Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[PsyCho]

60% of Muslims males do not think their brothers were responsible for, you pick a reason*. these surveys were done in predominately non-Muslim countries including the UK and US. in the US non-Muslims (all others) were 95% sure who was responsible and why.

 

the thread; "war on terror" is a fact of intent. this did not change me or my attitude. 9-11, ten events before then and the 20 or so after have, most certainly did change me and most Americans. no doubt a good share of the worlds population has their head in the sand and hope the obvious problems ahead will just go away. my brothers and sisters are over in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other places trying to stabilize governments that fight between themselves because they ware the wrong color head dress.

 

I think personally a many good american folk can be accused of the same crime. When it comes to understanding why these events have emerged it's all too easy and infact actively encouraged not to question the prescribed view of histroy too much! And as for stabilising governments, well, a great many of us in the world knew that the evidence presented of Iraq was fallous, we could and did repeatedly prove errors, inacuraccies and outright falsehoods in the statements being provided by the US administration who had an alternate agenda from waaaayyyy before the off, and accurately predicted the exact outcome as is currently evident.

 

However, it's been a while, so lets take each point in turn and not get distracted by flashpoints...

1) 60% of Muslims males do not think their brothers were responsible for, you pick a reason.....

 

Hmmmm.. Well funny old thing that, now I have not been shown anything that PROVES that OBL did anything more than take credit for an audacious attack on US soil. But as many know the nature of Al-Quieda and other such cells is a decentralised network, many small and independent groups striving to achieve a common goal, and as such the planning of projects is also limited to small groups as it minimises the chance of detection. I very much DOUBT OBL on dialysis hiding in whichever remote location you choose had much of a hand in it. What I do not doubt AT ALL is that he is a very powerful figure of propaganda who symbolises a common struggle for various groups. In terms of providing a face, the most powerful political thing that could have been done was for him to take credit regardless, as it boosts the PERCIEVED power of these groups, and hence will improve recruitment and negotiating power.

 

Show me proof, a direct chain of evidence that leads all the way to the man himself, and I shall change that statement......

 

(p.s. before you state, yes we do have evidence for individuals involved who were members of a "terrorist cell" and should NOT be defined by their gross religious persuasions, if your gonna do that be specific; For example, I could say Christians in American politics are dangerous extreamists who could be one the biggest risk to freedom and global security that exist.. When what I mean is Domonists, a small branch in a big ol' tree... See the difference)

 

Also it is more than clear that this "lack of belief" in the prescribed version of 9-11 is in no way unique to Muslim males (and as is clear from above would depend on the wording and method of the survey). 9-11 has been questioned the world over, by every racial-religious group, now I'm not going to get too conspiricy on your ***, as most major events will envoke a fair degree of this style of thinking and then allows people to adopt the stable attractor argument "conspiracy", so I'm DELIBRATELY AVOIDING IT, except to demonstrate that it's not just "Muslim Males" who cast these doubts.

 

 

'They're all forced to listen to us' | Features | Guardian Unlimited Film

 

Loose Change Website - Version 2.0

 

 

Therefore it is natural to see why the percentage might be somewhat higher in countries where the US actions and foreign policy are not agreed wholeheartedly.... I think that's what the US administration refers to as "un-democratic" countries.. Bless they just don't understand huh, best actively undermine them and encourage political instability until we get someone who agrees with what we are saying, cause that's democracy folks...

 

...........So...

 

.

these surveys were done in predominately non-Muslim countries including the UK and US. in the US non-Muslims (all others) were 95% sure who was responsible and why

the 95% figure was based on Presidential approval and my active travels during this period. in all honesty i suspect at some point it neared 100%

 

Okay, bias anyone... I'm afraid approval of GWB does not equate to proof the 95% were sure who did it. Also, GWBs approval PEAKED at that time due to strong sociological reasons driven by the emotive nature of the attacks involved and is not representative. It is a FACT that social cohesion and support for leaders is HIGHEST during threats to your country, and has been seen, documented and proved time and time again throughout history. Hence if your in power it is also in your advantage to MAINTAIN, PROPAGATE AND FEED that group perception. The human psyche is fascinatingly manipulatable.

 

 

And breath.....:esmoking:

 

no doubt a good share of the worlds population has their head in the sand and hope the obvious problems ahead will just go away

 

Sigh.... Again we're back to the old disbelief in YOUR opinions means we have heads in sand, are ignorant or can't possibly understand... I don't feel the need to back up either credentials or experience, suffice to say I'm certainly not living with my head in the sand; nor do I believe anyone in this forum is. What comes to the fore are various personality types, and how the "war on terror" has painted their world view. What is a head in the sand approach is to take an administration who has been shown (& proved) to systematically lie, manipulate and mobilise propaganda highly efficiently, and believe everything they tell you. An administration whose leader believes that you, me and all the pretty little freaks out there are merely "barbarians"... But that is another debate for another time..

 

my brothers and sisters are over in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other places trying to stabilize governments that fight between themselves because they ware the wrong color head dress

 

...... :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

:naughty:

 

Really? Really really? The issue is infinitly more complex than that crass and offensive statement, and in itself that highlights the problem! ALSO, the reason the troops are there is because they are following a top-down command model, no-one outside of the top military stragegic planners know what the aims are, and certainly not you. All we can do is infer what we believe they should be fighting for. Stabilisation of governments is gonna take hell of a lot more than military presence, and a different tact.

 

Also, talking of stability, just remind me, exactly which government of the world is responsible for the establishment, initial funding, training and arming of Al-Quieda and OBL......... What's that? Why indeed, let me tell you a story; now are we sitting comfortably, then let's begin:

 

 

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal:

 

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.

 

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

 

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...(which) authorize(d) stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels

.

 

From ‘Al-Qaeda is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence Asset used to Justify War in the Middle East: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky

 

Funny old world huh....