SHOWtime [New Atheism is the new Neocon]

Jec wrote:

If you have a deep conversation with an atheists or an antitheist you'll realize that our problem with religion is that it stems from greed and willful ignorance. Considering something as the worst of evils =/= implying all the evils of the world stem from it.

Jec wrote:
Lets not forget the concept of control group and experiment. Latin America suffered the same intervention, coups and funding as the middle east yet you don't see catholic extremists from Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. blowing themselves up. When you have have the same or similar conditions but different outcomes, you can establish causal relations, and seeing as the extremists say themselves its for Islam, well I say we better believe them...

Jec wrote:
Except no one's gonna listen to Sheldon Addelson even if he is backing congress Republicans, not even they are that stupid and lacking of morals.

Jec wrote:
To me, an theocracy is just another form of autocracy...

Jec wrote:
But most religions have discarded those bad ideas or don't believe them. You ask Christians if they believe homosexuals and atheists should be put to death and they will overwhelmly say no... We can't ignore this, this is what I mean by not equaling everything...

? wrote:
The Bush administration’s favorite contractor, Blackwater, is the most powerful private army in the world. It commands thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, has over a billion dollars in government contracts, and enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for its theater of operations’ conduct.

Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, a staunchly conservative Catholic, has also served on the board of directors of Christian Freedom International, a crusading missionary organization operating in the overwhelmingly Islamic countries of Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Prince envisions an evangelical “end time” role for his warriors, “Everybody carries guns, just like Jeremiah rebuilding the temple in Israel—a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.”

http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel100608.htm

Jeremy Scahill wrote: And when he moved to the United Arab Emirates, he said he did so because it was a free society and a country that respected the free market. Well, it didn’t take long for him to get down to business with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and essentially hatched a plot to build up a mercenary army within the borders of the UAE, relying on labor from Colombia. Blackwater has a long history of working with Colombians. In fact, Blackwater paid Colombians $34 a day to operate in Iraq. And when the Colombians protested their payment, saying that they were getting less than the Bulgarians or the others that were working for Blackwater, the white soldiers, Blackwater threatened them, according to the Colombians, and wouldn’t give them their passports back and said, you know, "We’re just going to release you onto the streets of Baghdad." And eventually the Colombians left, and they went and they assassinated the recruiter that had hired them for Blackwater. So it’s ironic that Prince is using the Colombians. Now their pay has been increased to something like $150 a day.

Jet wrote:

You're lying to yourself if you think the narrative is not against religion, primarily Islam.

Jec wrote:

Are you forgetting that Ive said multiple times now that religion plays a role in these ME conflicts? I'll say again: I think it disingenuous to say it's unrelated to the issue. For it is used to unify peoples - whether for good or ill depending on the situation. But the overwhelming consensus among New Atheists is to single out Islam as a particularly violent religion, and to de emphasize external factors, to whatever extent they may credit them. That is exactly the simplistic narrative that helps fuel hate and justify actions in the region. Perhaps that is harder to see from the trenches of tribalism.

Jet wrote: Vice News(Docs): Season 2 Episode 9 Titled: Children of the Drones. Suroosh Alvi goes to Pakistan and talks to american drone operator Brandon Bryant, Pakistani General Javed Mahmoud Bukhari, Maulana Sami Ul-Haq leader of Darul-Uloom Haqqania one of the largest and notorious madrassas in Pakistan, Feriha Peracha head psychologist of a deradicalization center in the Swat valley and footage of a recruitment meeting in North Waziristan. All point to the counter productive nature of the war on terror and the resentment bred from drone attacks. The people hold signs expressly saying "no more drones" "an attack on our sovereignity" and specifically point to that as their reason for joining these extremist groups. The last shot is a question posed by an active militant member "If somebody attacked your home wouldnt you respond? If somebody killed your brother wont you ask for revenge?"

Jec wrote:

You say this now even while we are either bombing or supporting those that bomb the type of people hes talking about. This is something that is present and happening right now. So yes Republicans(and Democrats) are serving the wishes of people like him. One does not spend 92 million dollars in one presidential cycle and not expect something in return

Jec wrote:
Theocracy is JUST AS BAD as autocracy.  That was the point of my response. What was the reason for yours? Did you think I believed otherwise? I just dont single out one type of repression over another because the only thing that changes is the justification. Jailing dissenters only hardens their ideology in prison and emboldens their resolve so its not a practical solution to extremism either. Its the other half of it

Jet wrote:

How do you explain Private Military Companies like Blackwater then? You say Christianity discarded its bad ideas yet this went on

Jec wrote:
huh? When did I state it wasn't against religion... there's a reason it's called antitheism...
The reason why we focus on Islam is because they're the ones causing the most trouble... they're the ones trying to install sharia in the west, the ones that commit terrorists attacks, the ones that kill atheists and gays, etc.

jec wrote:
How many times do I have to say, I'm not talking about you, I know that you don't discard the religious factor, I simply believe other liberals in denial don't give it the importance it requires due to the diluted notion that "everyone and all religions are good at heart", "just a few rotten apples", etc..

jec wrote:^ So, by the diluted "It's all the west's fault" version, islamic terrorism is caused by drone attacks and the war on terror...

jec wrote:So, you have two nearly identical situations (say, LA and SA are the control groups) and make the ME the subject of the experiment. Seeing the completely different outcomes from two near identical situations, we can establish causal relationships in their differences. The elephant in the room, the one impossible to miss, is the religious cause seeing as they use their religion to justify their actions.

jec wrote:Why do all Islamic communities react with senseless suicidal killings every time something bad happens to them?

jec wrote:What's gonna be the excuse once the US stops using drones? When's it gonna be Islam's fault.

Jec wrote:
Is he really spending 92 Million dollars just to kill brown people? Or just because he wants to keep getting richer like the Koch Brothers?

jec wrote:
Huh? My point is that the "autocracies" you sourced are just theocracies in disguise, since they are at least partially under Sharia...

jec wrote:
Ah yes... the one PMC that follows fanatical views on the world....
Blackwater or Sheldon Whatshisface ideologies are not shared by the majority of Christians. They are not representative, unlike the ideals of IS and other groups which are representative of hundreds of millions of muslims...

Jet wrote:
Muslims are not the only ones who are complicit in the spreading of extreme ideology either nor are they the only ones who commit atrocities and then try to justify them. Violence is definitely a problem worldwide. But what makes you think they, specifically are causing the "most" trouble? Since that seems to be the perception among NAs. Whats the criteria you are measuring for?

jec wrote:
Even if that were true Islamic reform has little chance of beginning(and sustaining) as long as we are entagled in the middle east. Not that those who use terms like the "crushing" of Islam and so on, have any legitamate credibility in the cause of bringing positive change anyway. Our governments on the hand have no problems with engaging militarily, even under a liberal president.

Jet wrote:
Because they are so hopelessly outmatched. Its the most amount of damage one person can do. It also probably has to do with losing someone you care about and the feelings that accompany that.

Jet wrote:
Good luck rolling back a military program like drones once its been implemented. Drones are being used even in the Mexican border. As for the second part, the idea that the majority of violence amounts to religion will probably begin to gain legitimacy when the US begins to pull out of the region and stops interfering.

Jet wrote:
Given his funding of Israel, the notion which he takes to its ideological extreme as to advocate genocide, its the former. The money goes to support endeavors like what happened in Gaza last summer. Which obviously involves the taking and destruction of life.

Jet wrote:


Do you really believe they wouldn't be repressing their populations if they simply got rid of the influence of sharia?

Jet wrote:
The only one exposed so far.....the allegations on Erik Prince were so surprising because as Jeremy Scahill said the employees fear reprisal. They usually speak off the record for this reason. The American Sniper Chris Kyle was on the news for his racist rhetoric not too long ago. Just because the people involved in this conflict dont all go around writing books that speak as honestly as he did doesnt mean they dont hold these beliefs.

Jec wrote:Scoreboard... As far as religions go, they are causing the most trouble... not just East vs West but East vs East as well as evidenced in China and India and among themselves.

jec wrote:Do you truly believe that if the US pulls out is honestly gonna stop breeding islamic terrorist? Look at what happened in Iraq and Syria, the lack of US foot presence led to the development of strong extremists organizations hell bent on revenge. Pulling out and stop intervening is not enough... radical reform must happen within the ideology... sadly, it will take generations to achieve it and since no one wants to bring this discussion to mainstream media due to possible cases of "hurt feelings", it's happening at an even slower pace.

Jec wrote:Nonsense... Pakistan and India are evenly matched... Both are nuclear armed too... If they think that stimulating the military industrial complex is the best way to harm another nation, maybe they are simply far too irrational.

Jec wrote:Like they did in Syria or Iraq... The latter decided to choose a Kurdish president that ignored the sunni in and shia in the country leading to the rise of IS

Jec wrote:
The point still stands, his extreme ideologies are not representative of hundreds of millions of westerners... Ask any L American if they agree with US foreign policy...

Jec wrote:Of course not... but they would have even less excuses to repress their people... for example, they wouldn't jail or kill apostates... Killing opposition and apostates is worse than just killing opposition... But I don't even know what we're getting at here...

jec wrote:
I don't know, that's just speculation...

Jet wrote:

What consistitutes your score board? What exactly are you tracking? Violence and the profiting from it are nothing new. Neither is indoctrination, propaganda, secrecy, unjust imprisonment, mass surveillance etc.

Jet wrote:
No pulling troops out of the region is not enough. It must also stop the funding of terrorist organization that operate to further its geopolitical interest. You cant begin to talk about ideological reform when you are imprisoning and bombing people. Or supporting those that do it on your behalf for that same reason. These are elements that prevent liberal reforms from beginning to take root in the first place.

Jet wrote:
Islamic communities react through suicidal killings to get revenge for perceived damages. How is it not obvious why people do this? Because they are angry that their loved ones were killed by a system imposed on them by another country. As a consequence they want to hurt the ones responsible for maintaining it. Its important to note that this is not limited to attacks on western troops. They are reduced to these type of tactics for thats generally what's available to someone with limited resources yet bent on causing massive casualties. You once said that you didnt expect a soldier to be sane...yet you expect rationality from a civilian who has their loved ones slaughtered in front of them? Well that says a lot about bias...

wrote:Historical Revisionism

Next Affleck argued: “We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot, and we’ve invaded more Islamic nations.”

Aside from essentially suggesting that “two wrongs make a right,” his assertions reflect an appalling acquaintance with true history — thanks of course to the ingrained lies emanating from academia, followed by Hollywood and the media.

Reality records a much different story. From its inception, Islam has been a religion hostile to all others. Jihad was its primary tool of expansion.

Consider: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia), was conquered by Muslim Turks.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that people like Affleck are obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

Yet today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.

Spoiler:

Eri wrote:GoT questions:

episode 1 and 2

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Jec wrote:I never accused religions of unjust imprisonments and mass surveillance, that doesn't even make sense in this context.

jec wrote:They wouldn't actively search for apostates unless the apostate opposes the regime, MASSIVE DIFFERENCE... Don't try to equate this matter, there's a clear difference...

jec wrote:Agree on the need to stop funding groups, not on considering the elements that prevent liberal reforms.

jec wrote:You can't have liberal reforms when the leaders, both socially and political of their communities are keeping their sheep comfortable under ultra conservative ideals.

jec wrote:
If mainstream media would have more serious debates on faiths rather than just a couple of schmucks saying "it's just a few rotten apples" we'd be getting somewhere, at least on the ideological front.

jec wrote:Because islamic communities are the first community to ever be victims of brutal repression and murder... <\sarcasm>... but they are the first to act in such a way. They would not retort to suicidal killings if they didn't brainwash them into thinking they're getting 72 virgins...

jec wrote:So... handing out weapons instill radicalism too? I would think the radical groups would be thankful for being armed to the teeth...

jec wrote:The US might have helped armed ISIS but their ideological motivation and what ignited them was a weak Kurdish regime that decided to legislate ignoring the interests of the other ethnic groups in their country. They don't even let themselves be and are willing to tear each other apart over slight differences in their own religion... Like catholics and protestanst years ago...

jec wrote:I disagree. Massive belief in ideology is far worse than the acts of few on a certain ideology.

jec wrote:Hell, I didn't know it until you brought it up. If most people find out about it, pressure and protest would arise from home making their representation of Christianity illegitimate

jec wrote:I"m gonna keep on researching on the role of extremist Christianity in these conflicts and I encourage you to do the same

jec wrote:I disagree... Hell even you are contradicting yourself... since according to you, western military interventions in the ME are led Christian Zionists and extremists. The western violence you protests is also religious in part...

Jet wrote:
.... Also people are burned alive with our bombs. So I don't see how that makes our violence better

Jet wrote:
Any talk of secularism will be perceived by a country like Saudi Arabia as a threat to its rule. That is a fact, just like they displayed recently with Saif Badawi. How is any new reform going to happen where such talk is outlawed? In one of the many oil rich dictatorships which we enable in order to secure our power even our politicians criticism is mild.

Jet wrote:That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.

Jet wrote:
Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.

Jet wrote:
...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.

Jet wrote:
Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.

Jet wrote:
No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.

Jet wrote:

Really? Youd be surprised to learn then the scale of support israel gets from christian evangelicals because their faith tells them that jewish control of the holy land will result in the second coming of christ.

Jet wrote:
Ive been researching more than just the role of christian extremism thanks. Not to discourage you from learning more but if you're still intent on proving one religion is more extreme than the other youre still missing the bigger picture. You'll never get out of the tribal mentality that will only keep dumbing down any ideological debate.

Jet wrote:
*No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.

Jec wrote:Spare me from the diluted philosophical strain of moral relativism...

jec wrote:Raif was condemed for insulting Islam. Massive international outrage saved him, at least for now, from punishment. The actions of one man, that decided to speak out liberal reforms put the kingdom in the spotlight. Imagine if the conversations were far more widespread... Saudi Arabia can't behead a fifth of their citizens, I'm certain even conservative muslims would protest.

Jet wrote:That would never happen because that would make the public aware of our involvement in the ME and our relationship with the gulf states, which are upholding the petrodollar. To begin to discuss these things would also paint us in a very negative light. Not much of a chance the mainstream media is going to undermine its nations own interests either.

jec wrote:True, but some of the things keeping it from happening comes from people too. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Hirsi Ali (Victim of FGM) tries to make this a conversation, but audience is limited, and it's discouraged from speaking about it due to a frenzy of liberals attacking , painting them in negative light, calling them bigots, racists... the only publicity it gets is that Bill and company are islamophobes, bigots, etc.

Jet wrote:
Look Jec......the point of me pointing towards the Vice documentary was not to say this can easily be summed up as Western countries, by themselves, are entirely responsible for radicalizing generations. Rather, what I am saying is if you are going to have such a simplistic reaction to the recruitment videos you see on the mainstream news and reply "Look they are saying they are doing this because of religion, believe them!" Then by the same standard apply that to the documentary, where instead a journalist actually went to a region of turmoil and asked of the motivation for terrorist attacks, directly from the people affected by it. Not only from the head of an extremist group, but also a broad spectrum of people who deal with the fallout. If I apply the same reductionist metric that you are then I can easily say "Look its all western imperialism they are saying it, believe them!". So if you are going to be so one dimensional at least be consistent.

jec wrote:It's not reductionist Jet, you just still don't get control and treatment groups.

jec wrote:If terrorists were not convinced they were going to be rewarded after death for their brutal actions, they simply wouldn't do it.

jec wrote:They are the only group in human history that has reacted in such a way despite there being many other groups of people historically that have received brutal treatment. This is conclusion based on observation and analysis.

A conclusion is not a reduction of the problem....

Jet wrote:
...What?....I was refuting the statement you made, that we stopped intervening. Giving weapons to these groups enable them to kill the people we want dead. Oh, and also innocents. These are proxy wars. We are just as responsible for the deaths there. Its not like we dont know what they are going to use those weapons for.

jec wrote:Yes, but not all intervention should logically lead to the rise of religious extremist sentiment.

jec wrote:If Al Asaad's forces were the ones beheading and burning pilots alive your point would make sense.

Bad actors all around wrote:The UN commissioner's statement, reported from Geneva, coincided with the publication of a new death toll of 125,835 for the last 33 months. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), based in the UK, said the dead included 44,381 civilians, including 6,627 children and 4,454 women. The SOHR said at least 27,746 opposition fighters had been killed, among them just over 19,000 civilians who took up arms to fight the Assad regime. The opposition toll also included 2,221 army defectors and 6,261 non-Syrians who joined the rebels.

The UN commission has repeatedly accused the Syrian government, which is supported by Russia and Iran, of crimes against humanity and war crimes. It has said the rebels, who are backed by both western and Arab countries, are also guilty of committing war crimes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/syrian-officials-involved-war-crimes-bashar-al-assad-un-investigators

This cannot simply be attributed to religion wrote:
In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

jec wrote:It doesn't make sense to blame that intervention of selling arms for igniting extremism on the forces that would become ISIS. The more logical source of the radicalization, in this cases is clearly the sectarian government hypothesis rather than the intervention one.

Jet wrote:
Thats one part of it. But you're forgetting the US and the gulf states created ISIS too. SA uses them, and other groups like them to diminish shia influence as well.

jec wrote:Just like Iran uses the Houthi to diminish Sunni influence. It's all religious...

Jet wrote:
No it isn't. Ideology by itself is nothing but bad ideas until they are acted upon. We act for our economic benefit all the time which contributes to the instability in the region. This goes on to set off a chain of events that subsequently result in the furthering of extreme ideologies - and actions. The scope of this is greater than a few, the impact matters.

jec wrote:An ideology can also lead to inaction, which is just as bad or worse. The Arab countries can't seem to fully unite against ISIS because in the end, they kinda (almost fully who are we kidding) agree with their core beliefs. The ideology of the many legitimize the actions of the few, making the incentives to intervene almost non existent. The middle east has the military prowess to crush Isis militarily in a couple of weeks, yet they refuse to put boots on the ground. The only reason the Saudis are pushing is because they threaten the rule of the monarchy.

jec wrote:I know that part, it's called Christian Zionism.

jec wrote:I meant the role of Christianity on this conflict. I've been debating religion and seen its poison from early on and I know you'll see that Islam is in fact the most poisonous of them all, at least currently (Honor killings, apostaty, FGM, suicide bombings, repression of knowledge, gender inequality, medieval punishments, beheading, stoning, theocracies, etc). What's dumbing down the debate is the failed premise of moral relativism. There are some religions that clearly harm more than others and this is a fact. Morality has biological and socio-psychological objectivity and there's loads of literature to back this up.

Jet wrote:
No, not quite a contradiction. Yes "western violence" is partly religious, just like it is for "islamic violence". Western intervention, and the rise of fundamentalists both stem from the same belief in unbridled capitalism. From this ideal is derived the worst aspects of human nature that were mentioned earlier - greed and willful ignorance. This is what creates the conditions necessary for the continuation of violence and misery. Whether it be invasions, funding of terrorism, the spreading of arms, or the millions spent to influence and corrupt governments. All of these and many other actions work in conjunction to uphold this belief, which only ever seeks more money, power and control, a representation of our most basic primal instincts.

jec wrote:Greed and willful ignorance has been part of human society long before the rise of capitalism (around 300 years ago).

jec wrote:If there's anything to blame the rise of loving willful ignorance is the Abrahamic religions.

Jet wrote:

Its also partly their own fault. One of the reasons they get called that is because they say things like "We must crush Islam under the heel of the west" or... "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." That is needlessly sensational and like we've already established counterproductive if your goal really is ideological reform. The reason for that is because you drive away the very reformers that are necessary for it to happen.

History thus confirms that what will best counter “Islamic extremism” – if that is even the role of the state – is open engagement, debate and more and more sunlight. If you look at what actually worked in history, you would not be arresting people for “Muslim extremist” thought or antisemitic cartoons, however unpleasant: you would be holding well-covered, widely translated public debates between moderate Muslim critics of extremism and extremist voices, or between Muslim extremist religious advocates and western rabbis or secularists – and tweeting, Facebooking, televising, and commenting on the debate in real time.

Jet wrote:
It is exceptionally reductionist. Your obsession over religion and refusal to see other outside factors blinds you to this. Apply the same standard or stop with the "if they say its X then the motivation is always X".

Jet wrote:
If there was no religion there would be no terrorism? Ridiculous... You act as if people wouldn't kill each other for another cause, only religion.

Jet wrote:

It is reductionist and not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you are gonna take them at their word when they say their motivation is religion then also take them at their word when they mention their motivations come from true grievances brought from losing their families. Otherwise you are only hearing what you want to hear.

Jet wrote:
....This is what I am talking about. Because you associate beheadings and burning pilots alive with Islam it is a worse thing. EVEN though US drone strikes essentially burn their targets as well. So by this twisted bias chemical weapon use (that is against international law) is somehow better.....spare me from your skewed moral barometer

Jet wrote:
.....Like I said above and previously the distribution of arms point was me refuting your notion that we have stopped intervening in the region. That was false and you were wrong to raise it.

Jet wrote:
There's more than just religion driving whats happening now in the world. By continuing to ignore this you are only furthering the narrative that ensures the cyclical nature of this conflict remains so.

Jet wrote:
Ugh...no, it isnt merely religious. There are other financial, regional, and fear based reasons for them not intervening

Jet wrote:Theres also the factor of "why do it yourself when the US will do it for free"

jec wrote:
I can only reiterate how you're still missing the bigger picture when your focus is on which religion is "more poisonous" than another. The debate will just keep being dumbed down as you pursue a simplistic conclusion to justify your inherent bias. That's what the people who are actually profiting from these wars want.

Jet wrote:
Religion can be used to promote willful ignorance yes but its not exclusive to it. Many ppl continue to do things that are proven to be detrimental yet ignore this and continue to do so. Drone killings create more terrorists than they stop yet the identities of the targets are witheld and still they continue. The mass incarceration of the US population continue despite how flawed and racist the sentencing and pardoning can be. We hold 5% of the population yet 25% of the worlds prisoners, people in power remain willfully ignorant of this because of how profitable this system is. Mass surveillance has proven to be ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks yet civil liberties are ever increasingly diminished. In fact counterterrorism bills have begun to be proposed in other countries as well, despite the proven ineffectiveness in the US. The war on drugs itself is a failure based on the premise that addiction is itself a moral failing. Theres evidence supporting otherwise, as well as communities that have proven legalization can work. Republican states have begun to adopt voter ID laws to restrict the power of minority communities, yet they allow voting with an NRA card. There's also video of a politician campaigning for Mitt Romney saying this tactic will allow him to win the state. Campaign finance deregulation which favors the speech rights of the rich...I could go on. Religion can be a problem, but so can the over the top focus on it to the excusion of all nuance and context of the broader and more systemic issues that it goes to support.
These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

jec wrote:It's counter productive to censor people.

jec wrote:The fastest way to spread extremism is through censorship.

Jet wrote:
It is exceptionally reductionist. Your obsession over religion and refusal to see other outside factors blinds you to this. Apply the same standard or stop with the "if they say its X then the motivation is always X".

jec wrote:Who says I'm ignoring other factors?

jec wrote:Think how medication is tested. You have one control group and a treatment group. You give the treatment group the medication and you give the control group some placebos or simply nothing. Carefully studying the treatment group is not enough if you do not have a comparison. Carefully studying Muslims without taking into account other people who have suffered similarly in the XX century is not going to give you reasonable conclusions, that is what your analysis is lacking

Jet wrote:It is reductionist and not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you are gonna take them at their word when they say their motivation is religion then also take them at their word when they mention their motivations come from true grievances brought from losing their families. Otherwise you are only hearing what you want to hear.

jec wrote:Refer to my former point in this. Look for the heterogeneity between groups of people to look for you causal effect.

Jet wrote:....This is what I am talking about. Because you associate beheadings and burning pilots alive with Islam it is a worse thing. EVEN though US drone strikes essentially burn their targets as well. So by this twisted bias chemical weapon use (that is against international law) is somehow better.....spare me from your skewed moral barometer

jec wrote:My point with Assad was that if he were the one to be burning the pilots alive and tossing gays off buildings then the point of the US intervention making religious nuts to act the way they act would be consistent.

Jet wrote:.....Like I said above and previously the distribution of arms point was me refuting your notion that we have stopped intervening in the region. That was false and you were wrong to raise it.

jec wrote:That still doesn't justify the rise of a religious extremists organization that rises in Iraq and the government we tried to topple is now a government we are working with....

Jet wrote:
There's more than just religion driving whats happening now in the world. By continuing to ignore this you are only furthering the narrative that ensures the cyclical nature of this conflict remains so.

jec wrote:If by "The World" you mean the entire world, then yes. There are some insurgents in other regions of the world who rise up against the state and carry out guerrilla style warfare that don't quote religious texts to justify their actions, or attack civilians just to instill terror. Ignoring this heterogeneity is what allows the religious extremists groups to continue recruiting because there has been no drastic reform in Islam.

Jet wrote:
Ugh...no, it isnt merely religious. There are other financial, regional, and fear based reasons for them not intervening

jec wrote:Really? I would think that having extremists who have already stated that they would love toppling all other Arab regimes in the region, and who are getting close to dominating oil fields in Iraq and Syria giving them increased resources to arm themselves would be motivation enough. Fear is usually a motivator to act, not the other way around.

Jet wrote:Theres also the factor of "why do it yourself when the US will do it for free"

jec wrote:And that's the problem... they hate US intervention yet they're just gonna wait until the US decides to step in.

jec wrote:
I can only reiterate how you're still missing the bigger picture when your focus is on which religion is "more poisonous" than another. The debate will just keep being dumbed down as you pursue a simplistic conclusion to justify your inherent bias. That's what the people who are actually profiting from these wars want.

jec wrote:Right... because the anti theistic discourse has been the dominating discourse in recent history. Have you forgotten that the most reviled and distrusted "religious" groups int he world are Atheists and Agnostics? I don't understand why you act like this discourse is the one to blame for what is happening and will happen considering your discourse is the dominating one.

Jet wrote:
Religion can be used to promote willful ignorance yes but its not exclusive to it. Many ppl continue to do things that are proven to be detrimental yet ignore this and continue to do so. Drone killings create more terrorists than they stop yet the identities of the targets are witheld and still they continue. The mass incarceration of the US population continue despite how flawed and racist the sentencing and pardoning can be. We hold 5% of the population yet 25% of the worlds prisoners, people in power remain willfully ignorant of this because of how profitable this system is. Mass surveillance has proven to be ineffective in stopping terrorist attacks yet civil liberties are ever increasingly diminished. In fact counterterrorism bills have begun to be proposed in other countries as well, despite the proven ineffectiveness in the US. The war on drugs itself is a failure based on the premise that addiction is itself a moral failing. Theres evidence supporting otherwise, as well as communities that have proven legalization can work. Republican states have begun to adopt voter ID laws to restrict the power of minority communities, yet they allow voting with an NRA card. There's also video of a politician campaigning for Mitt Romney saying this tactic will allow him to win the state. Campaign finance deregulation which favors the speech rights of the rich...I could go on. Religion can be a problem, but so can the over the top focus on it to the excusion of all nuance and context of the broader and more systemic issues that it goes to support.
These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

jec wrote:Those are not examples of willful ignorance. Those are examples of powerful bastards (who are not ignorant, just greedy)manipulating the public to keep them in he dark. Willful ignorance stems from knowing the facts yet choosing to ignore them.

jet wrote:These are all examples employed by political leaders and their constitutients. Despite having been proven either at best impractical examples of willful ignorance or at worst(and increasingly blatant) examples of greed they continue. Whether it be for more power or more money the problems in the world extend farther than religion.

jec wrote:For example, Christians denying Climate Change as a danger because they ingeniously believe Jesus won't let that happen to them. Or Muslims also denying it because of Allah's grace, or Christinas, despite knowing the horrors of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict decide to stick with Israel because their bible tells them to do so...

Jet wrote:
I was making this point months ago.

Jet wrote:

No, Id say directly funding extremist groups and supporting despots does a more effective job of that. It gives them something to point against. Censorship is nonetheless a significant factor in the surge of extremism, specially through imprisonment where these ideologies fester

Jet wrote:

What you've written does. Again "if they say the motivation is x, then its x" is a weak metric to apply if you dont apply it when the opposite proves true. What this means is either be consistent with it, or stop using it as an argument. This is not me saying religion is unrelated, rather its hypocritical to not use the same standard, because its weak.

Jet wrote:

I understand it just fine, thanks. Youre assuming...AGAIN, that I am discounting religion as a factor. Needless to say you are wrong once more.

Jet wrote:Lol no arming these groups doesnt justify their ideological rise, who said that? We certainly are complicit in their violence however. Read the articles I posted above. Our intervention in syria was planned long before 2011.

Jet wrote:
Lol our government does not ignore the role religion plays either. It makes use of the sunni shia divide and gets them to fight each other, just like they do on their own as well. Supporting the regimes which advance their ideological radicalization are what enable extremist groups to continue recruitment.

In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

Jet wrote:
Perhaps if you were more informed on how these regimes see these groups as a threat to their rule and pay them so they will conduct their mayhem away from their countries you wouldnt be so surprised.

Jet wrote:

No, "my discourse" is not the dominant one in the media, far from it. If you haven't already understood from what I've been writing it acknowledges the role of religion, but heavily criticizes the power of nations and private interests for perpetuating the continuation of these conflicts. The mainstream media does not hold this view, as with few exceptions, it plays to, and is courted by power. My issue with the new atheist is the fact that the rhetoric put forward by them is  counter productive and sensationalist, encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. I don't think that the average NA is primarily responsible for the actions of our government, but the ignorance of those actions intentional or not, does defend them.

Jet wrote:
No they are examples of willful ignorance on the part of constituents because they keep reelecting politicians who hold these positions. This information is out there, even talked about on the main channels. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences and continue it anyway.

Jet wrote:
Yup that too. The climate change point in particular I was also going to make but I had already listed a lot. Thats whats going to cause the most damage worldwide and affect us all. Making my point once again, also driven by greed....

jec wrote:Yeah... So? If you are referring to the Charlie Hebdo thing where they censored a muslim comedian, then you might recall that might point was that he was directly violating French law so it wasn't hypocritical to punish him in that context, which was the point of many during that time. This does not mean I supported that position.

jec wrote:Well, history disagrees with you.

jec wrote:Again, you ignore the role of control groups. My conclusion comes from taking those other motivations into account and comparing them with historical and present similar cases.

jec wrote:I didn't say you don't take them into account, but your lack of comparison with other regions clearly indicates that you don't take it into account enough.

jec wrote:Complicity only means we've given them the tools to fight, that however is not the catalyst to their behavior. The US has also given weapons to far right paramilitary groups in Colombia and other regions of LA, they don't attack gays and apostates based on extreme christian ideology.

Jet wrote:
Lol our government does not ignore the role religion plays either. It makes use of the sunni shia divide and gets them to fight each other, just like they do on their own as well. Supporting the regimes which advance their ideological radicalization are what enable extremist groups to continue recruitment.

jec wrote:Like sunni dictators, legislating in favor of sunni muslims but still causing sunni extremism to rise? Most violence in ME is Sunni vs Sunni not Sunni vs Shiia. I'm not gonna deny the Wests role in using them to further their interests but now imagine the panorama if they were a bunch of Buhhdist rather than muslims...

jec wrote:Take for example the Houthis, which are a Shiia group (Not considered terrorists) operating in the current civil war. The Sunni government in Yemen, backed by the US and SA had governed in favor of Sunnis and detriment of Shiias causing them to rise and fight. The interesting part of this is that the Houthis are not religious extremists and in fact very different motivations and goals from islamic terrorists:

In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

This is a case, inside the middle east of a US backed regime causing violence yet their Modus Operandi is completely different from other cases in the ME clearly indicating the importance of ideology in causing terrorist behavior. Same treatment, different outcomes, this is the part when one must give more importance to the differences, most noticeably, Shiia isn't as crazy as Sunni...

Supporting Dictators who crush democracy wrote:As a Saudi-led military coalition continues to pound rebel targets in Yemen, the country is plunging into a humanitarian crisis. Civilian casualties are mounting.

With U.S. logistical support, the Saudis are attempting to re-instate the country’s exiled government — which enjoys the backing of the West and the Sunni Gulf monarchies — in the face of a military offensive by Houthi rebels from northern Yemen.

None of this had to be.

Not long ago — at the height of the Arab Spring in 2011 — a broad-based, nonviolent, pro-democracy movement in Yemen rose up against the U.S.-backed government of dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. If Washington and Saudi Arabia had allowed this coalition to come to power, the tragic events unfolding in Yemen could have been prevented.

The movement had forged an impressive degree of unity among the various tribal, regional, sectarian, and ideological groups that took part in the pro-democracy protests, which included mass marches, sit-ins, and many other forms of nonviolent civil resistance. Leaders of prominent tribal coalitions — as well as the Houthis now rebelling against the government — publicly supported the popular insurrection, prompting waves of tribesmen to leave their guns at home and head to the capital to take part in the movement.

These tribesmen, along with the hundreds of thousands of city dwellers on the streets, were encouraged to maintain nonviolent discipline, even in the face of government snipers and other provocations that led to the deaths of hundreds of unarmed protesters.

The Obama administration, however, was more concerned about maintaining stability in the face of growing Al-Qaeda influence in rural areas. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that Washington had not planned for an era without Saleh, who had ruled the country for more than three and a half decades. As one former ambassador to Yemen put it in March 2011, “For right now, he’s our guy.”

“That’s How It Is”

Though the pro-democracy movement largely maintained a remarkably rigorous nonviolent discipline in its protests, some opposition tribes and rebel army officers added an armed component to the resistance movement. An assassination attempt against Saleh that June forced the severely wounded president to leave for Saudi Arabia for extended medical treatments.

John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser and future CIA director, visited Saleh in a Saudi hospital in July and encouraged him to sign a deal transferring power. Not only was the mission unsuccessful in convincing Saleh to resign, however, the regime — in a continuation of its efforts to use Saleh’s close relationship with the United States to reinforce his standing — broadcast images of the surprisingly healthy-looking president and emphasized his statesmanlike demeanor in meeting with a top U.S. official as a signal of continued U.S. support for the regime.

As the pro-democracy struggle tried desperately to keep the movement nonviolent in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and a growing armed rebellion, the United States escalated its own violence by launching unprecedented air strikes in Yemen, ostensibly targeting Al-Qaeda cells. The Pentagon acknowledged, however, that Al-Qaeda operatives often intermingled with other anti-government rebels.

Indeed, U.S. policy allowed the CIA to target individuals for drone strikes without verifying their identity, resulting in some armed Yemeni tribes and others allied with pro-democracy forces apparently being attacked under the mistaken impression they were al-Qaeda. This scenario was made all the more likely by U.S. reliance on the Yemeni regime for much of its intelligence in determining targets. Complicating the situation still further during this critical period of ongoing protests, teams of U.S. military and intelligence operatives were continuing to operate out of a command post in the Yemeni capital.

It’s entirely possible, then, that the Yemeni government may have used the pretext of al-Qaeda to convince the U.S. government to take out its rivals.

U.S. officials insisted that the violence between the pro- and anti-regime elements of the Yemeni armed forces did not involve U.S.-trained Yemeni special operations forces, and Brennan initially maintained that the unrest had not affected U.S.-Yemeni security cooperation. By the end of the year, however, he acknowledged that the “political tumult” had led these U.S.-trained units “to be focused on their positioning for internal political purposes as opposed to doing all they can against AQAP.”

That meant that Yemeni forces trained by the United States for the purpose of fight al-Qaeda were instead directly participating in the squelching of a democratic uprising. “Rather than fighting AQAP,” an exposé in The Nation noted, “these U.S.-backed units — created and funded with the explicit intent to be used only for counterterrorism operations — redeployed to Sanaa to protect the collapsing regime from its own people.”

According to the well-connected Yemeni political analyst Abdul Ghani al-Iryani, these U.S.-backed units exist “mostly for the defense of the regime.” For example, rather than fighting a key battle against Al-Qaida forces in Abyan, al-Iryani told reporter Jeremy Scahill, “They are still here [in Sanaa], protecting the palace. That’s how it is.”

“Keeping Enough of the Regime Intact”

At the end of July 2011, despite the ongoing repression of pro-democracy forces, a congressional committee approved more than $120 million in aid to the Yemeni government, primarily in military and related security assistance. The aid was conditional on the State Department certifying that the Yemeni government was cooperating sufficiently in fighting terrorism, but there were no conditions regarding democracy or human rights.

As the repression increased, U.S. officials praised the Yemeni regime’s cooperation with U.S.-led war efforts, with Brennan declaring in September, “I can say today the counterterrorism cooperation with Yemen is better than it’s been during my whole tenure.”

Meanwhile, the United States and Saudi Arabia, joined by the other monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), presented a plan whereby Saleh would step down. According to the deal, he and other top officials in the regime would be granted immunity from prosecution, and a plebiscite would be held within 60 days to ratify the transfer of power to Saleh’s vice-president, Major General Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

Pro-democracy protesters largely rejected this U.S.-Saudi mandate for Hadi. It soon became apparent that despite occasional calls for Saleh to step down — such as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s strong statement in early August — the Obama administration was deferring to its autocratic GCC allies on the peninsula to oversee a political transition.

In mid-August, opposition activists formed a National Council, which they hoped would form a provisional government until multiparty elections could be held. It consisted of 143 members representing a broad coalition of protest leaders, tribal sheiks, South Yemen separatists, opposition military commanders, former members of the governing party, and the Houthi militia representing the Zaydi minority in the north.

The Saudis and the U.S. government, however, kept pushing for Saleh to transfer power to his vice president. Supporters of the National Council denounced these foreign efforts as “only a plot to foil the revolution.”

Following a meeting with Hadi in September, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said, “We continue to believe that an immediate, peaceful, and orderly transition is in the best interest of the Yemeni people. …We urge all sides to engage in dialogue that peacefully moves Yemen forward.” Pro-democracy protesters pushed ahead in their campaign of civil resistance, insisting that the National Council representing a broad array Yemenis not be circumvented.

Shortly thereafter, government security forces fired into crowds during a massive pro-democracy protest in Sanaa. Dozens of protesters were killed and hundreds more wounded.

The U.S. embassy, however, appeared to blame both sides for the killings, saying the United States “regrets the deaths and injuries of many people” and calling “upon all parties to exercise restraint. In particular, we call on the parties to refrain from actions that provoke further violence.” Similarly, U.S. ambassador Gerald Feierstein criticized a peaceful pro-democracy march from Taiz to Sanaa in December as “provocative.”

Soon afterwards, 13 more pro-democracy demonstrators were killed by government security forces, leading many activists to accuse the ambassador of preemptively giving Saleh permission to shoot civilians. Time magazine, summarizing the view of pro-democracy activists, noted, “The early intercession of foreign powers with a transition plan distracted attention from popular demands, they say, and allowed the president to cite ongoing talks in delaying his resignation. Many Yemenis believe the key interest guiding the U.S. has been keeping enough of the regime intact to combat al-Qaeda, and that this has distorted the outcome.”

“This Revolution Has Been Stabbed in the Back”

Eventually, U.S. officials bowed to international concerns and put forward a threat of United Nations sanctions against the regime, which finally forced Saleh to formally resign.

In January 2012, the Obama administration allowed Saleh into the United States for medical treatment, rejecting calls for his prosecution. U.S. officials believed that doing so was the best way of finally forcing him to step down as president and finally make a peaceful transition of power possible.

Pro-democracy activists in Yemen were outraged.

Protest leader Tawakkol Karman, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize the previous month, called on the United States to “hold Saleh accountable.” She also observed, “There shouldn’t be any place for tyrants in the free world. This is against all international agreements, laws, and covenants. The entry of Ali Saleh into America is an insult to the values of the American people. This was a mistake by the administration, and I am confident he will be met with wide disapproval in America. This will tarnish the reputation of America among all those who support the Arab Spring revolutions.”

Saleh returned to Yemen the following month to oversee the transfer of power to his vice-president and has remained the country ever since. Now, he’s making a bid to retake control, having formed an alliance with his former Houthi adversaries and, with the support of some allied army units, playing a critical role in their rise to power.

This has greatly angered the pro-democracy movement, whose leaders twice petitioned the Obama administration for support but were rejected in favor of negotiations led by the Saudi regime and other autocratic GCC monarchies. This greatly set back the hopes for a genuine democratic revolution and alienated the very liberal youth who would otherwise be the West’s most likely Yemeni allies.

As Francisco Martin-Royal, an expert on counter-radicalization in the region, wrote at that time, “The lack of U.S. support means that these young men and women, who effectively ousted Saleh and continue to call for democratic institutions, have broadly failed to have a voice in the formation of Yemen’s new government or have their legitimate concerns be taken seriously.”

He continued, “Yemen’s pro-democracy activists largely blame the U.S. for failing to live up to its rhetoric — a disillusionment that potentially makes them vulnerable to recruitment by other well-organized forces that are against the existing regime, namely extremist groups like AQAP and separatist movements. From their perspective, the only real changes in Yemen — the establishment of a semi-autonomous region by the Houthis and the propagation of sharia law in various cities in southern Yemen by Ansar al-Sharia — have come through violence.”

U.S. Ambassador Feierstein kept pushing the vague idea of a “national dialogue” among elites and criticized ongoing protests within the government institutions, particularly military units, on the grounds that “the problems have to be resolved through this process of dialogue and negotiations.” By contrast, he castigated the pro-democracy activists, saying “We’ve also been clear in saying we don’t believe that the demonstrations are the place where Yemen’s problems will be solved.”

In February 2012, President Obama publicly endorsed Hadi, claiming — despite Hadi’s service as vice-president in a repressive regime and his distinction as the only candidate in the subsequent plebiscite — that his subsequent election was “a model for how peaceful transition in the Middle East can occur.”

The pro-democracy movement thus largely gave up on the United States, with prominent young pro-democracy activist Khaled al-Anesi fuming, “This revolution has been stabbed in the back.”

What Could Have Been?

This marginalization of Yemeni civil society — which had struggled for so many months nonviolently for democracy — and Washington’s failure to accept the broad-based National Council to head an interim government created the conditions that led to the dramatic resurgence of the armed Houthi uprising, which until last year had only operated in the Zaydi heartland in the far northern part of the country.

The Houthis were helped along by the Hadi government’s lack of credibility, ongoing corruption and ineptitude at all levels of government, a mass resignation of Yemen’s cabinet, and controversial proposals for constitutional change. They also received support from armed groups allied with the former Saleh dictatorship, which enabled the Houthis — who represent only a minority of Yemenis — to nevertheless emerge as the most powerful force in Yemen. They surprised the world by seizing the capital of Sanaa in August, consolidating power in January, and subsequently expanding southward.

Most Yemenis strongly oppose the Houthi militia and, in Taiz and other parts of the country, have challenged their armed advance through massive civil resistance and other nonviolent means. Yet the Houthis have actually expanded their areas of control in some key regions, even where they’ve faced armed resistance and Saudi air strikes.

It would be much too simplistic to blame the current crisis in Yemen entirely on the United States. However, one still has to wonder: If instead of allying with Saudi autocrats to install another strongman in the name of stability, Washington had supported that country’s nonviolent pro-democracy movement, what might have been

http://fpif.org/how-the-u-s-contributed-to-yemens-crisis/

Jet wrote:
Perhaps if you were more informed on how these regimes see these groups as a threat to their rule and pay them so they will conduct their mayhem away from their countries you wouldnt be so surprised.

jec wrote:Who's rule? They are attacking all other arab nations considering them fake muslims. Muslims, the main victims of islamic terrorism...

Jet wrote:

No, "my discourse" is not the dominant one in the media, far from it. If you haven't already understood from what I've been writing it acknowledges the role of religion, but heavily criticizes the power of nations and private interests for perpetuating the continuation of these conflicts. The mainstream media does not hold this view, as with few exceptions, it plays to, and is courted by power. My issue with the new atheist is the fact that the rhetoric put forward by them is counter productive and sensationalist, encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. I don't think that the average NA is primarily responsible for the actions of our government, but the ignorance of those actions intentional or not, does defend them.

jec wrote:Encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution? What? If you'd actually followed New Atheists and their work outside of the sensationalist far left headlines painting them as bad guys

jec wrote:Before you quote Arsi Ali, she was a victim of FGM so she probably has more hostility to Islam than most...

At least we agree on the fact that NA's discourse is not the dominating one.

Jet wrote:
No they are examples of willful ignorance on the part of constituents because they keep reelecting politicians who hold these positions. This information is out there, even talked about on the main channels. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences and continue it anyway.

jec wrote:Well I disagree. Most people don't reach out for that information because they simply don't care or have the time to look into every detail so they are stuck with hearing what's one the biased local radio so to speak. If confronted and they decide to ignore or deny it without reasonable evidence, then that is what I would consider willful ignorance. In fact, worse than willful ignorance is probably the illusion of knowledge.

jec wrote:Driven by the greed of a few but only maintained through religion. If people stopped believing in jebus, they would have probably already skinned oil execs in the public square.

Jet wrote:
It was hypocritical. As it was for the rest of leaders to stand with tyrants like the representatives for nations like Saudi arabia. A regime which commits many atrocities yet is praised by our politicians because we get something out of it.

Jet wrote:

No, you're wrong

Jet wrote:

Im not ignoring the latin american comparison. You are explicitly saying we should take the words of terrorists as facts, yet when we apply that same logic we find they have more than one motivation for their actions. In the case I listed(an interview) it was mentioned to be because of being bombed on an ongoing basis. So youre saying is "take them by their word, but only when it benefits my claim." Focus on the metric im talking about, the one you constantly brought up.

Jet wrote:

Youre not taking into account who created these groups....and we still make use of them to meet our interests. You're the one discounting factors here.

Jet wrote:

Complicity means the weapons they use to fight are acquired by our funding or coordination. Whenever they kill someone with those tools, it means we are also responsible for allowing that to happen. The consequences of which have ripple effects with each successive capture, regime change, etc. We are also responsible for stoking this ideology in the first place, but thats a separate conversation.

Jet wrote:
Or imagine if they were muslims who were never radicalized by both western hands or their respective religious leaders in the first place. Or how about protests not being subverted by both parties and subsequently hijacked into becoming one of the many proxy wars that are now playing out, like currently in Syria.

Jet wrote:
Our government considers males over the age of 12 a militant combatant. They also don't know who they are killing a lot of the times, like we saw this morning. So the point about not being considered terrorist is moot when youre still killing them.

Jet wrote:

Saudi - Yemen quote

Jet wrote:
The rule of the leaders of the gulf states for example: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Or any others who had a hand in crushing dissent that resulted from protests like the arab spring which wasn't perfect but which could have been a step forward. Dissent is not tolerated in any meaningful form by these regimes, which we support with weapons and funding thereby contributing to that repression.[/url]

The Arab Spring? The spring that revoked secular tyrants (Egypt and Lybia) in favor of religious tyrants, that do the same exact thing their predecessors did only with the added brutality of religious law?

Jet wrote:
Yes encouraging distrust, ridicule and persecution. The Sam Harris quote I found in an interview with the sun and Alis with Reason. Neither was particularly leftist(reason is liberatarian) or combative in any way.

You're gonna have to be more specific with the Harris one, I can't find what you are implying. I think it's a great interview that highlights the heterogeneity of religions...

Jet wrote:Not on mainstream media anyway, for what little that means. I'm aware of Alis history, that doesnt excuse her words. Specially given the fact that they are counterproductive to the cause she supposedly champions. NA discourse defends the dominant discourse, whether intentional or not.

So, you justify the angry words that call to violence from a muslim victim of US harm but not the words of a victim of islamic brutality? If you would go beyond interviews and see how many muslim skeptics and non believer these people have motivated to speak up even in their dangerous communities you would see that this is not counter productive.

If NA's discourse defended the mainstream dominant (your) discourse, there wouldn't be a ton of backlash and hate towards every single word people like Harris, Maher, Dawkins say on the matter. Reza Aslan and Greenwald are the ones called to the main media outlets to give interviews on the matter not representatives of NA.

Why don't they debate quotes like this instead?

Sam Harris wrote:Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings.
Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

Jet wrote:
That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the actions commited by the government in our name. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences of their actions and continue it anyway.

Alright I agree, so by that logic, moderate non extremists Muslims are also not absolved from responsibility by the actions committed by extremists who act on their name and their religion since they refuse to denounce the violence incited by their own religious doctrine.

Jet wrote:
It was hypocritical. As it was for the rest of leaders to stand with tyrants like the representatives for nations like Saudi arabia. A regime which commits many atrocities yet is praised by our politicians because we get something out of it.

jec wrote:You're deviating from the point. I'm talking from a legal, constitutional point of view. The 'tyranical' leader's point or weather is just as bad has nothing to do with this.

jec wrote:So... historians are wrong yet you are right?

Jet wrote:

Im not ignoring the latin american comparison. You are explicitly saying we should take the words of terrorists as facts, yet when we apply that same logic we find they have more than one motivation for their actions. In the case I listed(an interview) it was mentioned to be because of being bombed on an ongoing basis. So youre saying is "take them by their word, but only when it benefits my claim." Focus on the metric im talking about, the one you constantly brought up.

So....I guess control groups comparison is still something you can't see...
There's a reason why researchers hate self reporting, there will always be bias. It's up to the researcher to determine which part of the self reporting applies and which part does not.

jec wrote:Even if the US created these groups or not, that doesn't justify their behavior, their MO. That's my point here.

Jet wrote:

Complicity means the weapons they use to fight are acquired by our funding or coordination. Whenever they kill someone with those tools, it means we are also responsible for allowing that to happen. The consequences of which have ripple effects with each successive capture, regime change, etc. We are also responsible for stoking this ideology in the first place, but thats a separate conversation.

jec wrote:Jihad and violent expansion has been a doctrine of Islam since it was founded... Jihad isn't a 20th century term...

Jet wrote:
Or imagine if they were muslims who were never radicalized by both western hands or their respective religious leaders in the first place. Or how about protests not being subverted by both parties and subsequently hijacked into becoming one of the many proxy wars that are now playing out, like currently in Syria.

jec wrote:You mean like the shit that has happened all over the world yet we see a different reaction from a certain group of people? Control and treatment group... Control and treatment group...

Jet wrote:
Our government considers males over the age of 12 a militant combatant. They also don't know who they are killing a lot of the times, like we saw this morning. So the point about not being considered terrorist is moot when youre still killing them.

jec wrote:I'm arguing the MO and definition of terrorism, not moral relativism.

jec wrote:What's your point? Yes, the US and SA have interveined in Yemen, that's precisely my point as well. The consequences are different though, the Houthis do not operate as Islamic terrorists but as an insurgency, the Houthi's MO and goals are completely different from other fighters in the region that have been instigated by the same reasons. This shows that ideology plays a much more meaningful role that foreign intervention...

Let A be "US intervention (and everything it implies)" and B be "Creation of religious extremists groups", you and most left media argues A implies B. By conventional logic, every time A happens B MUST happen. this case B didn't happen thus A does not imply B.

Jet wrote:
The rule of the leaders of the gulf states for example: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, etc. Or any others who had a hand in crushing dissent that resulted from protests like the arab spring which wasn't perfect but which could have been a step forward. Dissent is not tolerated in any meaningful form by these regimes, which we support with weapons and funding thereby contributing to that repression.

jec wrote:The Arab Spring? The spring that revoked secular tyrants (Egypt and Lybia) in favor of religious tyrants, that do the same exact thing their predecessors did only with the added brutality of religious law?

jec wrote:You're gonna have to be more specific with the Harris one, I can't find what you are implying. I think it's a great interview that highlights the heterogeneity of religions...

Jet wrote:Not on mainstream media anyway, for what little that means. I'm aware of Alis history, that doesnt excuse her words. Specially given the fact that they are counterproductive to the cause she supposedly champions. NA discourse defends the dominant discourse, whether intentional or not.

jec wrote:So, you justify the angry words that call to violence from a muslim victim of US harm

jec wrote:If NA's discourse defended the mainstream dominant (your) discourse

Jet wrote:
That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the actions commited by the government in our name. Like I said, at worst they are examples of greed which is just as bad, if not worse because they realize the consequences of their actions and continue it anyway.

jec wrote:Alright I agree, so by that logic, moderate non extremists Muslims are also not absolved from responsibility by the actions committed by extremists who act on their name and their religion since they refuse to denounce the violence incited by their own religious doctrine.

Jet wrote:

Nah, Jon Stewart put it better

Jet wrote:

No, history is right. Your interpretation of it isnt.

Jet wrote:
Hahaha spare me the hypocrisy, you yourself admitted you were biased so thats laughable coming from you.

Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

Jet wrote:

It has. Just as other atrocities have been commited by a number of other groups for a multitude of other reasons.

Jet wrote:
Theres a double standard on the application of the term "terrorism". Our violence would never be considered that. That would be unheard of.

Jet wrote:

Wrong again. Watch from 17mins on

Jet wrote:
To say "A causes B" is not to say "A is the ONLY cause of B"

Jet wrote:
The links were not from a far left website, like you claimed they were. As for the sensationalism, Harris admits to it himself in the interview though I dont see how someone could honestly claim that wasn't sensational.

Jet wrote:

Now im justifying acts of violence? What an idiotic statement.

Jet wrote:
Wrong again. My discourse points to the greater structures that contribute to this system. If anything yours is the discourse thats gotten more play in the media. No need to wonder why. It does a nice job at masking the motives of governments and their institutions by distracting the wider public from acknowledging these truths and engaging them. Instead it focuses on division through petty tribalism and broad generalizations. In effect offering easy answers for a complex problem.

Jet wrote:
Now you are equating the acts of individuals to the acts sanctioned by nations.....Again not every religious person takes the same values from their religion. Of the muslims who hold the bad beliefs illustrated by the pewpoll, most certainly do not act on them. As I have showed previously groups like ISIS have been condemned by muslims. Just because you arent listening doesnt mean it isnt happening. The ultimate point is the acts commited under greed are ultimately done so on a greater scale than religious, and have a greater impact. Religious violence is only one factor that is intensified as a result of it.

Jet wrote:

Nah, Jon Stewart put it better

jec wrote:Well that's your opinion, I'm taking the stance of legality.

Jet wrote:

No, history is right. Your interpretation of it isnt.

jec wrote:It's not my interpretation, its historian's interpretation.

Jet wrote:
Hahaha spare me the hypocrisy, you yourself admitted you were biased so thats laughable coming from you.

jec wrote:Because I'm the one leading the NA discourse...right

Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

jec wrote:I. DON'T. CARE. This is the problem, you're taking a stance of moral relativism, the faux pas motion that everyone is just as good and everything is just as bad. This stance keeps people from seeing things for what they are and stagnates any real tools to act on it. Being able to ordinaly organize things does not mean you will ignore or are in agreement with the other.

Jet wrote:

It has. Just as other atrocities have been commited by a number of other groups for a multitude of other reasons.

jec wrote:Same as above.

Jet wrote:
Theres a double standard on the application of the term "terrorism". Our violence would never be considered that. That would be unheard of.

jec wrote:Because the west's violence, even though they cause harm to non combatants, they are not their goal. Most non combatants end up being collateral, not main target.

Jet wrote:

Wrong again. Watch from 17mins on

jec wrote:? That just pretty much proves my point.

jec wrote:... Also, as someone who has lived 15+ years in a war torn country for over 50 years... Don't rely on Vice's Gonzo Journalism... by definition... it becomes completely anecdotal...

Jet wrote:
To say "A causes B" is not to say "A is the ONLY cause of B"

jec wrote:Yes, but if A happens... B MUST happen.

Jet wrote:
The links were not from a far left website, like you claimed they were. As for the sensationalism, Harris admits to it himself in the interview though I dont see how someone could honestly claim that wasn't sensational.

jec wrote:I'm still not seeing it.... the rape thing?

Jet wrote:

Now im justifying acts of violence? What an idiotic statement.

jec wrote:You bash Ali for having violent rethoric after being a victim yet you don't do the same with muslim extremists...

Jet wrote:
Wrong again. My discourse points to the greater structures that contribute to this system. If anything yours is the discourse thats gotten more play in the media. No need to wonder why. It does a nice job at masking the motives of governments and their institutions by distracting the wider public from acknowledging these truths and engaging them. Instead it focuses on division through petty tribalism and broad generalizations. In effect offering easy answers for a complex problem.

jec wrote:Your discourse? You mean the left's discourse. Don't forget most of the US's media is left biased and this is a fact.

Jet wrote:
Now you are equating the acts of individuals to the acts sanctioned by nations.....Again not every religious person takes the same values from their religion. Of the muslims who hold the bad beliefs illustrated by the pewpoll, most certainly do not act on them. As I have showed previously groups like ISIS have been condemned by muslims. Just because you arent listening doesnt mean it isnt happening. The ultimate point is the acts commited under greed are ultimately done so on a greater scale than religious, and have a greater impact. Religious violence is only one factor that is intensified as a result of it.

jec wrote:They condemn ISIS and while most wouldn't get their hands dirty by killing people... They agree with the killing of people. If most muslims have these bad and radical ideas in their head, they can easily be nudged into the path of violence. This will only keep happening until they reform their faith.

Jet wrote:

Laws cant be hypocritical?

Jet wrote:

Its your lack of knowledge of it

Jet wrote:
No but you agree with it, and are arguing with me about it. Bias affects arguments.

Jet wrote:Obviously it doesn't justify their behavior. Neither does an autocrats desire to remain in power justify their human rights violations. Nor does the desire for regional and economical dominance justify the actions that result from machinations by western elites.

Jet wrote:
The fact that you dont care is the problem. This failure to recognize the extent of our involvement despite the fact that its responsible for creating and sustaining these conditions.

Leftist Unreason and the Strange Case of Noam Chomsky wrote:
Chomsky has been a persistent critic of U.S. foreign policy for over three decades. He has also managed to demonstrate a principal failing of the liberal critique of power. He appears to be an exquisitely moral man whose political views prevent him from making the most basic moral distinctions—between types of violence, and the variety of human purposes that give rise to them.
In his book 9-11, with rubble of the World Trade Center still piled high and smoldering, Chomsky urged us not to forget that “the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state.” In support of this claim he catalogs a number of American misdeeds, including the sanctions that the United States imposed upon Iraq, which led to the death of “maybe half a million children,” and the 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan, which may have set the stage for tens of thousands of innocent Sudanese to die of tuberculosis, malaria, and other treatable diseases. Chomsky does not hesitate to draw moral equivalences here: “For the first time in modern history, Europe and its offshoots were subjected, on home soil, to the kind of atrocity that they routinely have carried out elsewhere.”42
Before pointing out just how wayward Chomsky’s thinking is on this subject, I would like to concede many of his points, since they have the virtue of being both generally important and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad. In this respect, we can more or less swallow Chomsky’s thesis whole. To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone.
We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly, we are poised to do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent. There may be much that Western powers, and the United States in particular, should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community. We can concede all of this, and even share Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness.

Jet wrote:
That's incredibly naive. Yes our dear leaders have the best of intentions, just like they've shown in past wars.

SH wrote:
1. Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply. They have communicated their concerns to the FDA but were rebuffed. Acting rashly, with the intention of saving millions of lives, they unleash a computer virus, targeted to impede the release of this deadly vaccine. As it turns out, they are right about the vaccine but wrong about the consequences of their meddling—and they wind up destroying half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.

What would I say? I would say that this was a very unfortunate event—but these are people we want on our team. I would find the FDA highly culpable for not having effectively communicated with them. These people are our friends, and we were all very unlucky.

2. al-Qaeda is precisely as terrible a group as it is, and it destroys our pharmaceuticals intentionally, for the purpose of harming millions of innocent people.

What would I say? We should imprison or kill these people at the first opportunity.

While the body count might be the same, these are totally different scenarios. Ethically speaking, intention is (nearly) the whole story. The difference between intending to harm someone and accidentally harming them is enormous—if for no other reason than that the presence of harmful intent tells us a lot about what a person or group is likely to do in the future.

Jet wrote:


No it proves the exact opposite.

Jec wrote:Take for example the Houthis, which are a Shiia group (Not considered terrorists) operating in the current civil war. The Sunni government in Yemen, backed by the US and SA had governed in favor of Sunnis and detriment of Shiias causing them to rise and fight. The interesting part of this is that the Houthis are not religious extremists and in fact very different motivations and goals from islamic terrorists:

In an interview with Yemen Times, Hussein Al-Bukhari, a Houthi insider said that Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran

This is a case, inside the middle east of a US backed regime causing violence yet their Modus Operandi is completely different from other cases in the ME clearly indicating the importance of ideology in causing terrorist behavior. Same treatment, different outcomes, this is the part when one must give more importance to the differences, most noticeably, Shiia isn't as crazy as Sunni...

Jet wrote:
Lol......right, so im supposed to believe Vice news is anecdotal but listening to your experience wouldnt be?....

Jet wrote:

The basis for radicalization is not limited to foreign policy adventurism. Western intervention throughout the majority of the middle east however, is the primary reason it is continued.

Jet wrote:

jec wrote:I'm still not seeing it.... the rape thing?

.....

Obviously.  I previously quoted it.

Jet wrote:
So you're saying im justifying the killing of innocents? Thats seriously what youre saying? Wow....is that really what you think?

Jet wrote:

Maybe on social issues. As a whole MSM is corporate which means for the most part, is deferential to power. You keep painting everything in absolutes. Because I am a leftist CNN would share my views? Hardly. My discourse isnt what you try to paint it as sorry.

Jet wrote:

There's a huge difference between bad beliefs, which are subject to change, and actions like the killing of someone. This will only keep happening as long as intervention is still supported for motives of greed. Which will undoubtedly continue as long as the population keeps thinking our killing is just, a majority of muslims are backward, and context keeps being derided in favor of sensationalism ruling the day.