Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

New Korean War

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>... That shows exactly why America got attacked on September 11th.</STRONG>
    Poverty of dignity ignites flame in young Muslims
    Islamic militants aren't sent as 'sleepers,' they're minted in encounters with Western society

    by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times

    BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

    For all that has been written about Sept.11, there is still one big hole in our knowledge: We know who Osama bin Laden is. He is a unique cult figure - a Muslim Charles Manson with the organizational skills of Jack Welch. We also know who bin Ladin's passive supporters are - all those Muslims who sympathize with him out of anger with their own leaders, America or Isreal. But who were the guys in the middle - the killer pilots who went beyond passive support to become suicidal mass murderers?
    In the search for that answer, I came to Europe. Why? Look at the biographies of many of the key hijackers or al-Qaida agents: Mohamed Atta, Ziad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi, etc. It's the same story: He grew up in a middle-class family in the Arab world, was educated, went to Europe for more studies, lived on the fringes of a European society (many in Belgium), gravitated to a local prayer group or mosque, became radicalized there by Islamist elements, went off for training in Afghanistan and presto - a terrorist was born. The personal encounter between these young men and Europe is the key to this story.
    A female Arab friend who also studied abroad with young Muslim men described them this way: "They are mostly men who grew up in an environment where the rules were very clear. They grew up never encountering anything that shakes their core. Suddenly they are thrown into Europe, and there are a whole different set of social rules that shakes their core. They don't know how to adapt because they've never had to, so they become more insular and hold onto their (Islamic) core even more."

    This trend is reinforced by the fact that Muslim immigrants are perennial outsiders in Europe. In America, Muslim can enjoy a fairly rapid transition to citizenship, but in Europe there is no melting pot. "Our problem in Belgium is that there is Islamophobia," said Nordin Maloujahmoum, president of the Muslim Executive Council of Belgium. "Some 54 percent of the population here say they don't believe non-Belgian ethnic groups could ever be real Belgians. A woman wearing a veil here finds it impossible to get a job."
    Fauzaya Talhaoui, the only Muslim woman in the Belgian Parliament, told me that her parents generation came from North Africa and wanted to assimilate but that many in her generation, after being frozen out, have turned to Islam. "They took the view - if you want to treat us differently, we will act differently," she said.
    Here's the truth: What radicalized the Sept. 11 terrorists was not that they suffered from a poverty of food, it was that they suffered from a poverty of dignity. Frustrated by the low standing of Muslim countries in the world, compared to Europe or the United States, and the low standing in which they were personally held where they were living, they were easy pickings for preachers who knew how to direct their rage.
    "Many of the terrorists we are now confronting are a Western phenomenon, existing inside the Islamic diaspora in the U.S. and Europe," wrote Adrian Karatnycky, the president of Freedom House, in National Review. These men are not "sleepers" planted within Europe years in advance by bin Laden, he argues; instead, they are minted right there, when they encounter the West.
    "Like the leaders of America's Weather Underground, Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy's Red Brigades and Japan's Red Army Faction, the Islamic terrorists were university-educated converts to an all-encompassing neo-totalitarian ideology," he argues. "For them, Islamism is the new universal revolutionary creed, and bin Laden is Sheikh Guevara."
    Karatnycky is right: The real challenge of the West is to understand what is happening not just in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but also in its own backyard, in the chemical reaction between Western societies and their own mosques and Muslim diasporas. That's where the killer plots were conceived, and that's where they must be tracked - but in a way that respects the fact that 99.9 percent of the Muslims in Europe or America are good citizens, not militants.
    Belgium is a microcosm of the whole story. There are 300 mosques in Belgium today, with 300 domes. But there is another famous dome here: the huge radar dome at NATO headquarters in Mons. Somewhere in the cultural encounter between these two domes of Belgium - the dome of NATO and the dome of the mosques - lies the key to this Sept. 11 and maybe the next.

    Reality contradicts your wetdream, don't it???
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere, your argument over looks the cause of modern war! Modern wars are fought when disputes between different countries over things like access to raw materials, trade routes and markets for goods, ie who has the most trade with certain countries cannot be settled peacefully!

    Wars are started by governments who represent the interests of big business! They are not started by the ordinary people of a country. It is the ruling class and big business that stand to beneift from war not the ordinary people!

    The way to put an end to the threat of war once and for all as I have said before is to have a world where there are no bosses and no ruling class! A world where the workers are in control of all the worlds industry and resources. A world where there is no need to go to war because all the worlds resouces are owned and controled by everyone and all production is done for need not profit! That is world communism!

    Thanatos...AGAIN, terrorist attacks against the US are not caused by Islamic fundamentalism you idiot! They are a direct reaction to Americas brutal foreign policy in which Amercia terrorises other countries and backs Israel which waged brutally oppressed the Plaestinians for over 50 years! There would still be terrorist attacks on America even if there was no Islam! Because people on the recieving end of American backed terror will always want to fight back! <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Socialist Worker the alternative to the capitalist press.

    [ 29-03-2002: Message edited by: stealgate ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok then:
    Name me the economic interests we had in the following wars:
    1)Falklands (oil was not discovered there until the late 90's
    2)Bosnia
    3)Sierra Leone
    4)Serbia/Kosovo
    5)Marines being sent to East Timor
    6)Northern Ireland

    In case you haven't noticed it is no longer economically viable to fight wars. Soldiers need to be paid, weapons of war need to be built and maintained. A tornado strike bomber costs over £60 million. We have about 200 of them. Harriers cost £70 million. We have about 150. The Eurofighter and the Apache are coming with price tags of £80 and £50 million a piece. We are recieving approx 80 Eurofighters, 50 Apaches.
    Tanks:Challenger one comes with a price tag of £20 million, Challenger 2 is priced at £25. We have about 500 altogether.
    Then dont even get me started on ships and submarines.

    Britain's role on the world theatre has changed. We are seen as world policemen, we fight wars that have no economical or territorial gain. Why...? Why do we send our troops to fight wars on behalf of peoples that we've never heard of? Maybe this could be the better side of humanity..where we strive to protect people who can't protect themselves.
    We no longer need troops to protect our economic interests unless absolutely necessary. We have the world bank for that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:

    Thanatos...AGAIN, terrorist attacks against the US are not caused by Islamic fundamentalism you idiot!

    Naw, NEVER said that, you MORON!
    September 11 terrorist attacks were instigated and brought about by middle and upper class fuckwit Arabs who could not function in a world where they are other than the pampered center of attention. Giving equal rights to women is offensive to the gentle sensitivities. The western world confuses, confounds, and THREATENS them (from their fuckwit perspective). It is not capitolism, symbolized by the US, it is equal rights and oportunity, symbolized by America.
    Ever been to the Mid East? Are you conversant with the lifestyle of the middle and upper class there? The western world is THE THREAT to that pampered elitest existence.

    Why do you not travel to Saudi Arabia and run your bullshit. Someone there has a bullet for your fat head.

    [ 29-03-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK in the Falklands there were rumours of oil deposits there long before it was discovered! The reason that a couple of hundred years before Britain seized the Falkland Islands was because it was on an important trade route before the Panama Canal was built the route around Cape Horn so was of stratigc importance!

    Bosnia was about forcing western style free market capitalism in the former Yugoslavia! Sebia had resisted the free market longer than any other country in eastern Europe. Western military intervention in the war zone was to ensure western control of the region and ensure the implementing of western style free market capitalism. Also about impletmenting the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline across Yugolsavia to the sea.

    Kosovo was about gaining western NATO control of the region so that the plans for the implentation of free market capitalism could be carried out! Kosovo is now nothing more than a NATO controled province! There area was of stratigic importance and also in the route of the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline. Serbia wanted control of Kosovo because it had large numbers of mines and natural resources that is why Serbia wanted to keep control of Kosovo and crush plans for Kosovo independance by the KLA. Hence it's war against the KLA.

    Northern Ireland is the result of British Imperialism in Ireland when they gave land in 1603 to Scottish Protestants in order to maintain control over Ireland. At this time vast amounts of land in Ireland was owned by British land owners who were making a lot of money from this land so mainting rule over Ireland was in Britains economic interests!

    The troubles of 1969 to 1994 were not a war as such, but a dispute between two groups of people one which thought they had some thing to gain by joining the republic of Ireland and another who thought that their interests were best protected if they remained part of Britain. The whole thing though was the result of Britain imperialism over the centuries in Ireland when it exploited Ireland for economic wealth!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The western world confuses, confounds, and THREATENS them (from their fuckwit perspective). It is not capitolism, symbolized by the US, it is equal rights and oportunity, symbolized by America.
    That was npot the reason for the September 11th attacks! The reason was Americas support for Israel which is terrorisiing and killing Palestinians and driving them from their land and also Americas imposed sanctions on Iraq which has led to the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqs and its continued bombing of Iraq over the years which has killed thousands of Iraq civilians! It is things like this that they are angry about! They don't give a damn about the western way of life!

    StopWar.org.uk the voice of the anti-war movement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SG, the Falkland islands were the gateway to the Atlantic. They were garrisoned to prevent Spanish ships in South America and the Pacific from reaching Britain.

    Kosovo and Bosnia....so the hundreds and thousands of innocents being slaughtered by Milosevic had nothing to do with out intevention...?
    We intevened because the UN had shown it was unable to contol the situation and prevent thousands of innocent civlians from being slaughtered. The countries there were already capitalist following the collpase of the USSR.
    I like how you failed to address my point about war not being economically viable anymore....hmm, perhaps because you know you're wrong?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>
    That was npot the reason for the September 11th attacks! The reason was Americas support for Israel which is terrorisiing and killing Palestinians...</STRONG>

    ...and THAT is why the fuckwit middleclass Saudi's (the VERY PEOPLE you claim oppress the world the most!) are the ones doing the terrorist routine? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    NONE of the terrorists involved with Sept 11 were the "oppressed" peoples; they were the privileged and pampered middle and upper class.

    Reality challenged, aren't you?

    YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO THE PARASITE CHALLENGE, FUCKWIT. GOTTA AN ANSWER, OR JUST MORE PATHETIC CUT AND PASTE RHETORIC???

    Gotta go to work, a concept outside of your grasp...

    [ 29-03-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>OK in the Falklands there were rumours of oil deposits there long before it was discovered! The reason that a couple of hundred years before Britain seized the Falkland Islands was because it was on an important trade route before the Panama Canal was built the route around Cape Horn so was of stratigc importance!

    Bosnia was about forcing western style free market capitalism in the former Yugoslavia! Sebia had resisted the free market longer than any other country in eastern Europe. Western military intervention in the war zone was to ensure western control of the region and ensure the implementing of western style free market capitalism. Also about impletmenting the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline across Yugolsavia to the sea.

    Kosovo was about gaining western NATO control of the region so that the plans for the implentation of free market capitalism could be carried out! Kosovo is now nothing more than a NATO controled province! There area was of stratigic importance and also in the route of the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline. Serbia wanted control of Kosovo because it had large numbers of mines and natural resources that is why Serbia wanted to keep control of Kosovo and crush plans for Kosovo independance by the KLA. Hence it's war against the KLA.

    Northern Ireland is the result of British Imperialism in Ireland when they gave land in 1603 to Scottish Protestants in order to maintain control over Ireland. At this time vast amounts of land in Ireland was owned by British land owners who were making a lot of money from this land so mainting rule over Ireland was in Britains economic interests!

    The troubles of 1969 to 1994 were not a war as such, but a dispute between two groups of people one which thought they had some thing to gain by joining the republic of Ireland and another who thought that their interests were best protected if they remained part of Britain. The whole thing though was the result of Britain imperialism over the centuries in Ireland when it exploited Ireland for economic wealth!</STRONG>

    And I thought that I was cynical.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by stealgate:
    <STRONG>OK in the Falklands there were rumours of oil deposits there long before it was discovered! The reason that a couple of hundred years before Britain seized the Falkland Islands was because it was on an important trade route before the Panama Canal was built the route around Cape Horn so was of stratigc importance!</STRONG>

    oh and nobody else was really interested in such a desolate place.

    The reason the war was fought was becuase the UK was not willing to abandon it citizens. That is called loyalty, a concept with which socialists struggle.

    <STRONG>
    Bosnia was about forcing western style free market capitalism in the former Yugoslavia! Sebia had resisted the free market longer than any other country in eastern Europe. Western military intervention in the war zone was to ensure western control of the region and ensure the implementing of western style free market capitalism. Also about impletmenting the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline across Yugolsavia to the sea.
    </STRONG>

    Bosnia was the second part of Milosevic's attempt to create GREATER Serbia. He didn't want to lose power and so attacked. The west didn't get involved until Serbia and Croatia started a system of ethnic cleansing.

    <STRONG>
    Kosovo was about gaining western NATO control of the region so that the plans for the implentation of free market capitalism could be carried out! Kosovo is now nothing more than a NATO controled province! There area was of stratigic importance and also in the route of the planned trans Balkan oil pipeline. Serbia wanted control of Kosovo because it had large numbers of mines and natural resources that is why Serbia wanted to keep control of Kosovo and crush plans for Kosovo independance by the KLA. Hence it's war against the KLA.</STRONG>

    Actually the Kosovans were seeking independance from an oppressive SOCIALIST regime. The SOCIALSIST didn't like this, and so started to systematically kill as many people as possible preferably ALBANIANS, ethnic cleansing again. Again NATO intervened...and now the Kosovans have a say in the running of their country.

    It is worth noting that they would like to become part of Albania...and don't see NATO as their future...

    <STRONG>
    Northern Ireland is the result of British Imperialism in Ireland when they gave land in 1603 to Scottish Protestants in order to maintain control over Ireland. At this time vast amounts of land in Ireland was owned by British land owners who were making a lot of money from this land so mainting rule over Ireland was in Britains economic interests!</STRONG>

    Actually the situation in Northern Ireland began before the 1600s, about 400 years before. But why let history get in the way?

    <STRONG>
    The troubles of 1969 to 1994 were not a war as such, but a dispute between two groups of people one which thought they had some thing to gain by joining the republic of Ireland and another who thought that their interests were best protected if they remained part of Britain. The whole thing though was the result of Britain imperialism over the centuries in Ireland when it exploited Ireland for economic wealth!</STRONG>

    Because Ireland holds so many natural resources...

    and the increase in 1969 was caused by the search for jobs and rights. The catholics believed that they were oppressed becuase of their religion and so started to revolt. The political power in NI was held by the prods who promptly set about the catholics with force. The British troop went in to protect the Catholics...

    and the troubles didn't finish in 1994, they continue even to this day...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Steelgate, I <STRONG>know</STRONG> tha you have been online today, yet you seem to have missed this thread.

    Could it because the facts we post prove you assertions to be untrue and that you can no longer justify your argments?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>Steelgate, I [qb]know</STRONG> tha you have been online today, yet you seem to have missed this thread.

    Could it because the facts we post prove you assertions to be untrue and that you can no longer justify your argments?[/QB]

    If we're working on that basis, I'd still like a response from Thanatos over his assertion that the US won in Vietnam cause they killed more and suffered fewer losses than the Communists. I'll remind him of my argument...
    In WW2, Russia suffered 18,000,000 deaths, compared with Germany's 5,260,000. In terms of total population, this is 11% and 7% respectively. Did Germany win WW2 because it suffered fewer losses? I think not.

    The number of people killed cannot be used to judge who wins a war. Stated military objectives can. The stated military objective of the Allies in WW2 was to destroy Nazi Germany. They succeeded; Germany lost. The stated military objective of the US in Vietnam was to eliminate Communism from the country, or at least to protect the South from it. They failed. You may have noticed that Vietnam is a Communist country, even now.

    You might argue that these victories are pyrrhic; I would disagree.

    The method of kill counting determining victory was developed by the US Military in Vietnam in order that their lack of success in more traditional indicators be covered up by the fact that "today I killed 10 VC soldiers".

    I await his justification...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you find this goes to war aims, and he <STRONG>has</STRONG> posted an answer elsewhere.

    Basically most of the US war aims were achieved..look at the Paris talks for details...

    Personally I don't buy it. The ignomy of their withdrawal and the following capitulation of the south kinda point to a single direction.

    What I will agree with is that the US didn;t lose it militarily, just politically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>

    What I will agree with is that the US didn;t lose it militarily, just politically.</STRONG>

    Have never stated that the US "won" the VN war, only that we did not lose militarily.

    US military held off insurgent forces of NVA until the Paris "peace" accord, then withdrew all combat units. Even at 10% strength, US forces repulsed NVA Easter Offensive of spring 1972, otherwise known as the siege of Quang Tri.

    US forces were withheld from a CLEAR military victory by chickenshit politics... and the manner of engagement they restricted us to prevented a victory.

    However... the US military forces DID NOT LOSE the conflict in Vietnam! No how, and no fucking way! When neither side can claim a victory, it is called a stalemate. US military achieved the goals set forth for us by the politicians, but not the overwhelming victory we were capable of, and strained at the constraints wanting to achieve! Had they told us to SECURE THE CHINESE BORDER, NVA would have ceased to exist. US forces never lost a single engagement larger than platoon size. NOT ONCE. Look at Khe Sanh: 5600 Marines against 100,000 NVA, and we stood them off, RAN them off. Look at Quang Tri (where I was): we ran an overwhelmingly superior force back across the DMZ.
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>The stated military objective of the US in Vietnam was to eliminate Communism from the country, or at least to protect the South from it. They failed.

    I await his justification...</STRONG>

    North Vietnam completely betrayed the Paris peace accords. What should have been a military victory - and WAS by the standard of achieving the proscribed goal of preventing NVA from taking over SVn - and I call a stalemate, was GIVEN AWAY (rather than "lost") by the gutless politicos who sold us out. At the time of the Paris accord, and the subsequent withdrawal of US forces from SVn, that objective HAD BEEN MET! The military defeat of ARVN came after the accord has broken by NVn.

    That CLEAR enough for those who required more clarification from me???

    btw ~ Your choice of the word "justification"... is that how you usually refer to an accurate and non-revised account of historical events??? Or do you simply prefer to be brainwashed by the propoganda rhetoric spoon fed to you, rather than reality??? Either way, pathetic pizzant cowards such as YOU are what prevented the total military rout ov NVA that SHOULD have been... parasites who demean the very freedoms earned by the blood of warriors.

    REALITY... Warriors can exist very well in a nation devoid of parasites, but parasites cannot exist without the warriors to protect them.

    If THAT is too complex for you to digest, then how about a simple FUCK YOU?

    [ 31-03-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
Sign In or Register to comment.