Explosion in Boston?

[The Ween]

Excellent and well said post.

Makes me feel all warm and safe inside. To know the truth.

How long have you lived in Ireland?

 

[BadMoon]

How long have you lived in Ireland?

 

[intothevoid]

The reason for the war was to attempt some kind of meaningful action in the region without directly confronting militant Islam, out of fear that it would be seen as an assault upon Islam as such. They believed they could change attitudes in the entire region by bringing some semblance of political liberty to one of the secular dictatorships, and hope that the example would spread.

US has no interests in changing attitudes in the region. They support dictators who they have in their pockets so as to ensure access to oil and to keep each country under an iron fist so they can never truly progress and think for themselves and what their best interests might be (which are likely to be contrary to what US interests are). Gaddaffi, Assad, Saudi Royalty, the King of Jordan are all examples.

Two of those have just blown up in their faces. The rest will follow, it's just a matter of time.

Purveyors of democracy and freedom? Worst joke of the last century.

So, I stick with my beliefs on the reasons for the war in Iraq. That invasion along with the Afghan one has only furthered the reach and ideological ammunition of perverted extremism (won't call it Islam as no Muslim would ever murder innocent people), and made the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

 

[intothevoid]

Also, this is relevant

Everything You've Been Told About Radicalization Is Wrong
Despite the rhetoric, scary YouTube videos don't turn people into terrorists

If media accounts are to be believed, the accused Boston marathon bombers were "radicalized" by watching American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki's YouTube sermons and reading Inspire, the al Qaeda magazine. To whatever extent it is true of the Tsarnaev brothers, this narrative follows a familiar path: one in which seemingly ordinary people are exposed to radical ideas, then adopt those ideas as their own, and then become violent. That theory was set out in a 2007 NYPD report called Radicalization in the West, which focuses exclusively on Muslims, and describes a four-stage progression – a "funnel," the report says – in which each step towards violence is intrinsically linked with increased religiosity. Though the intelligence community at the federal level has distanced itself from the NYPD's theory, it continues to dominate thinking in law enforcement. There's only one problem, according to critics: It's reductive and simplistic at best, and at worst is a thin justification for racial profiling of Muslims.

"Nobody watches YouTube or reads Inspire and becomes a terrorist. It's absurd to think so," says John Horgan, director of the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University. "YouTube videos and reading Al Qaeda magazines tends to be far more relevant for sustaining commitment than inspiring it."

The mistaken belief that the earliest stages of terrorism can be seen at "radicalization incubators" – Muslim bookstores, hookah bars, mosques, virtually anywhere Muslims congregate in person or online – has resulted in a focus on so-called "preventive policing," a policy whose stated aim is to prevent a terrorist attack before one happens. Since the theory says adopting radical ideas is the first step toward someone becoming violent, officials say they're justified in surveilling places where "radical" ideas might take hold.

According to Horgan, though, that's just not how it works. "The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research," he says. "[First], the overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And second, there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don't necessarily hold radical beliefs."

Jamie Bartlett, head of the Violence and Extremism program at the think tank Demos, echoes these doubts. "The word 'radicalization' suggests a fairly simple linear path toward an ultimate violent conclusion," he says. Studies suggest that although there may be stages in the evolution of a terrorist, placing them sequentially on a line, as the NYPD's report literally does, is far too pat. The stages are fluid, not a simple trajectory, and it is virtually impossible to predict who will or won't engage in violence based solely on their beliefs.

"I have found that many young home-grown al-Qaeda terrorists are not attracted by religion or ideology alone – often their knowledge of Islamist theology is wafer-thin and superficial – but also the glamour and excitement that al-Qaeda type groups purports to offer," Bartlett notes.

When it comes to why someone chooses to engage in terrorism, Horgan says, "there are the bigger social, political and religious reasons people give for becoming involved" – for instance, anger over government policies or a foreign occupation. But that leaves out a key part of the story. "Hidden behind these bigger reasons, there are also hosts of littler reasons – personal fantasy, seeking adventure, camaraderie, purpose, identity," adds Horgan. "These lures can be very powerful, especially when you don't necessarily have a lot else going on in your life, but terrorists rarely talk about them."

Despite all this, law enforcement organizations have used the flawed logic of "radicalization" to justify investigating innocent Muslims in almost every part of their daily lives. Under "preventive policing," critics say cops and FBI agents aren't focusing on actual crime, but on protected first amendment activities – like the NYPD's surveillance of student and political groups, or reports "that the FBI has infiltrated mosques simply to learn about what was being said by the imam leading prayers and by those attending" – without a clear reason to suspect criminality.

After the FBI abuses of the 1970s were discovered, former undercover FBI agent and ACLU senior policy counsel Mike German says reforms were put in place so agents needed "a factual basis for suspecting criminal activity" to conduct an investigation. When German was an undercover FBI agent in the 1990s, he says, "The attorney general's guidelines required me to have a reasonable indication of criminal activity before I could investigate someone." This restrained approach had the added benefit of minimizing unhelpful data. "Rather than limit my investigations, these restrictions helped me focus them properly on the few individuals who were intending to engage in criminal activity while at the same time protecting the rights of people to hold beliefs I found abhorrent."

For law enforcement to equate increased religiosity or radicalism with violence isn't only a bad investigative strategy and arguably unconstitutional – it fundamentally damages the character of society. "To be a radical means to reject the status quo, which in some cases propels society forward," says Bartlett. "Equating radicalism with terrorism can produce a dampening effect on free expression – either by government or by self-censorship."

There are no easy answers for why someone engages in violence against civilians, and the temptation to find them should be resisted. "I think it's time to end our preoccupation with radicalization," Horgan says. "Radicalization is not the issue. Terrorism is."



Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...adicalization-is-wrong-20130506#ixzz2Sr4zB7is
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[IrishJedi]

Purveyors of democracy and freedom? Worst joke of the last century.

That's a little histrionic, don't you think? Despite the current cluster****s in the Middle East and a few other boondoggles the U.S. has more often than not been a force of good in the world. And no other nation has spent more money or resources or sacrificed more lives defending foreign soils.

 

[The Josh]

That's a little histrionic, don't you think? Despite the current cluster****s in the Middle East and a few other boondoggles the U.S. has more often than not been a force of good in the world. And no other nation has spent more money or resources or sacrificed more lives defending foreign soils.

 

[intothevoid]

That's a little histrionic, don't you think? Despite the current cluster****s in the Middle East and a few other boondoggles the U.S. has more often than not been a force of good in the world. And no other nation has spent more money or resources or sacrificed more lives defending foreign soils.

Force of good? I'm sorry but any good the US has done has been outweighed to my mind by a great many bads.

Unless your idea of good includes
- Nuking Japan twice to stop a war.
- The massacres of innocents in Vietnam
- The ongoing support and arming of Israel in their state sponsored terrorism of Palestinians, who are only trying to struggle for their promised land.
- Going to war with Iraq on fabricated grounds
- Selective promotion of democracy as it fits the needs of the time.
- Ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians in Pakistan through unmanned drones.
- Ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians in Yemen through unmanned drones.
- creation of Bin Laden and his band of fools under misguided notions of jihad to fight communism (didn't that one bite back hard)

The list goes on. So force of good? Really? I can understand a country acting in what it thinks are its best interests. Sure. All countries do that. But don't pretend like what in your interests = good and anything that isn't = evil. The world isn't so black and white.

The only REAL good the US has done in the last century has been to open its borders to people from all over and allow them to pursue what was once known as the American Dream.

That dream is dead. Killed by US government policy.

 

[devilof76]

Your grievance was crippled when you said Japan (the rest follow the same pattern of historical cherry picking while dropping context to suit your needs).

Excellent and well said post.

Makes me feel all warm and safe inside. To know the truth.

That says it all, doesn't it?

US has no interests in changing attitudes in the region. They support dictators who they have in their pockets so as to ensure access to oil and to keep each country under an iron fist so they can never truly progress and think for themselves and what their best interests might be (which are likely to be contrary to what US interests are). Gaddaffi, Assad, Saudi Royalty, the King of Jordan are all examples.

Two of those have just blown up in their faces. The rest will follow, it's just a matter of time.

Access to oil stolen from western companies. You're right that we shouldn't have supported governments to protect our property. We should have just defended it outright, eliminating hostile governments and leaving the region to their old habits. That doesn't mean what the region replaces them with is somehow superior, justifiable, or not their own damn fault (Khomeini being the prime example).

Purveyors of democracy and freedom? Worst joke of the last century.

What do you know about freedom? You're voting for a man whose first campaign promise is to employ religious values as the guiding star of his administration.

So, I stick with my beliefs on the reasons for the war in Iraq. That invasion along with the Afghan one has only furthered the reach and ideological ammunition of perverted extremism (won't call it Islam as no Muslim would ever murder innocent people), and made the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

Your reasons are fantastical. Iraq had no right to 'self-determination' and neither did Taliban ruled Afghanistan. They were both threats to their own citizens (who may or may not have given a damn...Egyptians sure as hell don't seem to care about being free, if they even knew what the word meant in the first place) as well as their neighbors, local and otherwise. The region is a danger to the world because of its tribalism and its lack of respect for rights in general, nevermind its inability to deal with competition without devolving into violence or threats thereof.

Land does not belong to 'people'. 'Peoples" are a racist/nationalist fiction, and we put that ideology down in WWII (those bombs in Japan, if you recall, and those goosesteppers in Europe who were so attractive to Mr. Husseini, who had such an issue with Jews in the Levant, long before an Israel was there to employ as an excuse). Unfortunately, the ideology has gained credibility in this country amongst those who are certain that the only problem with being racist is not letting everyone be racist, and that has had a monstrous effect on how we have dealt with manifestations of the disease post-WWII (allowing Iran and Saudi Arabia to nationalize our oil, for instance).

So in a sense, you're correct. We've been exporting nonsense versions of 'democracy' such that we gave the Iraqis a constitution in which they could Islamize their legal code. Asinine, and the results have been predictable. A culture that is supposedly only insane when the U.S. gets involved apparently can't help from killing those within their own religion who don't obey petty dogmatic disputes centuries old (our fault, somehow, I'm sure). The west got over that one in the 1600's. Protestants and Catholics don't kill each other over their supernatural dictators any more. They don't even try to make him king. A lesson for the ages, huh?

 

[intothevoid]

Lets keep religion out of this. My religion guarantees me every freedom thanks

 

[devilof76]

Perhaps it guarantees you every freedom...

 

[surfin4]

Which mountains of people are those, exactly?

What are our crimes, exactly?

What propaganda are you referring to, exactly?

Which corporations are spreading it, exactly?

Which facts are you talking about, exactly?

And who fed you this caricature, exactly?

Before you dropped a bomb on iraq in the years leading up to the first gulf war the sanctions cost the lives of over a million iraqis under the age of three, now if that was a mistake its one thing.... but the santions targeting suggests differently, that to break the population, hope they overthrow sadam or whatever the motivation you were willing to use babies even terrorists dont target babies

 

[devilof76]

Yes, they do. And no, we did not. I suppose Dresden was some kind of crime we bear responsibilty for as well...

 

[intothevoid]

Perhaps it guarantees you every freedom...

Me and everyone else. Whether or not they are of the same faith.

 

[surfin4]

Yes, they do. And no, we did not. I suppose Dresden was some kind of crime we bear responsibilty for as well...

Facts have a beauty all there own even the ugly ones

 

[devilof76]

More polemic, and zero content.

Me and everyone else. Whether or not they are of the same faith.

You have a very long uphill battle to fight if that is what you wish to convince the rest of those who share your faith.

 

[Deckard]

Before you dropped a bomb on iraq in the years leading up to the first gulf war the sanctions cost the lives of over a million iraqis under the age of three, now if that was a mistake its one thing.... but the santions targeting suggests differently, that to break the population, hope they overthrow sadam or whatever the motivation you were willing to use babies even terrorists dont target babies

[ame]https://youtu.be/eW4tY8mQ_1o[/ame]


Al Qaeda loves to strap suicide vests to children.

 

[devilof76]

Hamas is a shining example as well.

 

[surfin4]

Hamas is a shining example as well.

an example of a terrorist group fighting a terrorist state

 

[intothevoid]

You have a very long uphill battle to fight if that is what you wish to convince the rest of those who share your faith.

The silent majority do share my opinion. It's just supremely unfortunate that they are silent. It is most certainly a hard and long uphill battle, but one I am committed to.

 

[devilof76]

You're very optimistic. I don't think I've seen such a large majority manage to keep silent for quite so long, but stranger things have happened.