The surprising origins of the current Jihad

[2CentsWorth]

...They have a long heritage of resistance, what exactly is your problem?

Okay, so they have had a long heritage of resistance. So have other cultures. Is it natural (genetic), or are they taught to be warriors--taught by textbooks such as mentioned in the OP? I argue that they are taught, and it would appear that the US has contributed to the teaching of it.

Because it is in my interest to do so, and not necessarily theirs. Think of it as a football game - I am going to play on my team so that we can win, but I can also respect my opponents. It is an idea from a long time ago, you may not have even heard of it, it's called honor.

Yes, let's talk about honor. When will the US leave Afghanistan, or will we be a foreign occupying force forever? Let's talk about honor. It seems many feel it was okay for Bush to mislead Americans about his reasons for invading Iraq, which was illegal. There is a very long list we can discuss in relation to honor--if you knew what it meant.

 

[Rev Prez]

Some members want to focus on irrelevant comments because they are trolling contrarians.

This coming from someone whose spent all his time in the PF Lounge forums and, given his nick, is unhinged with hatred for Bush and conservatives.

If you do not question the validity of the source in the OP...

Something else which, to no one's surprise, has nothing to do with my objection.

Rev Prez

 

[pallidin]

I'm not dodging the issue at all.
Do I find it shocking that bullets and guns are used to teach young impressionable children to count? Yes I do.
Do I think it is dangerous to instill children with a moral sense of justice in jihad? Yes I do..

Excellent!
The radical Islamic movement is far more than adult adherents subscribing to the belief system. It is tremendously focused on "teaching" children to accept and even desire the jihad way.

 

[Townsend]

And I thought it was because of the number of times you've been shot down in flames :rofl:

Its kind of funny how just as I was reading this I was thinking of how many times you have been shot down...

These things make me really question the concept of objectivity. Is it only a myth? I guess its more or less the reason I no longer find any value in discussing topics in the politics sub-forum. You try to play fair and if you start to make a logical argument someone calls foul and all the while they are playing on a ton of logical fallacies. I wonder, are they thinking the same thing about my post or are they just emotional?

I just thought I was share that...its pointless I know but so are all the topics in this sub-forum. Nobody really changes anyones mind and no matter whom is right everyone will think they are. I personally think Rev Prez is right on most of the time but I question my very sanity due to the vehement, albeit sometimes crazy, rebuttals to just about ever comment he makes. There just cannot be any kind of objectivity in this crazy world, there can’t...cause if there is then at least half of the population is whacked out their minds.

I think PF should give a ribbon award for politics...it has to be the most difficult subject matter to discuss on this entire forum.

Regards

 

[Smurf]

Not only are these books morally and ethically dubious, they are also misleading. Should be:

"If out of 10 atheists, 5 are killed, 5 would be left."

They do that in textbooks everywhere. It's part of the problem, you're supposed to be able to sort through all the unimportant crap and solve the problem with the few bits of info they give you that actually matter.

 

[Smurf]

I think PF should give a ribbon award for politics...it has to be the most difficult subject matter to discuss on this entire forum.

Screw politics, let's just be honest and call it the 'arguing award'

 

[SOS2008]

This coming from someone whose spent all his time in the PF Lounge forums and, given his nick, is unhinged with hatred for Bush and conservatives.

You make a lot of assumptions. Before you became a member I spent most of my time in this section. However, thanks to GD I was able to see that you have a great sense of humor when you're not being a troll. In reference to my political position, I've never hidden this, so what a revelation you have made.

Dubya is an charlatan, the proverbial Emperor With No Clothes. With no merit of any kind, he came to power with the most unethical tactics (to use a kind word, and which would make Nixon look like an angel), followed by one cover-up after another since that day. He not only is the worst president who has accomplished nothing, but he is the worst because of his massive mistakes.

The Republican party has become dominated by fundamentalists who attack individual rights and civil liberties (e.g., the Terri Shiavo intervention, which you support). And then of course there are the neocons who border on fascism.

But most of all, Bush and these fringe elements have not only severely divided our country, but are bent on destruction of our military and economic strength, and what ever respectable standing we may have had in the world.

How can one not be concerned about the direction our country is going?

We've asked multiple times for members to post positive things about the Bush administration. So I say it again, make you case instead of just attacking members and arguing for argument's sake. Otherwise I won't waste my time further in responding to your posts.

 

[Townsend]

Screw politics, let's just be honest and call it the 'arguing award'

Ok...

 

[Townsend]

You make a lot of assumptions.

Ditto to you.

 

[Evo]

I'm going to repeat what I said in another thread. You are all just giving your "personal" opinions on world events here. Two people looking at the same event will come away with two different opinions. Doesn't mean you are right, doesn't mean you are wrong.

This forum is giving you the opportunity to discuss your views. If you cannot do this without giving those of opposing views the same courtesy you give those with similar views, I will have to start imposing restrictions to keep the conversations civil. I am sure you all prefer me to stay out of it.

Let's all take a step back and take a breath before we hit that "submit" button.

 

[Rev Prez]

You make a lot of assumptions.

No, I don't. You readily admit your inexplicable hostility towards the President and political conservatives, and anyone can search your username for posts in any collection of forums. I've found two in Biology and one in Earth.

How can one not be concerned about the direction our country is going?

Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to insist on not addressing the issue at hand at all, I don't see what else we have to say to each other.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

You are all just giving your "personal" opinions on world events here.

I'm not. I'm asking someone--anyone--to meaningfully define "culture of violence" and substantiate the charge that USAID funds contributed to its growth in Afghanistan. It's an empirical question, one that should net an empirical answer if anyone here is qualified.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

Returning to the point. Who here (apart from Rev Pres) would find it acceptable if their own children were to be educated using the kind of material which was supplied to the children in Afghanistan?

A straight answer to a straight question: I would find it offensive. Actually, I would find it more than offensive - it would be totally unacceptable and I would refuse to send my children to school. Children get subjected to enough damaging propaganda in the school system as it is.

 

[Art]

I personally think Rev Prez is right on most of the time but I question my very sanity...
Regards

Now this part I can agree with :rofl:

 

[Townsend]

Now this part I can agree with :rofl:

I can imagine anything that would attack the poster instead of his arguments is rather easy for you, seeing as how that's pretty much all you are capable of.

 

[alexandra]

Do I think that what people read affects their world view? Yes I do. As do the companies who spend billions advertising their products each year.
I quite deliberately said the same kind of material. So in your case the question would be, would you be happy for your children to be educated with material using guns and other weapons to teach counting and encouraging crusades against non-believers? Or is it only okay for foreigners to be supplied with that sort of crap.

To bring the discussion back OT (it seems people go out of their way to sabotage topics they don't like - not referring to you here, Art): I totally agree with you, Art - what people read affects their world view. What they are taught at school affects their world view.

If we had one generation of children who were taught that other weird fairy-tale (what's it called? the one meant to counter the theory of evolution?) instead of evolution, how many years of progress would that set humanity back?

The US administration funded the development of textbooks to radicalise a generation of muslim children; well done to all those who had (and to all those who supported and still support) this aim - it has happened. But this (the books) was only one of the tactics used to make Samuel Huntington's right-wing prediction, the 'clash of civilisations', happen (better 'the clash of civilisations' than the creation of a mass-based movement that threatens capitalism, after all). This tactic had to be supplemented by more drastic measures, like accusing predominantly muslim countries of being part of an 'axis of evil', then invading them, toppling their government and killing their civilians - thus setting up a religious conflict that had not existed before its artificial creation.

Oh dear, the Crusades all over again...

 

[Art]

I can imagine anything that would attack the poster instead of his arguments is rather easy for you, seeing as how that's pretty much all you are capable of.

I've actually never responded to anything you have written before, (I'll leave it up to your imagination to determine why this is) but I made an exception in this case because you attacked me. And as you had led with your jaw I couldn't resist the urge to oblige you. You will find if you are civil with me I will also be civil with you, as in I will return to ignoring you.

 

[Townsend]

I've actually never responded to anything you have written before, (I'll leave it up to your imagination to determine why this is)

:rofl: When have I ever given you a reason before this? This is just another attempt at making a personal attack and to anyone with a brain that is clear as glass.

but I made an exception in this case because you attacked me. And as you had led with your jaw I couldn't resist the urge to oblige you. You will find if you are civil with me I will also be civil with you, as in I will return to ignoring you.

I am sorry but when you said,

Now this part I can agree with

You were attacking ME the poster! So I responded in kind. If you don't like it when it is being done to you, you should stop doing it so regularly to everyone else. In fact nearly all of your diatribe amounts to you saying something to denigrate the poster instead of what the poster is saying, I wonder why you would do that?

All I was doing was playing devils advocate by leaving a post that was open for someone to attack me instead of what I said. You took the bait.

That is what I love about fishing...if you play to their instinct they cannot resist. :

 

[Art]

:
That is what I love about fishing...if you play to their instinct they cannot resist.

Yes I can quite imagine you using yourself as shark bait and shouting Gotcha as some 12 ft great white shark sinks it's teeth into you :rofl:

 

[Townsend]

Yes I can quite imagine you using yourself as shark bait and shouting Gotcha as some 12 ft great white shark closes it's teeth around you :rofl:

More diatribe...

I would have never guessed...

 

[Art]

More diatribe...

I would have never guessed...

But it is funny though :tongue2:

 

[Townsend]

Art, you lower the value of these forums with your comments. Why is that you can rarely ever address what a poster is saying? Why do you insist on denigrating the poster instead of his actual post?

 

[Townsend]

But it is funny though :tongue2:

What a tool...

If all anyone wanted to do was made stupid remarks they could easily make you look like the idiot but instead some people try to take others seriously. Why is it that you cannot extend them that same respect that they have given you?

 

[Art]

What a tool...

If all anyone wanted to do was made stupid remarks they could easily make you look like the idiot but instead some people try to take others seriously. Why is it that you cannot extend them that same respect that they have given you?

Lighten up Townsend. It seems you take yourself seriously enough for the both of us. Most people don't mind mild amusing comments but as you obviously do I shall return to ignoring you. I'll leave you with the opportunity for the last word and say goodbye.

 

[Townsend]

Lighten up Townsend. It seems you take yourself seriously enough for the both of us. Most people don't mind mild amusing comments but as you obviously do I shall return to ignoring you. Goodbye.

I do mind your comments, as their purpose is not humor. Your intentions are to make the posters comments seem less believable by attempting to make the poster seem dumb or irrational, or whatever you can manage to come up with. It is not funny and I really get sick of trying to glean useful viewpoints from the crap that is posted.

Goodbye

I see you would rather write me off than to engage my comments, as I tend to get right to the point. Where I come from we call that a retreat.

 

[2CentsWorth]

No, I don't. You readily admit your inexplicable hostility towards the President and political conservatives, and anyone can search your username for posts in any collection of forums. I've found two in Biology and one in Earth.



Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to insist on not addressing the issue at hand at all, I don't see what else we have to say to each other.

Rev Prez

I post in GD (General Discussion), but primarily in this section too. In my opinion, this section is political science and should be under "Other Sciences" along with psychology, economics, and for that matter philosophy could be combined with these "social sciences" along with history, etc. Members may have education in these areas rather than physics, or mathematics, etc. I don't have much time to participate in PF, so I tend to come to this section, which seems to address a range of topics including energy, environment, and so forth. Also as an FYI, posts don't count in GD, so if you look at a member's number of posts you can see that they are posting in sections other than GD. In any event, what is the relevance of the point you make except an attempt to be condescending?

In the meantime I thought there was nothing 'inexplicable' in regard to the comprehensive summary of the political position provided.

 

[Rev Prez]

I post in GD (General Discussion), but primarily in this section too. In my opinion, this section is political science...

And what contributions have you made worthy of "political science" discussion forum?

In the meantime I thought there was nothing 'inexplicable' in regard to the comprehensive summary of the political position provided.

It is inexplicable in that his incoherent ranting was way off the reservation.

Rev Prez

 

[2CentsWorth]

And what contributions have you made worthy of "political science" discussion forum?



It is inexplicable in that his incoherent ranting was way off the reservation.

Rev Prez

Considering the source of this opinion, I won't concern myself, and I doubt other members will either.

 

[Art]

Considering the source of this opinion, I won't concern myself, and I doubt other members will either.

I find if you just assume he's trying to be a clown to amuse you and respond accordingly he's not quite as irritating.

 

[SOS2008]

I find if you just assume he's trying to be a clown to amuse you and respond accordingly he's not quite as irritating.

Ah yes, I see the humor now - we're not worthy, we're not worthy! :rofl: As for the reservations, nothing but casinos these days (the white man finally pays ).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm going to repeat what I said in another thread. You are all just giving your "personal" opinions on world events here. Two people looking at the same event will come away with two different opinions. Doesn't mean you are right, doesn't mean you are wrong.

This forum is giving you the opportunity to discuss your views. If you cannot do this without giving those of opposing views the same courtesy you give those with similar views, I will have to start imposing restrictions to keep the conversations civil. I am sure you all prefer me to stay out of it.

Let's all take a step back and take a breath before we hit that "submit" button.

I'd just like to Echo this.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

...O...M...effin...G...

 

[SOS2008]

...O...M...effin...G...

PF is a great forum compared to other forums. However, it is not impervious to trolls:

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In the context of the Internet, a troll is a message that seems to at least one user to be inflammatory or hostile, which by effect or design causes a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe a person posting such messages.

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

Other signs of trolling are multiple and consecutive responses to member posts, often with one-line comments like:

Originally Posted by Rev Prez
Another explanation is that fifty percent--the armed half--of the country think that you and the remaining 42 are acting crazy.

Edited to:

Let's try a more productive tact. Are you suggesting it was proper to impeach President Clinton?

Followed by:

I didn't ask that. I asked you.

Which isn’t what was asked, and even if it was, what relevance does it have?

Another sign is when such individual is asked repeatedly to provide reliable evidence and make a case, but such is never forthcoming.

Okay then (and I have given thought to the submit button) -- to borrow a favorite line from Russ -- Carry on...

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back to the topic

There are several math questions from the "infamous Books" here.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:qHIXgxxP5REJ:www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/IAS/documents/hoodbhoypaper.doc+american+textbooks+afghanistan+russia&hl=en

 

[SOS2008]

There are several math questions from the "infamous Books" here.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:qHIXgxxP5REJ:www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONAL/IAS/documents/hoodbhoypaper.doc+american+textbooks+afghanistan+russia&hl=en

Very interesting to see academic writings from the region:

...The United States, in support of the Afghan resistance, waged an exceedingly elaborate, expensive, and ultimately successful covert war. …With Pakistan's General Zia-ul-Haq as America's foremost ally and Saudi Arabia as the principal source of funds, the CIA openly recruited Islamic holy warriors from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally and mentor funneled support to the mujahiddin.

Even in the mid 1990's, long before the 9/11 attack on the United States, it was clear that the victorious alliance had unwittingly created a dynamic now beyond its control. The network of Islamic militant organizations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved but, instead, like any good military-industrial complex, grew from strength to strength.

...Given the highly conservative nature of Afghan society and the spontaneous resistance to the Afghan communist resistance, it did not need a genius to suggest that Islamic international solidarity could be used as a powerful weapon.

...But still more importantly, to go heart and soul for jihad was crucial at a time when Saudi legitimacy as the guardians of Islam was under strong challenge by Iran, which pointed to the continued occupation of Palestine by America's partner, Israel...

Thanks for the link edward.