[worry]

No, not this time, I don't think. She mentioned the blind trust only as part of a longer list of ways Romney typically subverts/exploits tax break opportunities at every chance...it's full of videos and citations, but it's all to bolster the thesis that Romney's 2011 tax returns are singularly atypical for him, and that's because he had to meet the 14% thing. I use commercials as book-reading opportunities.

[Gnaw]

Did Mitt release that early enough for Bill Maher to rip it tonight?

[worry]

Yah....Real Time is actually live (10pm EST), so I don't doubt they'll cover it some.

[Malaclypse]

American politics is a very VERY strange subject for me. There's no way for me to describe it without offending a huge group of people so all I can really do in good conscience, is pray for all those ignorant bastards to die quickly, though it pains me to spare the ones who escape that ignominious fate. So. Die, slowly and in great pain all you people who pursued profit ahead of collective human advancement. Fuck you people with a 12-inch dildo in the ass because you are the ruin of our species and I need for you to pay for our inevitable extinction which is entirely due to your selfishness. Fist-fuck you dirty bastards and if I can help to claw this situation back and gain a few years, expect no mercy from me. Die slowly, alone and in great pain.

[worry]

Here's the first Maddow segment (~11 min., starts out a bit light, but snowballs into something fantastic): http://www.msnbc.msn...15908/#49127278
Follow-up segment with Chris Hayes, with supplemental arguments/info (~6 min.): http://www.msnbc.msn...15908/#49127295

Also, Mal makes a good point. Glad nobody here (besides Hetan?) outranks him enough to censor or censure that.

[Otataral Toblakai]

This is a bit off-track and rather belated and I am not American but I have to say this.

Obama, all the way! Particularly after the Reddit AMA, particularly since I number as one of the hivemind, one amongst legion. And the hivemind was pleased with Obama even though he crashed Reddit.

[Fiddler-in-Black]

worrywort, on 22 September 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

No, not this time, I don't think. She mentioned the blind trust only as part of a longer list of ways Romney typically subverts/exploits tax break opportunities at every chance...it's full of videos and citations, but it's all to bolster the thesis that Romney's 2011 tax returns are singularly atypical for him, and that's because he had to meet the 14% thing. I use commercials as book-reading opportunities.

Ok, so lets back this up a bit. Why is a person who made his money through entrepreneurship instead of being a career politician and stealing his money from the American people, getting so much flack from everyone for using loopholes those career politicians put in place to keep their own pocket-liners happy and continuing to line said pockets? I'm not a strong supporter of the US tax code, in fact I think a flat tax or a use tax would serve this country a hell of alot better all the way around but it will never happen so long as Wall Street and Big Corps. own every single policy maker on both sides of the isle. I mean look at the entire senior staff of the DoJ, they all come from firms that represent all the EVIL MONEY people and so they slap wrists and knuckles when theyre forced to, but not too hard, wouldn't want to ruin chances for more money after the elections run through.

I think we should gut the system and start over on how it's all run but since we can't we're stuck with the lesser of two evils and in my honest opinion Romney is better for the US Economy as a whole than Obama ever could claim to be. People who say things like "voucher death board" or whatever don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to healthcare reform, competition is essential for any market to survive along with its consumers and the current system is so rife with corruption and crony-crap that moving in that direction can do nothing but help because Staying the Course does not work with any Social-Support system

Ultra-conservative statement here, you have been warned:

I don't think anyone solely dependant on the Government's social welfare programs of any stripe should be allowed to vote on anything to influence those decisions...it's the same principle as allowing Congress to vote on their own pay increases. (Excluding seniors who have worked their entire lives)

[Otataral Toblakai]

From what little I know of that Romney character, I have several objections. First of all, the whole masochistic male-supremacy Mormon attitude is not really acceptable. That is in fact the point that bothers me. The whole women should stay at home, cook, look after the kiddie etc This is completely un-American.

And, I forgot the other points.

[Fiddler-in-Black]

Otataral Toblakai, on 22 September 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

From what little I know of that Romney character, I have several objections. First of all, the whole masochistic male-supremacy Mormon attitude is not really acceptable. That is in fact the point that bothers me. The whole women should stay at home, cook, look after the kiddie etc This is completely un-American.

And, I forgot the other points.

...really? You have issues with the fact that he comes a patriarchal religious background? really?

I think that in todays society if you say that women who choose to stay home and do those things should be given credit for what they do, then you are automatically a sexist who says thats all they should ever be allowed to accomplish, which is completely not what you just said but extremes of feminism look down on any woman who makes that kind of choice for herself as wasting potential which I think is just a said frame of mind to be in.

Patriarchal societies both religious and secular were very prevelent throughout the world for many different reasons but one of the main reasons it has turned around in American society is because of the advances in medical science that allows child-bearing women to survive past their mid-life unlike back in the earlier stages of civilization. It allowed society to take a step back and realize that the over-protection and down right dominance of females was unnecessary and wrong and that is what led the Republicans to champion the early stages of women's rights. They had a small seperation because Republicans actually decided to focus on getting the rights for AfricanAmericans confirmed before women's suffrage but after that blew over the parties reunited and championed the movement once again.

As with anything else though, extreme anything is not good and allowing the extreme left feminism to dominate politics makes it a slightly more touchy subject than it should be. All the outrage over whatever War on Women crap is now being spread is manufactured political garbage dictated by the extremes of both parties.

[Otataral Toblakai]

Ah, mon ami, you seem to have misunderstood my statement. I have no qualms if someone chooses to stay at home and, yes, it is an important duty, a job in itself. What I am against is the being forced to do so and the lack of choice that seems evident with Romney's wife's campaigns. Indeed, with the ongoing 'War On Women' in the US, this is an unacceptable proposition. The US seems to be rewinding on such an important issue and, for this reason alone, I would go with Obama. I never looked at this from a feminist perspective (even though I consider myself as holding to that school of thought and I am a guy) but simply from a freedom of choice perspective. The US, as the whole 'freedom champion', should be more pro-choice and that is hardly in line with Romney's campaign.

[Vengeance]

Fiddler-in-Black, on 22 September 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

worrywort, on 22 September 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

No, not this time, I don't think. She mentioned the blind trust only as part of a longer list of ways Romney typically subverts/exploits tax break opportunities at every chance...it's full of videos and citations, but it's all to bolster the thesis that Romney's 2011 tax returns are singularly atypical for him, and that's because he had to meet the 14% thing. I use commercials as book-reading opportunities.

Ok, so lets back this up a bit. Why is a person who made his money through entrepreneurship instead of being a career politician and stealing his money from the American people, getting so much flack from everyone for using loopholes those career politicians put in place to keep their own pocket-liners happy and continuing to line said pockets?

I don't think anyone solely dependant on the Government's social welfare programs of any stripe should be allowed to vote on anything to influence those decisions...it's the same principle as allowing Congress to vote on their own pay increases. (Excluding seniors who have worked their entire lives)

Excellent.

Why is someone who has made money by bankrupting companies, raiding pension plans, and laying off american factory workers (while moving the jobs to China) more qualified to be president then someone who has worked his life to help people build up their communities and educated young people. For that matter why do you think that being a career politician is stealing money from the american tax payer? I understand that you probably think that a politican is a bad word but really they are the same as a Cop or fireman or a soldier. They choose to serve their country / communities.

I will address your welfare statement in a later post.

[Fiddler-in-Black]

Vengeance, on 22 September 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Excellent.

Why is someone who has made money by bankrupting companies, raiding pension plans, and laying off american factory workers (while moving the jobs to China) more qualified to be president then someone who has worked his life to help people build up their communities and educated young people. For that matter why do you think that being a career politician is stealing money from the american tax payer? I understand that you probably think that a politican is a bad word but really they are the same as a Cop or fireman or a soldier. They choose to serve their country / communities.

I will address your welfare statement in a later post.

Politicians and the current standard for crony-capitalism = stealing from the American Taxpayer. When you have companies that waste Millions and give their CEOs huge bonuses for wasting that money, I don't see it any other way, the fact that the government doesn't have to operate for profit is the only reason it's still around. Politicians who enter public service and then suddenly are flush with cash? Thats not salary based my friend, no matter what they tell you.

Operating in the private sector at that level for managing interests and such for your own people sometimes requires big decisions that have bad consequences for others, it's true. Companies are in this world to make profits, running one and continuing to do so means you will keep on making profits or else you get fired, that easy so harsh decisions on costs and such make the choices for you sometimes.

Lets completely forget the horrible policies we currently have in place in regards to China and foreign trade as a whole that allows manipulation of currency to make these options so much more atractive for making a profit.

I mean, I want someone who knows what he's doing when it comes to financial issues when my economy is so messed up versus someone who comes from the entitlement grabbing side of the tracks. Contrary to the Presidents point of view, the country as a whole does not owe each person their living expenses, limited help and a push in the right direction for those in need I support. Generational Welfare I do NOT.

[Vengeance]

Fiddler-in-Black, on 22 September 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 22 September 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Excellent.

Why is someone who has made money by bankrupting companies, raiding pension plans, and laying off american factory workers (while moving the jobs to China) more qualified to be president then someone who has worked his life to help people build up their communities and educated young people. For that matter why do you think that being a career politician is stealing money from the american tax payer? I understand that you probably think that a politican is a bad word but really they are the same as a Cop or fireman or a soldier. They choose to serve their country / communities.

I will address your welfare statement in a later post.

Politicians and the current standard for crony-capitalism = stealing from the American Taxpayer. When you have companies that waste Millions and give their CEOs huge bonuses for wasting that money, I don't see it any other way, the fact that the government doesn't have to operate for profit is the only reason it's still around. Politicians who enter public service and then suddenly are flush with cash? Thats not salary based my friend, no matter what they tell you.

Operating in the private sector at that level for managing interests and such for your own people sometimes requires big decisions that have bad consequences for others, it's true. Companies are in this world to make profits, running one and continuing to do so means you will keep on making profits or else you get fired, that easy so harsh decisions on costs and such make the choices for you sometimes.

Lets completely forget the horrible policies we currently have in place in regards to China and foreign trade as a whole that allows manipulation of currency to make these options so much more atractive for making a profit.

I mean, I want someone who knows what he's doing when it comes to financial issues when my economy is so messed up versus someone who comes from the entitlement grabbing side of the tracks. Contrary to the Presidents point of view, the country as a whole does not owe each person their living expenses, limited help and a push in the right direction for those in need I support. Generational Welfare I do NOT.

Oh I couldn't agree more. Can you point out using quotes or articles or speech's (not fox and friends) where President Obama has said that the country owes each person their livign expenses. I would be very interested in seeing those quotes and articles.

As for the horrible policies that we have in place in regards to China in regards to there currency I think that you are way behind what is actually happening may I direct your attention to Chinese currency a lovely little article from feb of this year. Now when Bush was President it was a concern how ever it doesn't even come close to my top 20 world economic concerns now.

I don't really understand why you seem to think that this country should be ran like a corporation. One has nothing to do with the other. A corporation is out to make profit for its shareholders. A country should protect the citizens and prevent corporations from taking advantage of them. A government can not be ran like a corporation because it's employees are also its shareholders. Each citizen is equally important. While in a corporation obviously the Top Management feel that they can continue to survive if they let go lots of employees. Why do you think that being a good business man equates to being a good president. The president does not kick start a economy, the president does not change fiscal policy so to determine what corporation gets what tax benefit. That is congresses responsibility according to the constitution. The president is in charge of the military and foreign relations. The President can recommend bills and ideas to the senate and congress but it is up to them to in act them or to not. If the President was in charge of the economy then a lot of job bills would have been passed.

Quote

Politicians and the current standard for crony-capitalism = stealing from the American Taxpayer. When you have companies that waste Millions and give their CEOs huge bonuses for wasting that money, I don't see it any other way, the fact that the government doesn't have to operate for profit is the only reason it's still around. Politicians who enter public service and then suddenly are flush with cash? Thats not salary based my friend, no matter what they tell you.

Here you are talking about two very different things. You are talking about Corporations and CEO pay, and you are talking about Politicians and campaign contributions/bribery.

Having lived in Chicago I do actually know a thing or two about corrupt politicians. I lived in the same neighborhood as Governor Blagojevich (he is now server federal time). In fact 2 of our last 3 governors are in prison or have been to prison. I also know lots of good decent people who enter politics to help their community. When you generalize and compartmentalize groups of people then it allows you to demonize them very easily. So rather then using your mind to think about things in a rational and logical way you can label and hate. This is the same thing that you are doing when you are talking about Muslims. I know and have known quite a few muslims both here in the US and over seas. There are as many varieties of muslims as there are varieties of Christians. Do the christian fundamentists here in the US speak for all christian faiths across the board? No. Do both religons teach that god is loving and that he forgives and that you should turn the other cheek? Yes. Are there passages in both books that people can use to justify any hateful actions that they wish? Yes.

Quote

I mean, I want someone who knows what he's doing when it comes to financial issues when my economy is so messed up versus someone who comes from the entitlement grabbing side of the tracks

What do you classify as entitlement? A single mother who is on welfare and has a part time job? A person who can not find a job (walmart) that pays enough pay for medical bills so have to go on medicare? A firefighter? A person who has fought in our nations wars and now has to go to the VA hospital several times a month?

Or by entitlement do you mean someone who pays congressmen to pass laws that give them billions in tax benefits or straight checks?

Shouldn't our government help poor people find jobs and not go hungry? Shouldn't it help to provide low cost housing so that people don't have to live on the street? Shouldn't our government require that corporations pay people a wage that will allow them to save and not have to choose between the groceries and their electricity? Shouldn't the government help to keep its citizens healthy so that they can work and be productive tax paying members of society? Shouldn't our government require that corporations conduct themselves in a way that will not harm the citizens of this country? Shouldn't a government regulate how the nations resources are spent so that wild animals also have a chance to live?

I don't think of those things as entitlements. I think of those things as what a government should do.

I would be very interested to hear what you think that a government should do. However I would like for you to actually make specific points rather then generalize. I am happy to argue with you if do so. I think that you will find that your ideas will be examined as we would hope that you would examine our ideas. However when you generalize it shows that you are not thinking things through rather that you are believing and regurgitating talking points. Which is not conducive to a intelligent conversation.

[Vengeance]

Fiddler-in-Black, on 22 September 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Otataral Toblakai, on 22 September 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

From what little I know of that Romney character, I have several objections. First of all, the whole masochistic male-supremacy Mormon attitude is not really acceptable. That is in fact the point that bothers me. The whole women should stay at home, cook, look after the kiddie etc This is completely un-American.

And, I forgot the other points.

...really? You have issues with the fact that he comes a patriarchal religious background? really?

I think that in todays society if you say that women who choose to stay home and do those things should be given credit for what they do, then you are automatically a sexist who says thats all they should ever be allowed to accomplish, which is completely not what you just said but extremes of feminism look down on any woman who makes that kind of choice for herself as wasting potential which I think is just a said frame of mind to be in.

Patriarchal societies both religious and secular were very prevelent throughout the world for many different reasons but one of the main reasons it has turned around in American society is because of the advances in medical science that allows child-bearing women to survive past their mid-life unlike back in the earlier stages of civilization. It allowed society to take a step back and realize that the over-protection and down right dominance of females was unnecessary and wrong and that is what led the Republicans to champion the early stages of women's rights. They had a small seperation because Republicans actually decided to focus on getting the rights for AfricanAmericans confirmed before women's suffrage but after that blew over the parties reunited and championed the movement once again.

As with anything else though, extreme anything is not good and allowing the extreme left feminism to dominate politics makes it a slightly more touchy subject than it should be. All the outrage over whatever War on Women crap is now being spread is manufactured political garbage dictated by the extremes of both parties.

Lets look at Mormon religious beliefs shall we.


Mormanism


Mormonism meets scientology

Mormon beliefs


I hate to break it to you but Mormonism has never had a strong place in American society. Quakers, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists sure. But Mormons no.

[worry]

Fiddler-in-Black, on 22 September 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Ok, so lets back this up a bit.

I'd like to thank you for summing up conservative ideology so succinctly.

[Imperial Historian]

Discussion on relationship between America and islam was going wildly off topic, so split off, continue the discussion here

[Vengeance]

Imperial Historian, on 22 September 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Discussion on relationship between America and islam was going wildly off topic, so split off, continue the discussion here

Good call Imp.

[Vengeance]

Finally evidence has come to light of voter fraud.


Voter fraud



Oh wait it was by republican congressmen. Dohhhhhh

[Vengeance]

Didn't we have enough of this kind of class act when Bush was president.

Class act

Romney's Mormanism laid bare

Mormon Bishop.


If you can't do your own taxes why should we believe someone when they say that they are a budget hawk and can balance the nations debt.

Whoops I forgot about that money.

[Tapper]

Fiddler-in-Black, on 16 September 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

worrywort, on 15 September 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Why do you think these events are being treated like such an important litmus test? It's clear Romney's opportunistic jumping the gun was disgusting, so the reaction to him was proportionately nauseated. But what I'm getting otherwise from this is a renewal of anti-Islam fervor from people who generally feel that way anyway but have maybe been out of the limelight as a national topic, and now they're frothing at the mouth now that the attention is back. Or is it just election season in general? Or is it really as important as depicted?

Ok, so I'm venturing out here, I have only read a few of the pages posted prior but from I have read it appears to me there a large number of left leaning individuals and not so many conservatives, therefore...

Hello, I am a conservative with an operating brain, feel free to ask away=P That way I can respond directly to questions instead of posting lots of stuff on the tail-end of this thread and not se eit connected...

Anyway, for the above: The Islamic world in the middle east is a very nasty place to be if you are a non-muslim and even worse if you are an American of any stripe. The "radicals" as they're termed aren't some isolated group of Islamic nutbags who spring up every so often to do awful things, they do awful things Every Day you just don't here about them because the Muslim countries see these things as "not a big deal" or "matters of religion" or whatever and the tens of thousands of Honor Killings in Turkey/Pakistan/Iran/Iraq/Egypt/etc, stonings, rapes, pedophilia and such go unreported every year for the vast majority of them.

Le sigh. Bad things happen, yes. But let's not be coy. In the centre of civilization (which is Europe, in case you were wondering), there's plenty of shit happening as well. Done by perfectly ordinary citizens (let's define them as caucasian church going males with simple blue collar jobs). And if you prefer to seek the centre of civilization across the Atlantic (preposterous), then I am sure there are plenty of men who beat their wives, there is the KKK, and if you look at sectarism, does David Koresh mean anything to you? Mindless violence: plenty of shootings, like the school in Columbia?

I do agree that forced marriage (and the nasty sexual intimidations that come with it) are probably a bigger problem in some parts of the Muslim world than elsewhere. But we have our own brands of nastiness and sadism (human trafficking is probably highest in/to the western world, the same for hard drugs, and I doubt you'd find our fascination for horrormovies in which torture and mutilation are order of the day, anywhere else. Well, perhaps in Japan). The stuff we have left behind, we only left behind a few short decades ago. Marriages were an economic union in the west, men were considered supreme to women, the church was and is highly influential and didn't mind intervening in a family's life ("why aren't there any kids yet, you have been married for more than a year"), divorce was and is frowned upon, female sexuality has been repressed for a long time, and equality between the races is also relatively new. To make a bold statement (and probably wrong, because now I am talking about something I know shit all about): it was decided that nazism was bad before we decided that a black kid and a white kid could sit on the same bench in a bus.

Quote

Now understand, having said that, I'm not a bigot nor do I say all Muslims fall under the above, but in my experience the ratios of "radicals" to non-radical muslims is something in the area of 40/60 respectively,

You are a bigot (if only because you say you're not one). Or grossly misinformed. Or both. How big is your experience, anyway? How many Northern African muslims do you know? Have you travelled the Northern Sahara and the Middle East? Have you spoken to Salafists, Shiites, Sunnids, and the range of other streams in the religion? Do you know what daily life looks like? Do you know the contents of the Quran, and the discussions between the various imams, and the interpretations of the lax religious and the firmer stances, all the way down into radicalism? Have you compared their behavior and adherence to religious laws to, say, a high caste Hindu? How harmful is their faith to their fellow man?

If the answer to all that is shuffling your feet and thinking "no, I haven't (or "I read wiki", which is the same)" (just like 99% of us, myself included), then you should rethink this.

Anyway, your statement is dubious (I won't say wrong) on in quite a few ways. I'll list a few.
First, your definition of radicalism. What is it based on? The fact you see them protesting on Fox? The fact they have moustaches? The fact they pray to Allah?
Let's put it this way. If 40% was fundamentalist/ radical, they'd be the norm. Mainstream. Not a radical minority. 40% is BIG. It is only slightly less than what one of your 2 presidential candidates is going to get in terms of percentual support.

Until proven otherwise, I'd say your average muslim is a simple human being who doesn't hit his wife, who earns an average wage for the country he lives in, who wants to raise his kids in peace and whose main concern is daily bread and a little bit of luxury. He has a different value system than you and me, but your value system may be different from mine, too. For one, I don't believe in the death penalty, which is a part of your justice system. And I believe in the fundaments of the social wellfare state I pay for, for which the government taxes me heavily. You may not. And so on. The one thing we (you, me, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Eli Manning, President Obama, Mitt Romney, Robert Mugabe, Jay Leno and the prime minister of China) have in common, is that we all believe that our private value system is the absolute frigging fucking best ever. For everyone.

So I'd say the' average muslim male's outlook and wishes are not that different from the rest of the world. He has a few religious laws to obey, but so do Jews, and most Protestants, and Buddhists, and Hindus. The only ones who don't are Northern Western (and perhaps American) catholics, because we've abandoned the Faith apart from going to church at Christmas. If that.
He won't call for Jihad, he won't throw stones, but if he is going to lose his job, he will protest against the Americans. They're far away. His boss/ the government are living around the corner. He'll be there to back up the fanatical yes-men being sent on the street by the government to make it look like there was a massive, fired up demonstration against American Imperialism. He may be a bit of a narcistic mysogynist shithead during his teens (aka, the western european interpretation of the 'northern african 3rd generation immigrants', which I can partly confirm), but when settled, he wants to watch TV, go on holiday, give his children love and an education so they can get ahead in life, and will do what is necessary to achieve that.
Including marching fifty rows behind the front in a government organised march.
If he is offered change, he will probably welcome it. But not at the cost of anarchy, danger, meddling, disruption. Is that so different from us?

Let's also state that the American perception of the Muslim world is getting distorted. Your last three wars, within the last twenty-three years, have all been against Muslim countries and movements, one of them (well, actually two) fanatical Muslims (I am talking about Al Qaeda and the more or less accidentally involved Taliban, because they sheltered Bin Laden). Both are splinter groups, and hardly command the wholehearted support of more than a very small percentage of the muslim world.
Anyway, there is a whole generation of Americans who have grown up with the idea that the Muslim world is a natural opponent of the States. Even during the Clinton years, there were cruise missiles flying into distant mountain camps.
Add to that the longlasting support of the USA for Israel, which has long been beset (and seeking trouble like a bully seeks lunchmoney) by Muslim nations. It is beyond a doubt that this has led to a distorted, propagandized view that puts (non-American) Muslims in a negative light, if only because of well-intended patriotism. One doesn't say out loud that one's own side in a war is wrong. Certainly not on the outset. Support the troops.

Let's also not forget that in essence, the US has nothing against religious nutjobs with long beards and a turban: if it is geopolitically convenient to support them, you will (as you did in the 80s). Realpolitik.

Quote

if for no other reason than the dense population of them in the middle east and northern africa. Most of the radicalism is bought and paid for, when it comes ot education for the next generation and such, by one of two sources, either by the Imams/Royal Family from Saudi or from Iran, which by the way actually manufactures the majority of the sofisticated munitions used against Coalition forces in Iraq/Afg.

I think you are wrong here. Salafism (Saudi, very orthodox branch of the Islam) is not widespread but fairly contained to a few countries. In fact, numbers of the Dutch secret service (yes, minor tiny little country) suggest that Salafism is losing its appeal to our 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants quickly, where five years ago, it was concern number 1. It doesn't spread all that much out of the Arabian peninsula, either. Iran is mostly Shiite, and harbors 40% of that streams' worldpopulation, which is also dominant in Bahrein and Iraq (Saddam was Sunni, though, although his Ba'at party was ironically mostly secular/tribal instead of religiously inspired, a detail people easily gloss over). And that's about it.
Syria is ruled by a Shiite elite, but then again, the government there is probably more tribal than faith orientated. I've never seen Assad in religious garb, anyway, nor his wife. Not very radical, one would say, yet they're currently basically a (remote) danger number 2 in the Middle East.
Furthermore, ethnically, Iran is much more diverse than given credit and is NOT Arab. Nor are huge amounts of the Northern African states. Morocco, Tunisia and other countries have their own ethnic minorities, for example, the Berbers.

Secondly, a large part of the religious/political pain in the ass we have going on in the Northern Sahara and Middle East is the West's own mistake. The chaos in Iraq, Libya, Egypt are all due to the fall of the local regime, and the support of the resistance/ intervention of the West. I am not saying we shouldn't have done it, but the people there aren't interested in the people 'we' want to put in charge. They want locals, with authority. Often, those are religious figures. Is this odd? Not particularly.

The Catholic church seized secular power in the bureaucracy when Rome fell. This was partly due to their high literacy, but also because they had a standing power structure and a unifying effect because so many people belonged to it. In Russia, since the end of (officially fully secular) Communism, the Orthodox faith is practically the state's twin brother, with intertwined interests. In Tibet, the only form of resistance against the Chinese is a religious figure. Desmond Tutu was extremely important in the fight against Apartheid. Martin Luther King, another preacher, did so in the American fight against racism. Cassius Clay became Mohammed Ali as a political gesture as much as a religious one (at the very least, this was part of his motivation). There is a pattern there.

Religion = power, structure, resistance, belonging. When times are bad, people fall back to it. I don't know if you have heard of Golden Dawn, the Greek political party. They're perhaps reminiscent of the brown shirts of the NSDAP in some ways, as they're very militaristic and xenophobic and nationalistic. But supplant their political ideology with any religion (say, Caholicism) and perhaps quite a few people would say: "hey, they look after their own flock." Like you do below when it comes to the US. Stripped of a nasty ideology and replaced by a different one, and their PR position is suddenly a lot better.

Quote

Having said that, any assault on a US embassy, let alone the death of American Diplomats and soldiers is an extremely serious matter and not presenting a strong front to the offenders and possibly the host country is just inviting more of the same, most Americans may not understand it that way but that is because most Americans have not met your average "radical" and don't understand how they process thought.

You have? You know "the" radical mindset? Is an anarchists mindset different from a communist's? What about a radical Catholic? Scientology (now that we mention religious nutjobs)?

I don't think there is a mindset. I think there's been a lot of searching by a lot of secret services into what makes someone a radical and an attractive recruit here in the West, partly based on what makes such a person tick to leave their life behind and go to an Al Qaeda training camp.
I think you'll arrive at fairly well educated youths, in their late teens, early twenties, with internet access, and perhaps in search of identity, who are convinced that fighting is cool and who think they are immortal, or at the very least don't realise that there's a lot more to life. I also think they're not firmly rooted in their religion, because their indoctrination is going to be very specific. If you had your own well-defined religious mindset, you'd balk at some of their interpretations, most likely. If you know shit apart from Salam Aleikum and Alluhah Akhbar (apologies for spelling mistakes), then it is a lot easier to pursuade you into believing that their interpretation is the correct one.
Those aren't the same people who blow themselves up on a bus in Israel. They're also probably not the people who join the Iranian National Guard. Or, several decades ago, the Black Panthers. Or the Columbian FARC, or name your resistance group/ bunch of fanatics with guns.

Quote

Effectively a weak response allows them to declare open season on Americans abroad when in my honest opinion, I'd like them to be scared shit-less of messing with official and unofficial American travelers just to keep my fellow citizens safe no matter their views on the world as a whole.

Wouldn't that equate a reign of terror? Imperialism, or at the least gun-boat diplomacy? How many foreign lives are worth one American life? What would the effect on long term global diplomacy and American standing be? How would China and Russia, already hesitant to support the US on global issues, react? How far do you want to push them? Are you going to talk Star Wars to them, or discontinue nuclear disarmament? How far do you think Europe will go along before everyone but the Brits gives you a cold shoulder? What of the impact on NATO then? What will the consequences of that on Russia? And yes, this was a planned attack on a dignitary on American ground. Yes, it deserves a measured response. Yes, the reason for the attack was complete and utter bogus.

But have you seen the video? Have you googled the maker's credentials? Do you know he's a condemned fraud? Do you agree this video was made with one purpose, to insult and to inflame? Is there a chance it was released now precisely it would incite and have an impact on the elections (I am not saying the murders were premeditated, but the muslim outrage was predicted)?

But then, how hesitant is the US with drone attacks, and how do they react to Israeli 'precision strikes' with missiles from gunships? We're getting in a chicken and egg story. When is enough enough, bygones be bygones? Probably never, because seeking a diplomatic resolution is by hawks on both sides interpreted as showing weakness.

Quote

I ascribe to the Sheep-Dog principle and I will continue to be a Sheepdog no matter what others may think of other things, we protect the flock and their ignorance of how the majority of those countries in that part of the world operate...and yet its frustrating when they then do not understand why they shouldn't go outside and negotiate with good faith for a cessation of hostilities on the trail to grandmas house.

*Puts Soap Box Away*

That's fine and dandy, but not only are you putting your perceived opinion up front as the only truth, secondly, you're also advocating the enforcement of it on anyone who disagrees with you, "for their good". It's been called the White Man's Burden. It didn't do a lot of good. It left us with messes like the Middle East, for one.


---

edit: I should really move this over to the other thread.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 23 September 2012 - 12:04 AM