Dave, do you not realize that your comsumptive American lifestyle has caused that. Every time you step inside your SUV a baby explodes somewhere. It is the inevitable result of American capitalist empire.

Vote Democrat in 08' and don't let another baby die at the hands of the republonazis!

Actually, I run my biodiesel truck on the rendered down fat of third world babies. It's good for the environment and keeps the population down.

Dave

Don't know Doug enough but I hope #1 was a stab at satire! If not...tsk, tsk, tsk.

Unreal. A baby.

Dave,

What a sleazy crock of shit. You, who justifies the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilian populations. How many babies does that kill? Did not the criminals know there might be babies there? As bad as it is, individual terror pales by comparison to the systematic murder that goes on via policies that you so callously support.

Cancer? Eradicate it? What the fuck are you talking about? More wars? What purpose this screed than to incite hatred and violence? You do NOT even provide the SLIGHTEST hint as how to move forward. Just your knee-jerk defense of capitalism and imperialism. Your crocodile tears do not impress me as anything more than just another opportunity to express your reactionary, righteous indignation from your compound in Texas.

How many babies die before they reach one year old just because it isn't PROFITABLE to produce and distribute the medicines and nutrition needed? The cancer IS capitalism and the sooner it is destroyed the less damage it will do to all humanity.

Les

"How many babies die before they reach one year old just because it isn't PROFITABLE to produce and distribute the medicines and nutrition needed?"

How many babies could be saved if you'd shut your internet connection down, sell your computer, and transfer that money to an African charity? Also, offing yourself would stop the CO2 you exhale and decrease your drain on the world food supply.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

"Every time you step inside your SUV a baby explodes"

Doug, you should dash right out and TM that phrase...the bumper stickers alone would worth millions.

Doug,

"How many babies could be saved if you'd shut your internet connection down, sell your computer, and transfer that money to an African charity?"

Not many. You seem to have the same problem as Dave. You concentrate on the few and totally ignore the millions.

Les

Or do we face reality and pay the price to treat the cancer which they represent before it spreads and destroys civilized society throughout the world?

Dave conveniently omits saying what this price actually may be.

Not all of us would agree on the solution, or indeed on this hysterical 'definition' of the problem.

Yes, there are fanatics in the world who are willing to do unspeakable, unthinkable things. The question is whether we can actually prevent them from these acts, or whether it makes more sense to reduce the appeal of the fanatics' message and increase the appeal of our own.

By always responding to threats with more threats and with violence and with restriction of civil rights, and by invading countries without good cause, we increase the numbers of alienated young men who hate us and who are open to the ideas of fanatics.

We're digging our own hole.

So Les you agree you're killing a "few" babies by not doing those things?

What a sleazy crock of shit. You, who justifies the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilian populations.

I do? When? I mean aside from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were less in explosive power than was done with conventional bombing at Tokyo or several German cities and unquestionably saved millions of lives.

Have I advocated bombing Iran or even going to war with them at all?

How many babies does that kill?

Hopefully none, since the only time nukes have ever been used we warned the civilian population to evacuate well in advance.

Did not the criminals know there might be babies there?

What criminals?

As bad as it is, individual terror pales by comparison to the systematic murder that goes on via policies that you so callously support.

You mean policies like protecting civilian populatins from religiously motivated terrorism? Gosh, that's a nasty think to believe in.

Cancer? Eradicate it? What the fuck are you talking about?

What do you think I'm talking about? I'm talking about a religious movement which will sacrifice anyone and everyone to advance their political power and establish theocratic governments around the world. I thought you were a communist, Les. Surely you understand the dangers of religious fanaticism.

More wars?

Where in this article did I say a single word about more wars? That's never been my preferred solution to this sort of problem, which ought to be addressed with more of a policing/security approach.

What purpose this screed than to incite hatred and violence?

It's to remind people who the real enemy is. The enemy is not the country which strives clumsily to bring people peace and democracy, it's the people who strap bombs to babies. If you can't see that then you've lost all humanity and what the hell am I talking to you for?

You do NOT even provide the SLIGHTEST hint as how to move forward.

Yep. I'll get to solutions eventually. Just wanted to remind people that the problem isn't the US and it isn't just in Iraq. And it isn't going away.

Just your knee-jerk defense of capitalism and imperialism.

Where in this article did I mention anything vaguely capitalistic or imperialistic? You're reading a hell of a lot into it that isn't there.

Your crocodile tears do not impress me as anything more than just another opportunity to express your reactionary, righteous indignation from your compound in Texas.

What troubles me is that you can actually read this story - just the basic facts in my second paragraph - and not realize immediately how unacceptable that sort of behavior is. If you can let your ideology blind you to an outrage like this then there's no hope for you.

How many babies die before they reach one year old just because it isn't PROFITABLE to produce and distribute the medicines and nutrition needed?

How many babies have died because socialist NGOs convinced their mothers to give them formula instead of nursing them because of a bizarre anti-family agenda?

The cancer IS capitalism and the sooner it is destroyed the less damage it will do to all humanity.

Sorry Les, you've lost me on this one. Capitalism is just an expression of the natural inclinations of humanity and to go against it is ultimately futile and destructive.

Dave

"How many babies die before they reach one year old just because it isn't PROFITABLE to produce and distribute the medicines and nutrition needed?"

As a bonafide lefty, you should be GLAD babies are dying; it means fewer people to pollute Mother Earth.

Not only should babies die, we should be euthanising at least two thirds of the world's present adult population.

Otherwise, the polar ice caps will keep melting.

What a crock, Les. Communism has been among the top genocidal systems ever invented by man; right behind religion.

Maybe Les feels that there's some sort of competition to see which movement can be most genocidal, communism or Islam, and he's concerned that his side might be on the ropes.

Of course there's always Hezbollah - they're genocidal Islamic communists.

Dave

"Where in this article did I mention anything vaguely capitalistic or imperialistic? You're reading a hell of a lot into it that isn't there."

From your post:

"The cause is not capitalist greed or American imperialism..."

See, you don't even remember what you wrote. Or are you blind?

Like I said:

"Just your knee-jerk defense of capitalism and imperialism."

*Capitalism is just an expression of the natural inclinations of humanity and to go against it is ultimately futile and destructive.*

as with Franco in another thread - it seems that there is no point arguing over this 'religious' belief become political ideology any more than there is a point to arguing over the existence of god with a priest

that which is to be demonstrated is assumed as axiomatic

Ah Les. Pointing out the fact that capitalism and imperialism are jingoistic catch phrases to distract from the real issue is now a 'knee jerk defense' of them? How is it defending them to point out that they're not relevant?

Dave

Clavos,

"As a bonafide lefty, you should be GLAD babies are dying; it means fewer people to pollute Mother Earth.

"Not only should babies die, we should be euthanising at least two thirds of the world's present adult population.

"Otherwise, the polar ice caps will keep melting."

Maybe some, who you think, or even claim to be, 'lefties', may actually hold those views, they have absolutely nothing to do with communism. They are generally a middle class minority responding to the decay of capitalism.

Many have ignorant views on what is, and what is not, communism. E.g., Dave:

"Of course there's always Hezbollah - they're genocidal Islamic communists."

Iran is a capitalist state. Any use of, or support to, Hezbollah is neither intended, nor objectively, in the furtherance of anything communist. The Iran regime is quite hostile to communism.

Back to you Clav, the Russian regime coming out of the 1917 revolution never made it to socialism, never mind communism. The civil war that was supported by imperialism destroyed the industrial base and the working class cadre necessary to begin to build socialism. Out of it, instead, came a bureaucratic caste that nothing to do with communism. They murdered all opposition to this RIGHTWARD shift. It was convenient, both to the usurpers, and to the enemies of communism, to call this Communism.

You can argue this till your blue in the face, but just look at Dave's calling Hezbollah communist to see just how ridiculous this has become.

Les

Dave,

"Pointing out the fact that capitalism and imperialism are jingoistic catch phrases to distract from the real issue is now a 'knee jerk defense' of them?"

Ah, the ability to turn a phrase. Capitalism and imperialism ARE jingoistic, or am I parsing this wrong? Of course I am, you never meant to describe capitalism and imperialism in any way that would conform to any dictionary definition of jingoism. Here, it is those that point to them, as 'catch phrases' no less, that are the jingoists.

"How is it defending them to point out that they're not relevant?"

You do defend them, not with just a 'knee jerk', but here, with a contorted 'knee jerk' defense. Capitalism and imperialism are relevant. I suspect that's why you're so quick to point in any other direction.

Les

"as with Franco in another thread - it seems that there is no point arguing over this 'religious' belief"


No moreso than arguing with Les over communism. The great genocides weren't 'real' communists like exploding babies aren't 'real' muslims.


Capitalism is simply freedom expressing itself in economics, freedom (and hence capitalism) is very easy to argue against in the abstract but very difficult to restrict in reality.


For example: Abstractly Les believes 'we' should all sacrifice for the greater good of starving babies. In reality he wouldn't dare sacrifice any real conveniences (like say his computer and internet connection) to achieve his stated goal.

That's freedom in action.

Doug,

"Abstractly Les believes 'we' should all sacrifice for the greater good of starving babies."

The truth is that we are sacrificing and babies are not being saved.

We are already sacrificing to the capitalist system, not an abstract capitalism, but a very real one.

As the real estate bailout shows, they are very willing to privatize the profits but want to socialize the losses. It is a system BASED on exploitation. It DEMANDS that we ALL sacrifice, from birth to death. That's why the babies are dying. No amount of sacrifice from us will alter that. They will always demand more. It's not just babies dying; we are all headed for an early grave under capitalism. Sacrifice? That's nothing more than a reactionary stupidity shared by all defenders of capitalism, left and right.

Les

Yes, Les. I do defend capitalism. On the other hand I don't believe in imperialism as a viable concept in the modern world, and certainly not as a term which could be applied to the US.

But defending capitalism in general doesn't mean that it was in any way the focus of this article, which you attempt to make it because you cannot argue on a rational basis, because it requires you to defend mass murderers to maintain your position.

Dave

"It is a system BASED on exploitation. It DEMANDS that we ALL sacrifice, from birth to death. That's why the babies are dying."

That's not capitalism you're describing, that's life itself. Food, clothing, and shelter don't just magically manifest themselves in corporate warehouses, it's always been a struggle.

The wonderful thing about our free systems (the same ones that foster capitalism) is that it in no way impairs your ability to do whatever you want. I suggest you find a group of likeminded folks and start your own commune. See firsthand how easy survival is when everything is given away free.

I'm certain everyone will do their share as they are able and no one will ever be exploited. Let me know how that works for you.

Dave, great article. Very well written. It looks like the followup conversation is going to be a rerun of old conversations and the airing of old grudges. Too bad.

I'm not going to get into all of this mish mash except in the following regard:

1. Dave, you say regarding imperialism "certainly not as a term which could be applied to the US."

As I stated on another thread, while the U.S. is not an imperialist nation in the traditional sense of occupying and taking direct control of governments in other countries, the U.S. is "in effect" imperialistic in that it wields great and often undue influence over the governments and economies of many countries around the world and has been involved, usually surreptiously, in the removal and installation of a number of "puppet" governments over the past several years.

2. Doug, you say in reference to communal living: "See firsthand how easy survival is when everything is given away free."

What little experience I have with communes, it has been my impression that nothing is "given away." It is vital that everyone carry their own weight in the work necessary to maintain it. Slackers can be and often are sanctioned in some way, and even forced to leave if they don't conduct themselves properly.

I'm not a particular fan of communal living or communes, and I'm not an apologist for communism or socialism. However, I believe the problem with socialism, as I understand it, is that we (humanity) are not mature enough to make a socialistic society/economy work on a large scale and/or for a prolonged time. It is our failure to resist temptation to exploit others, to abuse power. To steal the Orwellian phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," is a simple illustration of how we can twist and rationalize about anything.

B-tone

Dave, that's a much better picture of you :)

I don't know about that picture. With the cigar its not a good influence for the kids.

B-tone

I think the hat and cigar make the picture - along with my miraculous weight loss, of course.

Dave

I don't know, Dave. You're looking a little gaunt, skeletal even. Nice smile, though.

On a related note, how do I whack a picture of me on the bottom of my stories?? Eric sent me thing about it, but being an Aussie, I'm fu.ked if I can understand a bloody word of what he said.

Notice the close-set eye sockets, though.

Never trust a man with close-set eye sockets; they never come to any good and usually wind up as Political Editors (after they hit bottom, of course).

:>)

Hey you boys, I'm planning a trip to the US next year BTW ... we should all catch up, Doc too. I'm also going to the UK I think, so I'll try and catch up with Colin R and Rosey - although I'm a bit frightened of that because I'll be blithering on mid-sentence and he'll censor me (gratuitous filth deleted by comments editor). Easy answer: Ok then, you get the next pint, Rosey, you pommy bastard.

The problem is, none you bastards speak proper English, so how the fu.k are we going to understand each other. Plus, except for the Poms, you all drive on the wrong side of the road and put your steering wheels on the wriong side.

You have no idea how dreadfully disconcerting that is (Doc, you'd understand, and you too Dave having been to the UK), especially changing gears with your right (left for Dave's travels) hand, and how stressful the whole thing is just getting from point a to b. Roundabouts are huge fu.king drama (Fu.k me, which way do I turn? Ok, just follow the traffic and hope for the best). But taxis are the worst. Sitting in in the front passenger seat, in what should actually be the driver's seat, you always feel like you're about to have a head-on crash.

Crossing the road is deadly too - you must be extremely careful to look both ways twice, as what you are used to doing is completely reversed. We had two American exchange strudent girls killed here on their first day (they'd just arrived from the airport and put their bags in their univetrsity rooms and were heading to the local mall) a few years back when they were hit by a truck because they looked the wrong way and saw no traffic. Tragic stuff, truly, and very sad. I almost got hit by a bus in Portugal too this year, for the same reason.

Perhaps you can Lobby congress in the meantime and tell 'em I'm coming and ask if you can switch over to the proper side, which you should have done in the first place anyway :)

Strangely enough, I never learned to drive until I moved over here, so the whole steering-wheel-on-the-wrong-side thing was never a bother for me.

My driving instructor actually turned out to be English - I thought, Oh great, I move all the way to America and he's going to teach me to drive on the left.

I passed the test first time, though. Mind you, the California driving test is ridiculously easy:

Q. What is this large metal object with four wheels that I am pointing to?
A. A car.
Q. Congratulations. You've passed your test.

And I greatly amused my mate who came to pick me up at Heathrow last week when I automatically walked round to the right-hand side of the car...

My most harrowing driving experience was my first venture on the German autobahn in a Ford Focus wagon a couple of years ago carrying five people including myself and all of our luggage. I kept it going at around the equivalent of 90 to 95MPH in the center lane. Cars regularly blew past me in the left lane like I was standing still.

I must say, though, that most of the autobahn over which I drove was very well maintained. The rest stops have restaurants, souvenir shops and restrooms which were impeccably maintained.

Oh, and now for a little reality check. My son living in Germany has a 12 year old Escort. It just cost him seventy Euros to fill his tank.

"Crossing the road is deadly too - you must be extremely careful to look both ways twice, as what you are used to doing is completely reversed."

I vaguely recall a book that came out sometime in the fifties (I think), written by a Brit spy who had been caught by the Huns while inside Germany.

The book's title (and the reason he got caught) was "I Looked Right".

Roundabouts are no problem for me having grown up in the DC area and in Russia where they are commonplace. The bitch for me driving in the UK was the side mirrors of parked cars on narrow medieval streets. I took out more than a couple.

Dave

Baritone, #32:

Sounds a bit like Highway 99 here in California...

Dave,

I just read the article you wrote, and have not looked at the comments at all; I've purposely ignored the conversations afterwards to make a couple of tough points that you will not like.

You and I have similar perspectives on the problems at hand. You grew up in this part of the world, and I hope you realize after two years of reading what I have written, that my hostility is directed towards the enemies of my own people - and that these enemies are not necessarily the Arabs.

But we are long past the point of saying that terror is like a cancer that if ignored will kill you. At least 2,000 lives were ruined by the terror attack in Pakistan when you add the orphans, widows, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and other people connected to those killed and injured. Living here in Israel, and having lived through a spate of "Palestinian" terror attacks from the end of 2001 to 2004, I know the rippling math of pain terror brings well, even though I was not a direct victim, thank G-d. I cannot say the same for my doctor, whose daughter was killed in downtown Jerusalem in one of many terror attacks here.

If we know who the enemy is - the Wahhabi murder machine spreading hate and the wine of madness through the madrassas they fund world-wide including the United States and Canada - then it is long past time to take the obvious enemy out and stop wasting money on bullshit, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

This means targeting the royal family of Saudia and the puppets they have in power there, and erasing Saudia and replacing it with Arabia, and the rightful rulers of Mecca and Medina, the haShemi family, so that the Wahhabi fakers and liars can be dispensed with using the same murderous justice they have inflicted on real Moslems for decades. If that sounds like Ahmadinejad's formula for the Zionist entity, this is purposeful. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the only person who can call for the elimination of a country from a map.

The Pashtun will, with proper help, ditch the scum from Deoband who have made their lives miserable. They need to be eliminated by their own people, using the Pashtunwali as a tool of justice against the Deoband usurpers. The Pashtun are fierce fighters and know how to rid themselves of trash. They are, after all, Children of Israel, brothers to the Lions of Judah whose wrath is slowly being roused here.

Americans need not lose their lives in the swamps of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Let the people of Mesopotamia steer their own future. If America wants to concentrate on enemies, let them concentrate of the Islamic Republic of Shi'a Terror with its nuclear pretensions. Overthrow this regime of murderers and allow the normative Persian traditions of tolerance to reassert themselves, and we will see the day when Iran will be an engine of prosperity in the region using nuclear power to assert the ancient empire and influence they long have held.

There is real movement in the Moslem world, and we are seeing that Moslems, Arab or otherwise are beginning to awaken from the frenzy of hatred that has consumed them for the last three decades or so.

Right now Islam is a religion of war, jihad and death. But "jihad" is not necessarily war against the infidel, and Islam can, under the influence of the right scholars, become a religion of peace and tolerance for its billion and a half adherents.

Unfortunately, this all will not come about through peaceful means. The traitors who run America must be replaced by any means possible in order to save your own nation, and the American military presence in Iraq must be diverted southward to end the rule of the Saudi thugs. The American military presence in Afghanistan must come to an end.

Using the tools at hand, this is how a possible solution to these problems can be approached. If these things are not done, other Events will occur to procure the same ends; but they will be far less pleasant for all of us, world-wide.

Except that in Germany the left lane is for passing, and otherwise, you stay out of that lane. On 99, and especially 5, the whole thing is backwards. Idiots pass on the right doing 90 to get by the the other idiots doing 75 who think they own the passing lane.

And then there's me, a paragon of driving skills and etiquette at all times. That's why I'm always late.

But we are long past the point of saying that terror is like a cancer that if ignored will kill you.

You would think that we SHOULD be past that point, but here in America we're not. It's become clear that a distressingly large number of people here need near constant reminders of what the hell is going on in other parts of the world. They aren't paying attention, and because the attacks aren't coming here right now, it's too easy to just forget and ignore it all.

If we know who the enemy is - the Wahhabi murder machine spreading hate and the wine of madness through the madrassas they fund world-wide including the United States and Canada - then it is long past time to take the obvious enemy out and stop wasting money on bullshit, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

But it's so much more tempting to go after the easy targets and assume that doing so will intimidate the real enemies into behaving. When in fact, it just encourages them further.

This means targeting the royal family of Saudia and the puppets they have in power there, and erasing Saudia and replacing it with Arabia, and the rightful rulers of Mecca and Medina, the haShemi family, so that the Wahhabi fakers and liars can be dispensed with using the same murderous justice they have inflicted on real Moslems for decades. If that sounds like Ahmadinejad's formula for the Zionist entity, this is purposeful. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the only person who can call for the elimination of a country from a map.

Good luck on that one. I agree that the solution lies with the Hashemites, but they are politically pragmatic and too weak to ever act on their own. And the American politicians who might have the sense to realize what needs to be done don't have the balls for such a blatant action. It would take some almost inconceivable and direct offense to give them the backbone to set things right in Arabia.

Americans need not lose their lives in the swamps of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Let the people of Mesopotamia steer their own future.

I think the Iraq situation is coming to a natural conclusion. The problem is that after searching an entire country of 26 million people for a leader who could unite them and forge them into the tool the world needs to set that part of the world right, we've found nothing or at least no one willing to take on that role who also has the right skills and ruthlessness.

If America wants to concentrate on enemies, let them concentrate of the Islamic Republic of Shi'a Terror with its nuclear pretensions. Overthrow this regime of murderers and allow the normative Persian traditions of tolerance to reassert themselves, and we will see the day when Iran will be an engine of prosperity in the region using nuclear power to assert the ancient empire and influence they long have held.

Whatever we do in Iran needs to be done covertly. It has to be a situation where the government is overthrown by its own people at much as possible. And there's plenty of resentment there to build on.

There is real movement in the Moslem world, and we are seeing that Moslems, Arab or otherwise are beginning to awaken from the frenzy of hatred that has consumed them for the last three decades or so.

Right now Islam is a religion of war, jihad and death. But "jihad" is not necessarily war against the infidel, and Islam can, under the influence of the right scholars, become a religion of peace and tolerance for its billion and a half adherents.

A counter-Jihad is exactly what we need at this point - radical reform movement with the objective of preserving Islamic culture from itself. The problem is that such a movement needs a leader and I just don't see one out there and the US can't just create one from nothing.

Dave

Dave - the premise of your piece is that folks may have forgotten that crazy religious people are a deadly problem...what gives you that impression - ?

...why do you think terrorist groups are so often lead by the disaffected youth of the owner class - ?

Dave - the premise of your piece is that folks may have forgotten that crazy religious people are a deadly problem...what gives you that impression - ?

The willingness of people to vote for Mike Huckabee? But seriously, it's quite clear that most Americans have moved on and have different priorities and will likely continue in that mode until we get another wake-up call on the order of 9/11.

...why do you think terrorist groups are so often lead by the disaffected youth of the owner class - ?

Because they are raised with every opportunity and no real challenges, so they have to create challenges for themselves so that they feel like their lives are meaningful.

Dave

"...why do you think terrorist groups are so often lead by the disaffected youth of the owner class - ?

Because they are raised with every opportunity and no real challenges, so they have to create challenges for themselves so that they feel like their lives are meaningful."

Bingo.

Most of them are spoiled brats with a vicious bent.

Bin Laden is a perfect example. Always the black sheep, he's clamoring for attention from the rest of the family.

There are a few billion spoiled brats in the world, and not quite all of them are terrorists. Try again.

Handy, I think Clavos was talking about the terrorist leaders like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, or whatever the idiot's name is.

But you're quite right. The dupes they get to do their fighting and dying for them are very often from the working or peasant classes. They're good soldiers because they feel, and are encouraged to feel, that they have nothing to lose and Paradise to gain.

In fact, the better-off aren't even necessarily the best people for the job - as witness those doctors who made a right pig's ear of trying to blow up Glasgow Airport a few months ago.

Yes, Doc, and that blundering group may be a more typical example of how brilliant these 'masterminds' are than say, 9/11 or 7/7 [London], which are beginning to seem like 'lucky' breaks for incompetent, disorganized, but very excitable groups of fanatics.

This is not to say they aren't dangerous, just that we flatter them too much with our extravagant theories - and that has led to a lot of overreaching by, prime example, the Bush-Cheney administration.

My favorite example is Mexican revolutionary leader Subcomandante Marcos who is an overeducated completely insane yuppie messiah who seems to think he's some sort of comic book superhero. If you thought Hugo Chavez was a nut, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Dave

But I think what Dave and Clav were indicating was that the leaders of terrorist groups are often the off spring of the rich - idle minds being the devil's playground, don't you know. Didn't any of you watch all the old westerns - the cowboy and indian flicks? It's always the chief's son who wants to go to war with the white man.

The foot soldiers, the ones who dawn the suicide belts, are rarely from the upper or even middle classes. To me, that just makes it all the more heinous. While its not true of all suicide bombers, a great number of them are from the poor or working classes, many with little real education outside of islamic indoctrination.
These are the most impressionable and pliant people to recruit. Instead of filling their heads with sugar plum fairies, they are plied with grand visions of being a martyr for the glory of allah - and of course those ubiquitous 72 virgins.

Sure, there are many "spoiled" rich kids who never even dream of becoming terrorists. Many opt for a life of party hopping - from continent to continent in daddy's jet - getting glommed out by some drug or other, or just sitting around being wonderful. Some, happily, do outgrow their uselessness and actually contribute to society. I have no idea about the numbers. I imagine Dave could come up with some kind of demographic study on this.

B-tone

I imagine Dave could come up with some kind of demographic study on this.

The mind reels.

I would trust such figures about as much as Dave's other "studies": of the Democratic Party and the 'secret history' of its leadership; his "don't worry, be happy" assessment of poverty and the economy in this country; the 'truth' about gun ownership and use; and the many lovely tall tales he has spun about the 'reality' of the Iraq war.

Get off the fence, handy.

Tell us what you really think.

Couldn't resist. Not exactly in the Christmas spirit, sorry.

Baritone - *While its not true of all suicide bombers, a great number of them are from the poor or working classes, many with little real education outside of islamic indoctrination.*

do we have a source of real figures on this - ?

Nalle: "Capitalism is just an expression of the natural inclinations of humanity and to go against it is ultimately futile and destructive."

Not a good argument since thievery, murder and rape are also "natural inclinations". In fact, we establish governments, taxes, police and armies to "go against" them. Seems like we regularly "go against" a lot of natural inclinations.

Not exactly in the Christmas spirit, sorry.

Well, I'm on tenterhooks for Dave's expose of how "Bah!" originated from the cry of the donkey (the emblem of the Democratic Party), how "Humbug!" was the campaign slogan of Woodrow Wilson, and how basically it's all the socialists' fault.

"Not a good argument since thievery, murder and rape are also "natural inclinations". In fact, we establish governments, taxes, police and armies to "go against" them. Seems like we regularly "go against" a lot of natural inclinations."

Bad analogy. Thievery, murder and rape are crimes (in virtually every society, regardless of economic system), while capitalism hasn't been declared a crime; at least not in this country.

Not yet, anyway.

Calling capitalism "natural" sounds as befogged as Christian fundamentalists describing the "science" of creationism. Capitalism is a belief system, an economic doctrine, a poliitcal framework. Nothing natural about it.

I have to agree with handy but disagree with bliffle here.

Murder, rape and theft are not natural human inclinations, since we are a social animal and such actions would have got you promptly thrown out of the tribe or clubbed to death. Not a good way to perpetuate your DNA, to reduce it to biological terms.

But one could just as well and by the same argument say that communism is a natural human inclination, since we are a social animal and lived, before the invention of civilisation, by pooling resources.

troll,

Ask Dave about the numbers. I'm sure he's got some somewhere.

My information regarding the economic status of the average "bomber" comes from a variety of exposes on the tube and a variety of articles about how and where many of them are recruited, whether acting on behalf of a Palestinian group, al Qaida or some other group wanting to kick somebody's ass.

At any rate, it makes sense that the poor and poorly educated would be far more impressionable and easily made willing to forego what promises to be a shit life on our little planet in favor of being a blessed martyr sitting at allah's bigassed feet. They are made to believe that they have little to lose and much to gain. Allah likes bombs. He likes the sound - "boom!" He likes the result - people turned into a pink mist. He's a good and loving god, that allah is. Just the kind of god you'd like living next door to you.

B-tone

*...we are a social animal and lived, before the invention of civilisation, by pooling resources.*

and when all is said and done - still do

Hey Stan,

Yes, perhaps we should try and meet in the so-called real world - what a generous thought on your part. (Me, I believe The Matrix is gospel and someone will pull the plug out of my head one day - only to emerge in a parallel universe entirely like this one, only it's raining and Leeds United are champions of Europe - I have trouble sleeping you know).

I'm in Cardiff, Wales, which doesn't offer much to the touristic visitor - sorry but it's true, there's a none-too-ancient castle and some rugby ground but that's it. Although you must get up a mountain or too if you can. If I could arrange it I'd get to meet you at Kingsholm, entirely the finest sporting arena since thumbs down time at ye olde Colliseum - but with less mealy-mouthed denizens.

Hey ho. To stay on topic, I agree with both Les and Dave - no more needlessly dead babies! And, that's the most serious thing I've written for some time.

Baritone - while your observations make sense see Alan Krueger's "What Makes a Terrorist" in which he argues that actual terroristas/suicide bombers come predominantly from what he calls the middle class

I heard a show on the radio here today about the psychology of suicide bombers, it featured a chap you carried out "psychological autopsies" on them - how this works I don't really know, interviewing their mates and reading diaries etc I guess. He didn't come to any great conclusion other than "These people do not have any particular mental illness that links them..." No shit Sherlock...
Sorry that doesn't add very much, I'm a bit of a comment-loon today - it's a displacement activity!

#1 -- December 18, 2007 @ 08:34AM -- Doug Hunter
Dave, do you not realize that your comsumptive American lifestyle has caused that.

Sweet baby Jesus, we pretty much wiped out TB years ago, and you call yerselves a developed country ;o) (see above)

Sure, there are many "spoiled" rich kids who never even dream of becoming terrorists. Many opt for a life of party hopping - from continent to continent in daddy's jet - getting glommed out by some drug or other, or just sitting around being wonderful. Some, happily, do outgrow their uselessness and actually contribute to society.

And I do think that some few of them find a cause and pursue it. In most cases it's not terrorism - especially for Americans - but in some few cases it is.

The case histories of some of the female aid workers from wealthy backgrounds in Europe who've been drawn into relationships with terrrorists - mostly in Palestine - are truly fascinating.

I have no idea about the numbers. I imagine Dave could come up with some kind of demographic study on this.

I wish I could. It's something which ought to be studied, but it's so specialized that unless it becomes a more widespread problem it's unlikely to get a demographic analysis that's meaningful.

However, it does connect to case studies from the 1960s and other eras. There is a history of theoretical studies of the dynamics of societies which undergo revolutions.

The classic model used in this sort of study is the Russian Revolution, which was driven by younger folks from the middle class who took leadership roles and led an army of footsoldiers from the working class. In that case it seems to have been the result of the large gap in society being between the middle class and the aristocracy rather than between the middle class and the poor as is more common in western countries. When the gap is between the middle class and the poor you don't get revolution. When it's between an educated but powerless middle class and the ruling class you get revolution.

And there are also case studies of people like Patty Hearst and others who got involved with revolutionary movements in the 60s. That era produced a class of kids from the wealthy and middle class who turned away from traditional society into alternative lifestyles, which in some cases included activism and even revolutionary movements. I'm familiar with this phenomenon, because I grew up right in the middle of it and know people who dropped out of society and ended up in weird circumstances of one kind or another - no terrorists, but lots of troubled 60s era kids from wealthy families. Hell, I'm right on the borderline of being a societal dropout myself.

If I were still inclined to be a historian and wanted to work in a cutting edge field, this would be a good choice. I wish Tom Philpott had stuck around. He'd be the guy to talk to about it. He'd be probably be studying it now if he were still with us.

Dave

Troll, common decency dictates that when you mention Krueger's article you provide a link to it, dammit.

And on reading the article, I don't disagree. Terrorists as traditionally defined certainly do come from the middle classes, and that's where you're going to find them here in the US or in Europe or even in the middle east in positions of leadership.

But I'd argue that suicide bombers and other 'expendibles' of the terrorist movements in the middle east are a different breed altogether. They're not really terrorists at all. They're soldiers in a very real sense, recruited for their ability to fight and die and not be much missed for it, and recruited from a class where they have no hope and with incentives of benefits to their families which are worth risking their lives for.

To be cynical, it's an awful lot like how the US army recruits soldiers. Groups of wealthy Saudis offer cash payments to the families of volunteers from desperately poor places like Yemen and Sudan and then arrange for them to be sent off to training camps or direct to the front lines in Iraq. They don't have the skills to build bombs or direct attacks, so they end up holding a gun or carrying a bomb and like as not die. But the key thing is that they don't fit the terrorist profile in the same way that a Mexican national who joins the US army for cash and a shot at citizenship doesn't fit the profile of a west pont grad.

Dave

There's a dutch girl - again middle class - who has been featured in the press here recently who joined The FARC (may be wrong acronym, sorry, but I'm sure you know the Marxist revolutionaries I mean) in Columbia... Her diary, which was mildly critical of the movement and somewhat disillusioned I gather, had got into the hands of the press somehow and her family were keen to secure her return.

*Troll, common decency dictates that when you mention Krueger's article you provide a link to it, dammit.*

sorry Dave - I was referencing his book by the same name and hadn't seen the synopsis; thanks for coming up with it

"When it's between an educated but powerless middle class and the ruling class you get revolution."

Hmm.

That sounds a lot like some of Les's comments regarding the revolution he's trying to foment here in the USA.

Though I don't think the middle class here is powerless.

Les is following standard theory on revolution. The problem is that the gap between the middle class and upper class would have to be a lot larger than it is and the role the wealthy play in our society would need to be different than it is for the theory to actually apply.

Globalism has sort of screwed up the basic paradigms of revolution theory for the largest and most wealthy nations, because the really wealthy sort of move out of our domestic society and become part of an international culture, leaving us with a much more reasonable wealth gap within our local communities.

Dave

RE: Apparently the primary trigger for the sequence of coordinated suicide bombings in the crowd was a bomb wired into the clothing of a one-year-old infant...

Benazir Bhutto may be lying about the attack on her motorcade. Every account of the bombing that I am aware of noted that Bhutto was not in an exposed position when the attack occurred. Nor was she in a position to see who her attackers might have been. An eyewitness account in the October 21 Telegraph of London, by Victoria Schofield, traveling on the vehicle with Bhutto, notes the following:

"We had already been on the truck for six hours and Benazir had gone to its lower level to rest her swollen feet. She also wanted to go over the speech she was due to make later. ...

Suddenly, I was blown out of my chair by an explosion; when I opened my eyes, I was crouching on the floor surrounded by the several other occupants on the top deck, who included relatives, friends and party workers."
And as for the alleged responsibility of shadowy "religious fanatics," Ms Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari told ARYONE World Television: "I blame government for these blasts. It is the work of the intelligence agencies." Of course, he was safely hiding in Dubai at the time, no doubt keeping guard on the money that he had previously stolen from the Pakistan treasury, from the days when he was known as Mr Ten Per Cent, for allegedly extorting 10% from major business deals during the Pakistan People's Party reign.

RE: This brings us back to the question. Do we close our eyes and pretend that there are not people who wire babies with bombs? Or do we face reality and pay the price to treat the cancer which they represent before it spreads and destroys civilized society throughout the world?
I do not understand why some people, particularly some conservatives, are still trying to drum up support for the loony idea that the "civilized world" needs to be deathly afraid of religious fanatics, Islamo-fascists or whatever term that one wishes to apply to a largely incompetent bunch of goons. I don't doubt that there are fanatics who would like to see the West fail, but they have been unable to do any lasting damage to us, and do more harm destabilizing their own countries. (By the way, Dave, note that I am not labeling you as a conservative. I don't think that your political ideology is that simply descdribed)

Moreover, Bhutto is little more than the Pakistan version of Iraq's Chalabi, seeking Western support not because she is a reliable ally, but because is burning to return to power. And as much as I dislike her and her husband, I do note that Zardari was cleared of murder charges in 1996 when audio tapes revealed that opposition forces were blackmailing the judge involved in the case to issue a guilty verdict. I also note that our current guy in Pakistan, the equally unreliable Musharraf, also likes to attempt to strong arm judges into doing his bidding.

The situation in Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere is more complicated than conveyed by neat cancer metaphors.

Good points, Alec.

I do not understand why some people, particularly some conservatives, are still trying to drum up support for the loony idea that the "civilized world" needs to be deathly afraid of religious fanatics, Islamo-fascists or whatever term that one wishes to apply to a largely incompetent bunch of goons. I don't doubt that there are fanatics who would like to see the West fail, but they have been unable to do any lasting damage to us, and do more harm destabilizing their own countries.

Fanaticism is always a threat to civilization, whether it comes from Islam or fundamentalist Christianity or from any of the secular causes which inspire fanatical behavior. You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to see this general truth.

The question is how you identify the point where a fanatical movement goes from being a bunch of goons who mostly do harm to themselves, their families and their local community, and when their 'movement' begins to snowball and become a threat to the entire world.

Obviously the intent to do harm worldwide exists in radical islam. There's no question of that. The only question is whether the capacity is there.

So put aside the whole mess in the middle east, where the fanatics can clearly do damage, and look at the potential in the rest of the world.

First, they control a good portion of the oil supply. That gives them economic power which can do a great deal of harm to western economies, not only directly through their oil holdings, but also through the money they've invested in western businesses

Second, the muslim population of virtually all western countries has been growing dramatically in the last 20 years. In most of those countries they occupy a position as an underclass not unlike the position mexican immigrants occupy in the US. In many of those countries they are numerous enough to demand political concessions and considerations and often get them.

Third, they outbreed more 'civilized' populations AND they are pretty successful at winning over converts. They are more motivated to assert themselves culturally than many of the societies in which they are in the minority as immigrants.

They have leaders, they have goals, they have an agenda and it's not compatible with our best interests. Not every muslim is radicalized, but the conditions are ripe for radicalization to spread, especially in Europe.

Why on earth would we NOT be concerned?

Dave

Dave: "Roundabouts are no problem for me having grown up in the DC area and in Russia where they are commonplace."

We've got millions of 'em here too, plus I've driven in the UK, where it seems like there's one on every second corner.

But the problem is, when the steering wheel is on the wrong side, (the left) like it is in the US and much of Europe (you bunch of bloody Philistines), and you are driving on the wrong side of the road (the right), it really does your bloody head right in as the traffic starts to go onto the roundabout. It's more stressful than a divorce settlement, and even worse, it's happening every 5 fucking minutes.

My brain, eyes and arms want to go to the left-hand side, but of course in the US and most of Europe, you are going on to it on the right.

Especially in Paris, where no one seems to know where they're going anyway even if they're French and they've lived there for 50 years.

And here's the experience in Australia regarding the Bali bombers from Jemaah Islamiyah (J.I. - the Asian offshoot of al-Qaeda, and heavily linked to them)

They weren't oppressed, and they weren't poor by indo standards. They were leading pretty normal lives by all acoounts, and most had jobs and families.

They just listened to and believed a man who spews out far too much hatred and uses a holy book to justify his filth when it was never meant to.

The reason one gave at their trials (for killing 200, including 80 odd Aussies): "We wanted to kill infidels.

"I wished we had killed more."

That was it, nothing more, nothing less. Then he shouted in Arabic: "God is great", raised his fist and laughed at the families of the victims as he and his mates were sentenced to death.

Some of you don't realise this, but that's what we're all collectively up against.

Get used to it too, because they aren't going anywhere soon. It wouldn't surprise me if there's another serious attack here, in the US or Britain soon. Love to see what the "truthers" would make of that.

I hate the bastards (and most of you know my personal reason for that) for what they've done.

They should all be lined up against a row of palm trees on a beautiful Balinese beach and shot at dawn. Oh, wait ... they are going to be.

Actually, they don't even deserve such a death in an idyllic setting like that, which is the Balinese way of execution. But if it kills 'em, the sooner the better. Me, I'd prefer it if they had their heads sawn off slowly with a blunt saw.

My advice to any westerner, despite how dreadfully the Balinese (who are mainly Hindu, but not all are, and are really beautiful people) are suffering from the loss of the tourist trade: never go to Indonesia for any reason, because with idiots like J.I. you just don't know ...

*Me, I'd prefer it if they had their heads sawn off slowly with a blunt saw.*

ugh surfer dude

Barry was wrong - extremism even in the name of a good cause is bad

a simple firing squad will work just fine

RE: Fanaticism is always a threat to civilization, whether it comes from Islam or fundamentalist Christianity or from any of the secular causes which inspire fanatical behavior. You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to see this general truth.

In an earlier post, I suggested that Benazir Bhutto might be lying about the fanatic using a baby as bomb bait. Let me be more blunt. She IS lying. There is no other news report that verifies her story, and she was in a lower section of her armored vehicle and could not possibly have directly observed her attackers. As far as I am concerned, this undercuts a major part of your article.

And yet, just as the 9/11 "Truth" crowd keeps trying to sell an empty conspiracy theory despite all the evidence to the contrary, some conservatives keep trying to push an equally phony notion that there is a powerful Islamo-fascist terrorist threat, a worldwide battle of fanaticism vs. civilization, to which the only response must be perpetual war, pre-emptive strikes and other "hard-headed," manly and strong actions.

Your continued citing of agendas and intent and potential reminds me of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," Act 2, Scene 1, where Brutus convinces himself that Caesar must be assassinated purely because of the HYPOTHETICAL threat that he may become a tyrant:

... So Caesar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

So, yeah, some Islamic fundamentalists would like to rule the world, restore the caliphate, blah, blah, blah. And people in Hell want ice water.

Islamic fundamentalism IS destructive and disruptive, but it is inherently self-defeating. Even more than communism, which collapsed under the weight of its on self-contradictions, Islamic fundamentalism is going nowhere.

RE: The only question is whether the capacity is there.

There ain't no capacity. The Ethiopian army, with some US assistance, was able to rout the Islamic Courts Union forces in Somalia. India kicked the crap out of Pakistan and took 90,000 prisoners during the Indo-Pakistani War in 1971, which led to the independence of Bangladesh. As an aside, I note that the US was on the Pakistani side, a notable bit of foolishness.

So the threat of direct military action is weak. I leave dreams of havoc wreaked by means of subversion to those who like to indulge in fantasy.


RE: First, they control a good portion of the oil supply. That gives them economic power which can do a great deal of harm to western economies, not only directly through their oil holdings, but also through the money they've invested in western businesses

I am hard-nosed enough to declare that sometimes a war for oil might be justified. And I also note that some Islamic fundamentalists might be willing to stop the flow of Middle Eastern oil if it would guarantee that a "pure" form of Islam would be maintained. But here they would not be interested in wielding economic power or trading with the West. But even if every drop of oil from the Middle East stopped tomorrow, civilization would not collapse, even though things might be uncomfortable for a while. This simply means that other technological alternatives, which are currently too expensive to consider, would become more viable.

Also, during the 1970s, there was a lot of feverish speculation about how the Arab states would be able to control the US and Europe with their stash of petro-dollars. Nothing much ever came of this, and nothing much will in the future.

On the other hand, moderate Arabs and Muslims have a huge stake invested in keeping the oil flowing, and having the West invest in their countries. Why do you think that Tiger Woods gets millions to play golf in Dubai?


RE: Second, the muslim population of virtually all western countries has been growing dramatically in the last 20 years.

This is nonsense. There is no appreciable Muslim population in Japan, Australia, Mexico or even Canada (the last has only 1.9% of the population as even being religiously affiliated with Islam).

RE: In most of those countries they occupy a position as an underclass not unlike the position mexican immigrants occupy in the US. In many of those countries they are numerous enough to demand political concessions and considerations and often get them.

This is untrue and borderline offensive to both Muslims and Mexican immigrants. Exactly what political concessions and considerations have Mexican immigrants won? And underclass? With billions of dollars in remittances being sent back to Mexico and other Latin countries?

RE: Third, they outbreed more 'civilized' populations AND they are pretty successful at winning over converts. They are more motivated to assert themselves culturally than many of the societies in which they are in the minority as immigrants.

Show me some figures on conversions to Islam in industrialized countries. I will bet that they are low.

And the other problem here is that the few concessions that the most fundamentalist Muslims seek (and don't always win) are the ones that further marginalize them within the Western societies they live in. At best, in this continues, they will end up like the Amish, only angrier, but stuck in the past and dependent on the goodwill of everyone else in the countries in which they live.

RE: Why on earth would we NOT be concerned?

It's one thing to be concerned. It's another to exaggerate the degree to which Islamic radicals are a threat to anyone but themselves.


By the way, especially for people with iTunes, I recommend the NPR: Fresh Air podcasts of interviews with journalist Ahmed Rashid, about the situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly the podcasts for December 12, 2007 and November 6, 2007. If you do a search on the NPR site for his name, you will find other informative articles and interviews.

There is also the September 27, 2007 podcast, featuring an interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Yaroslav Trofimov, who traces the beginning of the global jihad to Nov. 20, 1979, in his book "The Siege of Mecca." I think he overstates the case a bit, but his book is very interesting and informative.

I also recommend the December 10 interview with Sarah Chaves, who previously reported on the fall on the Taliban, and who mentions, for example how Afghan warlords sometimes use false claims of fundamentalist attacks to cover their own power-grabs.

Chaves and Trofimov, in different ways, point out how sometimes the fundamentalists are not independent operators or threats, but are used by more cynical power brokers.

I also recommend Internet streams or podcasts of the public radio show Air Talk, from 89.3 KPCC in Southern California. The host, Larry Mantle, intelligently and fairly interviews guests with substantial knowledge of the Middle East, Pakistan and other areas of the world where fundamentalism is an issue. And note here that except for these programs, I don't think much of other NPR or public radio news programs.

A poll for who you'd vote for as President is being run on BCs Forum page. To add your voice click here