discrimination) or are they more like Brazil (which denies it has a marginalized population)? [/quote]
Neither. Really, most countries don't have a discriminatory problem. At all. And I'm not denying a fact, there are always people who discriminate, but they are an extremely small group.
Yep.
Because they have no means to become political terror networks. Do you really think the blacks in the ghettos have any means to establish political networks? From what I hear, all they do is try to survive.
It would, actually. A lot depends on the imam. There are mosques with peaceful, and there are mosques with violent imams.
But if so, than it pays to ask ourselves why do Mosques play these rolls? Could it be that mosques are offering services to Muslims that society and state are not? But then how does violence originate?
They play a role because they are a center of religion and religous education. Muslims are muslims because they follow a religion, as such they go to their religious center: the mosque.
I personally think that it may not be smaller, but that it is much more powerless.
I think it's due to the nature of your electoral system. In the electoral system there is no room for radicals, so why would you be one? It would make no sense to a lot of people.
As well as that, being a democrat or a republican is probably partially home-bred. Due to the extremely long history of these parties, I'm tempted to say that a lot of Americans probably don't even think about voting and supporting anything other than the Democratic or Republican party.
Yes, but, as I said, they can never offer any form of actual political power.
I think part of it is not political repression, but more the feelings towards communists during the Cold War, and the post-9/11 fears.
I know that the laws don't allow for punishment because of thought, and rightly so, but I think that peer pressure and social environment matter a lot.
This can even be seen in the 19th century utopian socialist villages where factory owners would sometimes house their workers. A lot of workers in one of those villages in Rotterdam left because of the immense amount of peer pressure and social control. Things like that can play a huge role in people's lives.
See above.
*blinks*
Are you really that proud of your country? The USA has a really large amount of so-called ghettos, and the USA is surprisingly low on the index of quality of life. This argument can hold no ground, because there are more radical people from countries with a higher quality of life. Belgium, for instance, has a high quality of live, but a quarter of the electorate supporting a fascist party.
That depends entirely on the person who is doing it.
*nods*
Thou art preaching to the choir.
Indeed.
However, you're claiming that Europeans are all a bunch of hypocrites. Except for some of the smart ones, they are, in part. But most countries also have a significant group of people who do protest and who do want their government to change what they want the USA to change.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
This is a big part, but the biggest part is just who you let in. Here, we let in relatives and people who want to make a living in a better economy. You guys let in political refugees (ie fundies). Thus, combined with you're social welfare system, you get the lazy fundies while we get the hard working people.
Heh. Not true. The first stream of immigrants were all hard working people, but they all came from the regional centres, as I've said before, where the importance given to religion is much greater. Most people from Istanbul can't relate to a lot of the Turks living in this country because those Turks come from regional places.
Also, we do let family members come, but that was one of the major problems as well. So there has been a limitation to that.
As well as that, the fundies don't come in, because they are generally not the political refugees. The liberals are generally the political refugees, and most political refugee come from countries like Iran.
tl;dr
(apologies if any of the below has been mentioned/replied to)
Didn't and don't have time to follow this thread anymore, but I have a question. I've heard this whole "muslims are radicalized in Europe" bit many times before, but every time I hear it the only real example of people actually being raised in Europe getting out radicalized is 9/11.
"The people that flew the planes into the buildings were radicalized in Europe, y'know"
1. Not all of them
2. That was what? 17 people? Yeah, that's proof of a big ongoing trend
See, Europe has immigration issues, we're right next to the Middle East, we accept a lot of political refugees without much question, we don't integrate them well, etc. etc.
Just because a small number of our troubled people decide to fly into buildings while the oppressed masses in the US are too nice or powerless to do such a thing doesn't mean the US can look down its nose at us.
(apologies if any of the below has been mentioned/replied to)
Didn't and don't have time to follow this thread anymore, but I have a question. I've heard this whole "muslims are radicalized in Europe" bit many times before, but every time I hear it the only real example of people actually being raised in Europe getting out radicalized is 9/11.
"The people that flew the planes into the buildings were radicalized in Europe, y'know"
1. Not all of them
2. That was what? 17 people? Yeah, that's proof of a big ongoing trend
See, Europe has immigration issues, we're right next to the Middle East, we accept a lot of political refugees without much question, we don't integrate them well, etc. etc.
Just because a small number of our troubled people decide to fly into buildings while the oppressed masses in the US are too nice or powerless to do such a thing doesn't mean the US can look down its nose at us.
You know, one of the reasons Spain and Portugal have such a big Muslim population is because they took in many Arabs during the waning years of the Dark Ages and made them advisors of state, as they were far more educated than most Europeans at the time. Hence, why Spain and Portugal were so far ahead of other European nations for so long, as far as things like navigation and shipbuilding go.
Stampede said:
Ehm...
I think you've got your cause - result ties a bit messed up, and your general understanding of Iberian history seems a bit confused...
welsh
Junkmaster
Jebus- that's not much of an answer. You can post a bit more there if you try.
Kharn- ok, a couple of things
(1) While admittedly 9/11 was more catastrophic than what has happen in Europe, in Europe you have had numerically more terrorist attacks. What is striking about 9/11 is that it was done in the US, so many were suprised. Before that, I can think of perhaps only the 1993 WTC bombing as a major terrorist event (though I am fairly sure there were one or two others).
(2) You're right about the "we don't integrate them well" point but that's what I've been arguing
(3) You're point about the "while the oppressed masses in the US are too nice or powerless to do such a thing" is kind of silly for a couple of reasons.
- Considering the number of guns in this country, the number of militia and survivalist groups we've had, the whackos who live in Idaho, the Nazis, the Klan, and a few other organizations- for instance the JDL, the JDO a group of Puerto Rican revolutionaries (pretty quiet group) and the great number of ethnic groups involved in some organized crime (sometimes it seems almost every recent ethnic group has a gang)- there is no reason why any terrorist groups could not organize and function in the US.
That disputes your "oppressed masses" which don't exist, "or the too nice and powerless" argument- they are plenty powerful- the Jewish lobby is very strong, so is the Greek and the Cuban refugee. These ethnities are strong enough to influence US foreign policy.
SO that raises the question- if they don't undertake political violence, why not? It's not because they are not poor- there are plenty of ethnic groups that are poor and don't become terrorist.
Perhaps the causal reason is that, for the most part, they are not excluded from society, they are not marginalized and they can pursue their individual goals and climb the social ladder.
Terrorism as an act of violence loses it's legitimacy in a society if society, and especially those parts of society from which the terrorists originate, repudiate those acts and delegitimize violence as a means of political expression. Under those circumstances, terrorism is less likely to rise because it is not perceived as a righteous political act of expression. Why be violent when you can be non-violent? What are you trying to achieve a better life through violence when that life is not denied from you?
Sorry Kharn but your argument above makes no sense and is refuted by plenty of evidence.
Responding to Sander-
Yes, the US has ghettos, but to assume all Ghettos are African-American is silly. The notion that African-Americans are all members of a poor class is also wrong- there are plenty of African-Americans who are achieving higher class status today. However, due to unfair education endowments, I think African Americans are having it rougher. But I also think most of the poor are having a harder time social climbing today than 20 or 30 years ago.
I think your understanding of a church or a mosque as merely being a religious institution is a bit narrow. These are also political organizations- how those organizations motivate collectives of people can be very important. It's not a surprise that the Civil Rights movement's leadership was often religiously affiliated. Like wise militant Islam.
I generally agree that the electoral system limits who voters can vote for. But elections are only one means of political action. There have been others before- strikes, protests, underground news papers, radical papers, many forms of protest. And third parties do exist- Greens, Independents, Libertarians, Communists.
I would add that I think you may be blinding yourself on the idea of discrimination. Yes, everyone does, but if enough in a society discriminates against a black, or muslim or eastern european or latino, then you have a problem. Ignoring the problem- as in Brazil- or claiming we don't, is good PR, but might not be representative of society. As a turk who can't get a job in Germany that he's trained for if there is no discrimination, or a muslim in France?
Your thesis of "more freedom" also needs to be proven as well, in comparison. From what little I researched- the Dutch have been investigating Muslims before and after 9/11. But you are also arguing that Muslims lack that freedom here- sorry, but that doesn't hold, especially prior to 9/11.
Furthermore, your method needs to be tested. If muslims have a similar level of freedom in the US and in Europe- than that causal variable no longer holds up as a necessary or sufficent condition. Even granting you "freedom" plus large populations than you have to ask, why violence? Think about that logically- if Muslims were generally well off and integrated in society, would they commit acts of political violence.
Perhaps- most of your violent radicals in Europe, Latin American, the US and Asia have come from the middle classes. The 9/11 terrorists were all fairly well off, partially because they were Saudis, so then why become violent or why is violent seen as a legitimate means of political expression?
Kharn- ok, a couple of things
(1) While admittedly 9/11 was more catastrophic than what has happen in Europe, in Europe you have had numerically more terrorist attacks. What is striking about 9/11 is that it was done in the US, so many were suprised. Before that, I can think of perhaps only the 1993 WTC bombing as a major terrorist event (though I am fairly sure there were one or two others).
(2) You're right about the "we don't integrate them well" point but that's what I've been arguing
(3) You're point about the "while the oppressed masses in the US are too nice or powerless to do such a thing" is kind of silly for a couple of reasons.
- Considering the number of guns in this country, the number of militia and survivalist groups we've had, the whackos who live in Idaho, the Nazis, the Klan, and a few other organizations- for instance the JDL, the JDO a group of Puerto Rican revolutionaries (pretty quiet group) and the great number of ethnic groups involved in some organized crime (sometimes it seems almost every recent ethnic group has a gang)- there is no reason why any terrorist groups could not organize and function in the US.
That disputes your "oppressed masses" which don't exist, "or the too nice and powerless" argument- they are plenty powerful- the Jewish lobby is very strong, so is the Greek and the Cuban refugee. These ethnities are strong enough to influence US foreign policy.
SO that raises the question- if they don't undertake political violence, why not? It's not because they are not poor- there are plenty of ethnic groups that are poor and don't become terrorist.
Perhaps the causal reason is that, for the most part, they are not excluded from society, they are not marginalized and they can pursue their individual goals and climb the social ladder.
Terrorism as an act of violence loses it's legitimacy in a society if society, and especially those parts of society from which the terrorists originate, repudiate those acts and delegitimize violence as a means of political expression. Under those circumstances, terrorism is less likely to rise because it is not perceived as a righteous political act of expression. Why be violent when you can be non-violent? What are you trying to achieve a better life through violence when that life is not denied from you?
Sorry Kharn but your argument above makes no sense and is refuted by plenty of evidence.
Responding to Sander-
Yes, the US has ghettos, but to assume all Ghettos are African-American is silly. The notion that African-Americans are all members of a poor class is also wrong- there are plenty of African-Americans who are achieving higher class status today. However, due to unfair education endowments, I think African Americans are having it rougher. But I also think most of the poor are having a harder time social climbing today than 20 or 30 years ago.
I think your understanding of a church or a mosque as merely being a religious institution is a bit narrow. These are also political organizations- how those organizations motivate collectives of people can be very important. It's not a surprise that the Civil Rights movement's leadership was often religiously affiliated. Like wise militant Islam.
I generally agree that the electoral system limits who voters can vote for. But elections are only one means of political action. There have been others before- strikes, protests, underground news papers, radical papers, many forms of protest. And third parties do exist- Greens, Independents, Libertarians, Communists.
I would add that I think you may be blinding yourself on the idea of discrimination. Yes, everyone does, but if enough in a society discriminates against a black, or muslim or eastern european or latino, then you have a problem. Ignoring the problem- as in Brazil- or claiming we don't, is good PR, but might not be representative of society. As a turk who can't get a job in Germany that he's trained for if there is no discrimination, or a muslim in France?
Your thesis of "more freedom" also needs to be proven as well, in comparison. From what little I researched- the Dutch have been investigating Muslims before and after 9/11. But you are also arguing that Muslims lack that freedom here- sorry, but that doesn't hold, especially prior to 9/11.
Furthermore, your method needs to be tested. If muslims have a similar level of freedom in the US and in Europe- than that causal variable no longer holds up as a necessary or sufficent condition. Even granting you "freedom" plus large populations than you have to ask, why violence? Think about that logically- if Muslims were generally well off and integrated in society, would they commit acts of political violence.
Perhaps- most of your violent radicals in Europe, Latin American, the US and Asia have come from the middle classes. The 9/11 terrorists were all fairly well off, partially because they were Saudis, so then why become violent or why is violent seen as a legitimate means of political expression?
welsh said:
Yes, but who did those terrorist attacks?
Who did pretty much all muslim terrorist attacks?
Not Europeans, nuh-huh. I have seen no proof that 9/11 wasn't the exception that confirms the rule. Terrorist attacks worldwide seemed to stem from places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
welsh said:
Well nobody's going to deny that, unless he's an idiot, but the question remains how much of a problem is it, and moreso, how much of the blame for 9/11 can you Americans shove in European hands through that backdoor.
welsh said:
Perhaps because they can't organise. They're allowed to lobby, but that doesn't make them a political group. They're not allowed to incoporate themselves into the political system because of the electoral college.
Meanwhile, they're spread thin and wide throughout the US, without any means to unify.
In Europe, this is quite another case. Immigrants concentrate and form blocks of power in ways that the American political system simply does not allow. There are large muslim political party, noteable in Nort-West Europe, tho' most immigrants simply chose to vote for the older, more central parties (which is what seperates us from you, really, here's it a choice, in the US they're forced)
And then there's the size issue. America is a pretty big f'ing country, and your immigrants are spread thin and wide through their denominations. You don't have countries that concentrate on immigrating to particular places, 'cept maybe the Cubans and Mexicans, who're not particularly politically unified.
Besides which, this has been mentioned beforeby CC, Europe has a larger number of political refugees than the US. A lot of these political refugees are extremist when they get here, and they refuse to make concessions to our nation. We're all like "fine, we can't send you back to die, can we?" At times, they don't even learn our language.
So what do they do? They can't organise, they can't protest en masse, they simply can't express themselves like they can in Europe. Nor do they want to. They're economic refugees, come to see the riches. And a lot of them get them, and thus they're happy. Not the case in Europe, because they don't all come here for the money.
And those that don't see the riches? Well, that would explain the extremely high crime and mortality rates in the US. To each their own, tho', if you want to bleed to death slowly rather than getting big hits every now 'n again, heh
Out of the 150 seats in the Dutch 2e kamer (kinda like your Congress), I can scroll over the list and spot 10 who were born in far-away foreign nations. Not children of immigrants, no, but immigrants themselves, from places like Turkey, Marocco, Surinam and different African states. And that's just scrolling over quickly and once, and not counting children of immigrants born in the Netherlands. Can you honestly say the same thing about the House of Congress, welsh?
welsh
Junkmaster
Kharn said:
Yes, I think that's fairly true for both the US and Europe. Most of the terrorists have not been people born in those countries. Even if there are nationals, they were first immigrants. So yes, they tend to come from the same places. We can add Sudan, Morrocco, Algeria, Iran, Yeman, many countries in the middle east.
However, I think this is more a matter of immigration trends. Give it a few years and you'll have home-grown terrorists for the reasons mentioned above. Freedom means allowing your kids to be raised as you want, and that allows parents to brainwash their kids.
Most people I know of a given faith get their faith while children- they get indoctrinated by their parents. Some test it later, but most don't. And those that do test it often come back.
And both the US and Europe have shown their ability to raise ideologically focused children.
But that's not exactly the point either. I think that the fact that many 9/11 terrorists were radicalized in Europe is an interesting one. It might be that these same terrorists would not be radicalized in the middle east, simply because they come from the wrong social class. I'm not sure.
The point we've been arguing is more that this is "radicalization" is a problem Europe and may have to do with Europe's Muslim problems. How that fits into that massacre of Swiss tourists at the Pyramids a couple of years back, though, is a hard one to figure out.
That the terrorists lashed out at the US is largely due to the US policies- primarily deploying soldiers in the middle east to safe guard oil. A lot of Saudi's are pissed and with Osama you have someone who is willing to backroll and organize these kinds of operations. Rage against the US in the middle east is not new. I recall friends in the Navy going through the Suez and hearing people protest. And this was in 1958, 1967, in the 1970s.
welsh said:
Doubtful. A lot of your ethnic minorities in the US live in cities, and in predominantly ethnic neighborhoods. Those that don't are often fairly well integrated in society and pursuing your basic middle class life path- (birth, school, work, marriage, children, retirement, death). Those that live in the city have shown their ability to organize politically. There are a lot of ethnic communities and organizations in major cities. The Panthers- blacks who took up violent protest, Weather Underground- left-wing radical kids who blew themselves up- latin organizations. Gangs especially, The Bloods, the Latin Kings- these are large criminal enterprises that have some political power. Hell even the Hells Angels- one of the few non-urban criminal organizations- is incorporated legally.
And as mentioned before- one needs not to be alive in the electoral college to win votes. Latins from Cuba, Jews in New York and Florida, Blacks everywhere, Catholics, Asians- all these ethnicities are demographics that the parties compete against each other in the interest of drawing votes.
This is a large, largely rural, country, but most of politics remains local. So Latins may have little pull in Minnesota, but they have a lot of sway in California. Blacks may have more power in New York, but Latins would dominate San Antonio. So ethnic groups are politically active.
Both legal ethnic groups- be they Arab, or left-wing, or black or Asian, and ethnic criminal groups have become nation-wide phenomenas. Not only did groups like the Bloods start in LA, and move west, but they also can be found in many small towns, and have spread in a way not unlike burger franchises.