Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Even Bin Laden didn't think Fox was fair and balanced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Your state dept has a number of orgs on its terrorist list, but as a result of the media coverage, Al-Q gets elevated to mythic proportions in comparison to others. Its this wide perception gap between Al-Q & others that i was referring to.
    I know exactly what you were referring to. Think for a moment. Which terror group pulled off the biggest and most deadly attack on the US? Which was the catalyst for a government being toppled and two wars?


    His focus was primarily anti-west, specifically US. Priorities differ in that sense from others that might be sympathetic to Al-Q
    .

    You are confusing tactics with focus. His focus was reviving the caliphate and resisting the cultural disintegration of traditional Islam.

    'Became the face of ever terrorist org around the world' is a byproduct of the coverage he received.
    Somewhat of a truism. ME-based news organizations did their bit, as well.

    Implies Al-Q is like an umbrella org that hovers above the rest which isn't true at all.
    Any implication in that direction is entirely in your mind. However, terror groups have been known to support each other.


    I'm not sure about that bolded bit. It implies that terrorism is less likely as a result of his death than not. If you consider that there were no acts of similar magnitude since 9-11 up to his death last year, you went 10 years without a signficant attack while OBL was still alive. I put this down to the scaled up efforts of your govt to interdict terror groups in general over anything else.
    Well, you're making my point. Terrorism doesn't work, i.e., it can't achieve its political goals, as it is relatively powerless in the face of determined resistance, and its crude methods virtually bar it from taking advantage of conventional diplomatic means for settling disputes.

    Its like saying, for the US, terrorism began & ended with OBL. To some extent that is true because they were the only org that actively targeted the US.
    I don't see any sign that the US believes terrorism ended with OBL. Just in the last few hours we learn that AQ in Yemen planned another underwear bombing of a US airliner.

    But for those outside the US its not true at all. I see terrorism as an organic movement that waxes and wanes over time. My country has been subjected to terrorism from different orgs over the years
    .

    Quite true.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kato View Post
      LTTE, PKK, ETA, AUC...
      LTTE, PKK, ETA are separatist groups that want to carve a unique space for their identity. So that gives them a right wing bent.

      AUC ?

      As to being anti-US, am looking at what level this opposition stems from.

      Is it strategic or tactical ? Does not count if its tactical.

      In the case of the LTTE, their sources of funding came under severe strain after the passing of US laws post 9-11 that curbed financing terror orgs.

      PKK's opposition would stem from US moves against them in Iraq at the behest of Turkey.

      That the US classifies the groups you mentioned as terror orgs, it is more the US drawing the line against them as opposed to the other way around. That is to say these groups were not anti-US before 9-11.

      Originally posted by kato View Post
      Depending on the definition of "anti-american" (anti-USA / anti-US-government) also most militia groups in the US itself.
      yep, guess these would be better examples. Far right anarchist groups that disagree with the USG.

      Originally posted by kato View Post
      Umm... no. Only if you separate the words nationalism and socialism. There isn't a single portion of national socialism that was socialist.
      How about the appropriation & monopolisation of state resources to support ideological goals. nazis wanted a strong state, you could say an overbearing one. Curbing of individual liberties etc. The over-emphasis of the collective over the individual.

      Doesn't this count as more left than right ?

      There is an authoritarian parallel here with the fascists.
      Last edited by Double Edge; 08 May 12,, 16:32.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Doesn't this count as more left than right ?
        Not if it stems from a nationalism angle. In order for it to count as "left" it would have to be at least aimed to benefit the people (as opposed to the nation).

        An authoritarian state is not part of the left-right dimension axis, neither is the freedom of the individual. Hence why a political compass is generally two-dimensional.

        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        In the case of the LTTE, their sources of funding came under severe strain after the passing of US laws post 9-11 that curbed financing terror orgs.
        LTTE's anti-american angle mostly stems from perceived US involvement/interference; this showed in particular after the 2004 Tsunami, when USMC troops sent to aid the population were denounced as spies and being in cahoots with government troops in LTTE media outlets. It's a relatively new development actually, and probably founded in the US declaration of LTTE as a foreign terrorist organization.

        Regarding the PKK, this mostly sparked in purported US involvement in the arrest of Abdullah Ícalan in 1999. Following the grab in Nairobi PKK supporters attacked US embassies worldwide. The organization does not consider itself anti-american, but among it's followers it's a rather virulent concept.

        Comment

        Working...
        X