Terrorists plots?

[justintempler]

If we really wanted to win this in a way where we could collect some return on investment, we would go there, build an energy grid, sewage system etc and after the infrastructure is better the Iraqi’s will be happy and be more inclined to embrace a western lifestyle. We could then move in with the fast food and shopping malls and make some money, all the while the amount of poor people willing to blow themselves up so that their family gets to eat for the next year will have been reduced.

Problem solved, and like in any good war, there are some spoils to go to the victor.

We already tried that in Iran, and see how well that worked out. :roll:

You trying to repeat history all over again?

[sgreger1]

If we really wanted to win this in a way where we could collect some return on investment, we would go there, build an energy grid, sewage system etc and after the infrastructure is better the Iraqi’s will be happy and be more inclined to embrace a western lifestyle. We could then move in with the fast food and shopping malls and make some money, all the while the amount of poor people willing to blow themselves up so that their family gets to eat for the next year will have been reduced.

Problem solved, and like in any good war, there are some spoils to go to the victor.

We already tried that in Iran, and see how well that worked out. :roll:

You trying to repeat history all over again?

Haha, but the spirit of our attemtps live on! Their people are fed up with the current admin and protesting like crazy.


But you are right, it's only an idea, not necessarily one that we could easly pull off every time. Also, Iran is a very different beast, they are already very western compared to Iraq and are not so much a 3rd world country.

[Roo]

sgreger1, this sounds OK upon first glance as a theory, since relatively "Westernized", consumerist and also peaceful Muslim nations like UAE and Kuwait initially come to mind. But for all of the McDonalds (halal Big Macs!) and Starbucks and glitzy shopping centers and Bentleys in Saudi Arabia, they still came through with the most 9/11 terrorists.

So I don't think it has as much to do with consumerism as you suggested, I think the real issues at hand, since Iraq was NOT a hotbed of jihad before we went in and started dicking everyone around and drawing the attention of the rest of the region, are one or more of the following: 1) relationship with USA (this does not explain Saudi terrorists), 2) US presence in Middle East (this does), 3) anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian factors, and perhaps most important of all, 4) links to Al Qaeda, which supported and/or trained with the Afghans, and which also ties into Saudi interests with its Wahabist brand of Islam. Notice the lack of Iranian terrorists because they don't give a shit about Arabs, Palastinians, Afghans, or Al-Qaeda. They just hate the USA and Israel, and contrary to popular belief, and despite the amount of propaganda they receive, the youthful majority there doesn't even hate America, just our government (hey, same here! lol).

So I would suggest that terrorism against the USA is going to continue to come from people who are inclined to fight our presence and actions against Muslim nations (including their own in some cases), and/or have the Arab/Al-Qaeda connection. Persians generally hate Arabs as much as Chinese generally hate the Japanese, and the Afghans don't really give a shit beyond their own tribal boarders, one of which is not the Pakistani border. They don't give a shit about that either, they just want everyone who is not an ethnic Pashto to get the hell out, in my assessment. Hell I'm no expert, but my best friend is lol.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it was a natural breeding ground for jihad since the word itself was first brought to the West's attention in modern times during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and more recently, once the ultra-extreme Taliban had much of the country under control, they could allow and promote whatever activities they deemed important to their cause (jihad being way up on that list, of course). In short, I don't think a Starbucks invasion is going to cut it.

[sgreger1]

sgreger1, this sounds OK upon first glance as a theory, since relatively "Westernized", consumerist and also peaceful Muslim nations like UAE and Kuwait initially come to mind. But for all of the McDonalds (halal Big Macs!) and Starbucks and glitzy shopping centers and Bentleys in Saudi Arabia, they still came through with the most 9/11 terrorists.

So I don't think it has as much to do with consumerism as you suggested, I think the real issues at hand, since Iraq was NOT a hotbed of jihad before we went in and started dicking everyone around and drawing the attention of the rest of the region, are one or more of the following: 1) relationship with USA (this does not explain Saudi terrorists), 2) US presence in Middle East (this does), 3) anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian factors, and perhaps most important of all, 4) links to Al Qaeda, which supported and/or trained with the Afghans, and which also ties into Saudi interests with its Wahabist brand of Islam. Notice the lack of Iranian terrorists because they don't give a shit about Arabs, Palastinians, Afghans, or Al-Qaeda. They just hate the USA and Israel, and contrary to popular belief, and despite the amount of propaganda they receive, the youthful majority there doesn't even hate America, just our government (hey, same here! lol).

So I would suggest that terrorism against the USA is going to continue to come from people who are inclined to fight our presence and actions against Muslim nations, and who ALSO have the Arab/Al-Qaeda connection. Persians generally hate Arabs as much as Chinese generally hate the Japanese, and the Afghans don't really give a shit beyond their own tribal boarders, one of which is not the Pakistani border. They don't give a shit about that either, they just want everyone who is not an ethnic Pashto to get the hell out, in my assessment. Hell I'm no expert, but my best friend is lol.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it was a natural breeding ground for jihad since the word itself was first brought to the West's attention in modern times during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and more recently, once the ultra-extreme Taliban had much of the country under control, they could allow and promote whatever activities they deemed important to their cause (jihad being way up on that list, of course). In short, I don't think a Starbucks invasion is going to cut it.

Actually there certainly was Jihad and terrorist attacks prior to our occupation of Iraq in 2003. And as for the Saudi terrorists, like I siad, there's always going to be that guy. (also 9-11 happened before we invaded iraq if you recall)

But the numbers have increased since our presence. So if we were not there a lot of this would calm down, however there will always be a few guys who want to do stupid shit.

Therefore we should withdrawl and focus on defense rather than offense, as I have advocated for so heavily on this forum.

The starbucks thing probably wouldn't work, but what we're doing right now isn't working. At least if we pulled the starbucks invasion (TM) off we would see a return on investment.

In reality we just gotta stick to our own country unless we are facing some kinds of military threat, and spend more on defense as opposed to offense. problem solved for the most part.

[Roo]

Glad we agree. Get the F out is the only reasonable option IMHO. Unrelated, it will be interesting to see if the Chinese really do everything they promised in this 3.4 billion dollar copper mining deal they scored in Afghanistan. Risky business, to be sure. Hiring Afghans to run the place when there are boatloads of willing and able Chinese who are veeeerrrry good at following orders for a pittance? LOL. We'll see...

[sgreger1]

Glad we agree. Get the F out is the only reasonable option IMHO. Unrelated, it will be interesting to see if the Chinese really do everything they promised in this 3.4 billion dollar copper mining deal they scored in Afghanistan. Risky business, to be sure. Hiring Afghans to run the place when there are boatloads of willing and able Chinese who are veeeerrrry good at following orders for a pittance? LOL. We'll see...

Lol this is a copper mine we're talking about not a railroad! ahhaha

I always got my eyes on the chinese, i'm not sure what their motif is in some of their actions sometimes, like buying up all of our debt for example.

It is more expensive to ship people from china to afghanistan when afghanistan people will probably do it cheaper (but will probably blow it up afterwards)

[Roo]

If you can't tell by my avatar and my posts about chinese history (bantering over the validity of Mao as a political hero), I was a Chinese Studies major and have been there many times. Trust me, as long as there's a pit boss who can effectively answer the worker's questions about where their paycheck is, these guys will cause no trouble, build infrastructure until their ass cheeks fall off, and do so happily from paycheck to paycheck, and yeah it's cheaper. Look at Angola and much of Africa, where you literally cannot keep pace with the building of infrastructure to even interview or film construction... They're always a week ahead of you. Their motive is resources in the long run... Their cash pile has gotten big enough for them to comfortably make some crazy long term investments in parts of the world where the white man dare not tread. The argument as to whether or not we are paving the way for them in terms of accidentally providing security in Afghanistan is pretty interesting... But yeah the Chinese are out for pure Dollars, at the risk of anyone, human rights or "playing nice" be damned. Watch out for these guys. I was there in September and saw an airforce demonstration over Beijing... And I thought "damn I always though their airforce sucked". Unless every single one of them was out there that day, which it seemed like, I think they've learned a few tricks over the years. The CCP is here to stay for a while... Now let's turn our attention to Iran, where some serious world-changing events might be going down... I'm excited about the possibilities. Down with the Ayatollah! /drunken rant. Happy new year snusers.

[tom502]

I like the Shaw Brothers.

[Ulsterman]

............................Removed.

[LaZeR]

/Offtopic

I just wanted to use this emoticon ----->

/Carry on...

[sgreger1]

............................Removed.

Why did you edit and delete your post ulsterman?

[Premium Parrots]

he removed all of his posts on the site. He wants his account deleted but Ice is on vacation rigth now. Not sure why he wants to leave us tho.

[sgreger1]

Hmm, that's odd. There's a bum out front of my work that is asking people for change and when they just walk by he screams, "Don't leave me like ma daddy did!!" Made me think of that for some reason.

[tom502]

Can you ban him? It'd be like being deleted I guess.
But this is odd. If he don't want to be a part of it anymore, all he has to do is just not post anymore or log in.

[Roo]

Can you ban him? It'd be like being deleted I guess.
But this is odd. If he don't want to be a part of it anymore, all he has to do is just not post anymore or log in.

For a few minutes, before the mods deleted it, there was an odd post by him that was demanding his account be deleted or "snuson would be sorry" or some such vague threat.

I guess all he meant was that he'd berate us with a few obnoxious posts (like he wants "vagina-flavoured" snus and we all need some "cock-flavoured" snus lol) then delete them all. That one would have been pretty funny if he hadn't been trying to throw a hissy fit. Anyway, hope it wasn't my fault, what with the black music thread and all. Didn't mean to chase anyone away by any means.