Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035 327
siddesu writes "Marxist revolution, WMDs, flashmobs and other sci-fi items are coming soon in a country near you, according to the UK Ministry of Defence. 'Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" — groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.
This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces.'"
Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Bottom line: These people should be liable for wasting taxpayer money.
Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
William
Not such a worst case (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not such a worst case (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not. The skull and subsequent membranes that surround the brain serve as excellent EM shielding. It is very difficult to induce a voltage of any magnitude inside a container made of conducting materials. EMP, despite its reputation as a killer of "everything electronic", will not generally kill devices stored in sealed, conductive containers.
Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:5, Funny)
They don't mention Iran/Islamic radicals getting nuclear weapons at all. Phew! I guess this means it doesn't happen.
The problems with "probability" in this case... (Score:4, Insightful)
The events they're commenting upon have not happened in the past (45% chance of rain) and are just one possible option of an effectively unlimited number of options (how many cards in the deck). And many of them seem self-contradictory.
So we see more extremism. But
So the democracies become extremists and the extremists become democracies.
What the fuck
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because one is an upswing in values, and the other is a downswing. These situations don't exist in a vacuum; they proceed from the previous state and they have inertia. Such inertia leads to the next state until the system collapses entirely.
Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:4, Funny)
Middle-class (Score:3, Insightful)
You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.
If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll hav
Re:Middle-class (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.
We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".
Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Upper middle class communities usually have good public schools for several reasons:
1. A good tax base. This means good school buildings and equipment, higher paid teachers, extra-cirricula activities.
2. Ususally involved parents. You can't be middle class and be irresponsible, drug addicted, violent, etc...not that there aren't exceptions.
3. Low crime rates. Kids that don't have to worry about getting shot on the way to school usually do better a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see you're paying attention!
OK, if a student falls WAY behind, they get left behind, usually in the "special learning" classes. Those that don't fall far enough behind to get removed from the class are left to slow down the rest of the class. I guess I should have put this way:
Those that wa
Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, I would be less worried about social unrest, insurgents, ect... and more worried about consequences of global warming, freakish weather (flood, drought), and the threat of a world wide disease pandemic...or epidemic. The world is overdue for a real superbug.
No need to dream up high-tech threats when it will most likely be the low
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone dig up those predictions, compile a list, and publish it on their blog? I'd really like to see how many predictions from 10, 20, 30, and 50 years ago have come true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And this is why we need Trident? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a Dup from 1986 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a Dup from 1986 (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah. One trick is to nationalize all the businesses and turn them over to the lowest-level workers at those businesses. That'll stave off those Marxist revolutionaries!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Name one state that has ever worked that way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.
Anyone who believes that, unfortunately, has their head up their ass. You simply can't please everyone. Even if you try to please the majority, you'll have a vocal - and dangerous - minority attempting to subvert the system.
I'm not defending any particular system of government, but simply saying that this "running the country for the benefit of the people in general" that you envision is impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one of the single best things that any country could do to prevent long-term instability and internal conflict, but politicians (at least here in the US) typically work for short-term benefit—usually their own short-term benefit.
You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc.
That's the $64,000 question, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.
On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem.
I don't think the differences between these views can be overstated, because they lead to vastly different ways of visualizing and dealing with the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism generally. If the problem is economic imbalance, then you could theoretically correct it through trade and economic-aid programs. But if the problem is philosophical, then by fixing the wealth disparity, you're just enabling terrorism; giving people whose motivations are fundamentally opposed to secularism the means with which to really attack us.
I've seen little convincing evidence and lots of rhetoric on both sides. The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.
I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.
I tend to think that people like Bin Laden are politicians and will garner the interests of the people no matter what. If his people were financially stable, I think his line would either be considered extremist or his tune would be different. At the end of the day most people just want the best possible future for their children, the religious aspect will be there, but we in the US have reached a very high degree of apathy, I don't see why that can't be done elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Semitic Semantics [counterpunch.org]
Actually I have nothing against Jews, or Aryans, I do however have something against Nazis and Zionists and anyone else who would use violence against any group of people for no reason other than a spurious claim to be Gods Chosen People(TM), perhaps that's the difference between a Humanist and a Psychopath.
There is no SINGLE cause of extremism. (Score:5, Interesting)
Then they discard any examples that doesn't match their model while over emphasizing the ones that match.
A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.
The models you describe do not account for empathy or other forms of social awareness. They are purely mercenary.
Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power.
One nut case is just one nut case. If there isn't a ready pool of converts, that nut case will eventually take care of himself. The problem is when that nut case finds a pool of potential converts and those converts usually do result from political / economic / family / religious inequalities.
Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not something unique to terrorism either - you see it with many religious converts of all faiths and on the secular side you see it in things like joining a fraternity or even just spending a lot of money on a car - certain personality types just have to justify their decision by being as gung ho as they possibly can, it keeps them from examining the situation too closely and finding any flaws once they have committed. Like they are trying to avoid "buyer's remorse."
Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism. (Score:4, Insightful)
The crux of the issue is that...
People want what they want, and when they can't have it or are prevented from doing what they wish or believing, they will begin to feel trapped and suffocated until they embrace "extreme-ism" or a method that allows them some reprieve from the tyranny of other groups ideas, ethos or way of life. The world CHANGED because of people embracing extremism, people once thought slavery was 'natural' and to not believe in slavery was "extremism", anything can be extremism. Extremism is a tool to change society when all your other options cut off. People don't embrace extremism for nothing, they embrace it because the cannot solve their problems or get access to resources in a timely manner. Or are prevented by cultural racism from living a civil life. Most people in the world today are uncivilized, slaves to their animal nervous systems prejudices. i.e. think of the last time you told someone to get away from you because "you didn't like him" for no justifiable reason, just 'because' he offended your senses.
Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism but the truth is: A good war is better then a tenuous and suffocating peace.
You can't win idealogical or philosophical battles that people are programmed to believe. This is why capitalism, communism and socialism are such politically hardening terms. You can scarcely have a discussion without the the ideology of the dominant group mocking any dissent. This is especially apparent in our market society.
Re: That's the $64,000 question, though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as someone from the disenfranchised back of beyond: ... The source of hatred is the underhanded, blood-stained, conscience-free, predatory behaviour of America's leaders with respect to the rest of the world. They play it like a huge game of monopoly, and where their gamepieces have been, you can tell by the trail of destabilisation, poverty and blood.
As an American, that's my conclusion on the matter as well. I think our leaders have traditionally played the game to keep us as near the top of the heap as possible, tough shit for anyone who gets trodden underfoot.
For that matter, I suspect that every nation's leaders play it that way, to the extent that they can. And a certain fraction of the trodden try to get even however they can, tough shit for any innocents that get blown up for symbolic purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What did you do, Ray? (Score:5, Funny)
...futurama ref? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, I can do that too. (Score:5, Funny)
V for Vendetta ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:V for Vendetta ... (Score:5, Funny)
It was also a comic book!
Re: (Score:2)
Trivia: A Londonian is caught around 300 times on camera each day.
Re: (Score:2)
It struck me odd after reading Edvard Radzinsky's book on Stalin [amazon.com] how Stalin's life really mirrored Orwell's stories.
The point of the Television devices in 1984 weren't actually that technology controls society, but to rather to show the prevalence of informants amount the people. During the "Great Purges" of the 1930's everyone turned in everyone to the state for thought crimes. There
Marxist revolution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Marxist revolution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Two words are needed disproove the main keystone of the social idea that holds up the sociopolitical aspect of his theories...
Baroom Brawl
The working class does not inherantly get along, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to cut down on the recreational narcotics.
That being said, crises of overproduction, business taking as much money as they can get, and abusing the lowe
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing the way that the autonomous workshops organized in Catalonia during the Spanish Republic gives some credibility to the idea
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying "he sure played a mean pinball"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They mis-spelt Matrix.
One interesting speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers. Fairly soon they will face (or already face) a torrent of goods and products from China, which will surely bring with it some cultural impact. Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.
Re:One interesting speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem Islam has with the West is that we export our culture. We impact their way of life and embolden the youth to question their authorities. For every suicide bomber you hear about in Iraq, some 5000 of his brothers are standing in line to get a visa to USA. China, OTOH, loves authoritarianism and knows how to placate the rulers so that it can continue to make money. So I dont expect any serious confrontation between China and Islam. Only if Islamists decide to attack China and try to take it over there will be a problem. And China will react with violence which the Islamists understand very well. Fundamentally there is no difference between Arab rulers and Chinese rulers. Both are authoritarian. Both control their masses with a mixture of ideology and ruthlessness.
Re:One interesting speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
People are the same all over the world - when they get, or even feel, threatened as a people, they group together and fight back. It feels like the only thing to do - and it's not a purely Muslim trait. Northern Ireland saw Christian terrorists fighting each other, killing the shit out of innocent people, and each other. It's pressure, with no way to stop it peacefully, that causes terrorism, not one particular group of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the Chinese repression of their Uighur (Muslim) minority in western China. The Islamists tend to get very upset about forced deconversion and other forms of repression of Muslims.
The American military reacted with violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that did
Re:One interesting speculation (Score:4, Interesting)
War is about Can I hurt you more than you are willing to tolerate before you could hurt me more than I am willing tolerate? Till about WW-II all nations have similar high level of tolerance to death/destruction/loss. Russia lost 20 million people including civilians. Germany about 8 mill, and USA about 0.5 mill. Presently the level of tolerance for loss in America is very low. The threshold the Islamic militants have to reach to "hurt" America is as low as killing one single solitary soldier. The level of tolerance to loss by Al Quaida is very very high. It is impossible for America to hurt al-Quaida enough before it kills one soldier. On the other hand, the level of tolerance to loss is very high for China. Islamists will lose badly to China.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That shows we are better than them because our leaders save their ruthlessness for foreigners. Our leaders control us through various means of ideology as well.
I think the Chinese are smarter than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Remember that religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is power.
There are only four paths to power:
#1. Political
#2. Economic
#3. Family/Tribal
#4. Religion
As long as there is flexibility in those, only the hard-core nut cases will become extremists. Once you start blocking access to any of them, you start creating more extremists.
And look at that. The goods represent economic issues. The soldiers represent political issues (political power flows from the barrel of a gun). Crack those and the fundamentalists become just more street lunatics who don't bathe regularly.
This is where I believe the Chinese will learn from our mistakes.
DO NOT make your presence visible in the volatile areas. Have them travel to see you.
DO NOT make your economic advantage visible in the volatile areas. Adopt their appearance.
Work with their family/tribal structures.
Keep your religious practices subdued. We have a big problem because of the Crusades. China doesn't have that issue.
Gotta go with Marx on this one (Score:2)
I don't think the fact that China is a communist nation will make a bit of difference in generating the hostility . What will matter is that if China becomes powerful and influential in the Middle East, the average Mohammed will see China exerting its power, while the lives of his fellow countrymen aren't improving. Religion then b
It will not happen. (Score:2)
If the tension between the west and Islam was religious, the first target would have been the Vatican, which is the largest Christian Church in the world. And after the Vatican
Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:5, Insightful)
The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.
A.K.A: Anarchism.
The system I've just described is not unlike the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Without some supra-collective authority, who mediates the dispute? One can assume that all parties will deal rationally with each other, but that would fly in the face of thousands of years of human history. You only have to examine the ongoing disputes over water in the American West to see how badly groups of people allocate "shared" resources when left to th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, thousands of years of human history fly in the face of your supposition that people aren't capable of that.
For instance, the Iroquois Confederation [nefac.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it worked - until the Europeans came. But the native population had virtually unlimited land and resources to work with. They also had a very small population as a starting point.
Maybe it's 'cause I'm getting old and cynical, but after having participated in neighborhood and other (larger) groups, I can't see more than five people working in a collective manner, let alone every human.
Try getting three people t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, laypeople are stupid. This is why direct democracy is not feasible.
It also means that large-scale is impossible. I hope you don't need a road that extends beyond your own block.
I suspect that most if not all Open-Source p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Intellectuals: driven by knowledge;
b) Rulers: driven by power;
c) Entrepreneurs: driven by profit;
d) Workers: driven by stability.
An Anarchist society cannot work because it doesn't address the needs of all the people that have the Ruler or Entrepreneur personality. And even if you fine tune it to allow for free market, as the anarcho-capitalists do, thus filling the needs of the Entrepreneurs, the Rulers still stay out of it (with lots of Workers, who lose much of their cherished stability).
A working society must allow for all new born persons to have a place. And so far, a government with well known powers under a constitutional framework offers a good place for Rulers to battle their battles without disrupting (much) the life of the other three kinds.
It's either this, or back into utopic profilings and pre-emptive killings of any person who showed traces of non-compliant personalities. As revolutionary marxists used to do with anyone showing signs of Entrepreneur behavior.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Anarchy does not mean "chaos" as government teaches you. It does not mean lack of morals, lack of rules, or lack of compassion. They have to tell you that. If the majority of the subject class believed
2035 == no oil (Score:2)
Also -
and even what it calls "declining news quality"
Maybe they shouldnt be letting their personnel sell their stories [bbc.co.uk] then... pot, kettle, black.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let them distort the term! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bright side? (Score:2)
Time to blow it all on hookers and blackjack, I guess.
So you say you want a revolution? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is how socialism and eventually communism will happen - by default, naturally, no revolution. The cost of capitalizing a new activity will eventually drop to near zero for everything. I don't know if this is going to happen through a universal nanotech assembler, or through ubiquitous robotic slaves building shit for us in exchange for duracells, but it's going to happen. Everything is going to eventually be so cheap that it won't be worth selling. When you can get your robot to build you a car of your own design, and all you have to do is plug it in, you won't be going to Ford to buy a piece of shit Tempo-like ugly box. No, you'll design your own, or you'll download a GNU car schematic of something cool like the Linux-go-cart and tell your robot slave to build it for you. Richard Stallman will finally become relevant to everyone when his ideas move up a level of implementation from computers to the real world. It'll be just like Second Life where you use a computer editor to change your house - and your REAL house changes into a castle. Plus you can edit the length of your own cock to keep up with the Jones's. Hell, your wife could edit the length of her cock too!
That's my fantasy. Now, who's written a nice sci-fi novel about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Missing prediction... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I also believe it was France that had a ton of Muslim youths rioting all over the place. I don't recall massive Muslim riots in America.
The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic is because of the attitude that all ways of life are equal - even to the point that it allows views as extreme as Sharia law which takes away basic civil rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Much like WWWII with the Third Reich, France will roll over (they've already started) first and allow theocracy to gain a foothold in Europe makign it much easier for the Jihadist invasion to follow.
Don't Worry About Iran, Though (Score:3, Interesting)
Marxism! (Score:2)
Wait, wait: I got it. He means the Marx Brothers, not Karl Marx. Clearly, Groucho will lead us into a new age of enlightenment. And cigars.
translation from NewsSpeak .. (Score:2)
They talk about a 'vibrant democracy' and in the same breath explain how the middle classes, of all people, are a threat in this here democracy. If this is such a wonderous 'vibrant democracy' then why is its own middle classes threatening revolt.
You're right, there is a potential threat to the social order and it's you who has caused this by creating
Population growth? (Score:2, Informative)
Spengler from Asia Times has repeatedly argued that Middle Eastern countries face a different type of population problem, namely a large increase of the number aged. For example, Spengler says that "although the Muslim birth rate today is the world's second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa), it is falling faster than the birth rate of any other cultu
Oo! Oo! I've got one! (Score:2)
In the year 2035, we'll have an IT and energy infrastructure that harnesses the well-understood properties of tachyons. Star Trek starts explaining away unscientific phenomena with Higgs bosons instead.
Neutron Bombs (Score:2)
The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world".
We should do everything in our power to prevent these weapons from being used. Or, failing that, we should probably buy stock in ReMax and The Maid Brigade.
They just don't get it ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, man; talk about clueless. What "flashmob" really means is that the PR guy at a local commercial outlet has hired a viral ad guy, who spread the rumor that Britney or Paris or a member of the latest hot local indie band has been spotted at said outlet.
Of course, one could classify the ad agencies as criminal gangs or terrorist groups, and then maybe you'd have a point.
(I live in the Boston area, which recently had a fun example of advertising being mistaken for terrorism. So I'm not surprised to read nonsense like this. And I'm looking forward to further entertaining mistakes along this line. Anything to make the Homeland Security people look even more foolish.)
Should read.. (Score:2)
Reccommended reading [sonyclassics.com].
Hmmm. (Score:2)
Ministry of Defence always against British people (Score:3, Interesting)
While most wage slaves are watching TV, porn, or praying to Jesus, the powers-that-be are deathly afraid people will one day "shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Actually, Marx's Capital has a pretty good history of the English working class - it slowly lost its feudal rights over several centuries with the onset of industrialization, but began organizing and began expanding its rights again.
Can I just say that this article is a carbon copy. (Score:2)
If this were to occur, then make sure you live in seclusion; grow pot and food; fall in love with a female revolutionary; get sucked into a shitty plot; save humanity by rowing a pregnant black girl, who doesn't
Islam is not the issue (Score:4, Informative)
Imagine that by chance the Middle East had turned out to be mostly Hindu, and Islam was confined to poor resourceless areas of Africa. Do you still think that Islam would be a problem? Do you think that for some reason those Islamic people in the depths of Africa would have some irrational hatred of the US?
Of course not. We would instead be asking why Hindus hate the west so much. The fact is that there has been so much western meddling in the Middle East over the oil resources that a large number of people there are against the west. Back in the 50s Eisenhower wanted to know why there was a campaign of hatred against the US by the people of the Middle East. He was told that there was a perception that the US was supporting dictators and stifling democracy. He was also told that it was a difficult opinion to counter because it was correct.
Even now, some 50 years after Ike asked the question, we find ourselves occupying Iraq with a million Iraqis on the streets telling us to get out. This was after kicking out a dictator that we had supported for many years in full knowledge of the crimes he was committing. We even supported/encouraged him in his war on Iran as punishment for kicking out the dictator we had installed there. Aside from Iraq (which I'm sure everyone is tired of) we are still supporting a brutal regime in Saudi Arabia. Imagine how the Saudi people feel about the US and UK. We are actively supporting the people who are oppressing them and they are well aware of it. Do you think that for some reason they might be angry with the US and UK? If so, do you think it is because they are Islamic, or because we are supporting their dictators?
Thanks to John Bolton (as much as it pains me to thank him) there is now no doubt why the US kept blocking a ceasefire in the Lebanon conflict last year. While the conflict was going on and the carnage was clear on all our TV screens, the US was resupplying Israel with new weapons via UK airports and blocking any ceasefire so that Israel could "win". Do you think that this will have generated much anger in the region, and will that anger be due to the fact that they are Islamic or rather due to the events that occurred?
My point is that it's not Islam that is the issue, it's really the people of the Middle East, who just happen to be mostly Islamic. It is their anger over the things we have done and the things we continue to do. If you have a whole region that's quite angry at the west, it stands to reason there will be a fair number who are insanely angry with the west. Those are the people we are now (supposedly) fighting and in the process generating more of. If you want to reduce terrorism you have to stop generating so much anger. That means no more invasions, coups, support for brutal dictatorships or other aggressive interference in the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "help" you mean "annihilation," sure. (Score:2)
Seeing how we "helped" the Iraqis, I'd say that countries should probably be very careful about crying for help from the U.S., lest they end up getting some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.