The real blame for the 30 year rise in violent religious extremism goes to....

Economic deregulation and the policies of economic rape originated and perpetuated by the United States and infecting the rest of the world like a virus.

The same things that cause the economic meltdown of 2007 and the Occupy Wall Street movement are just the turkey coming home to roost after having shit all over the rest of the world. When the twin towers fell, when the London Underground was bombed, when James Foley's head was lopped off, much of that blood was on the hands of corporate America and their congressional lap dogs that have stood idly by while the wealth of the world has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Powerlessness to affect your own life positively and the inability to see any future other than poverty drive young men into the arms of extremists who promise a different world. It was inevitable after the economic deregulation of the 1980s, the rise of mobile capital, and the fall of the nation-state.

So thank Ronald Reagan and his masters for the perpetual and never ending war on terror, and all the death, and emotional ruin that have resulted.

But hey, Wall Street hit a new high and interest rates are still low, so **** it, right?

Discuss.....

Well, at least you didn't try to blame it on the non-existent "free market"...

Typical liberal garbage. Then explain the terrorism of the 60's and 70's. Perhaps belonging to a cult that promotes violence has something to do with the violence?

Hut1hut2 wrote:Typical liberal garbage. Then explain the terrorism of the 60's and 70's. Perhaps belonging to a cult that promotes violence has something to do with the violence?

Did I not say 30 year rise? That does not imply that it didn't exist before.

Rocinante wrote:Economic deregulation and the policies of economic rape originated and perpetuated by the United States and infecting the rest of the world like a virus.

The same things that cause the economic meltdown of 2007 and the Occupy Wall Street movement are just the turkey coming home to roost after having shit all over the rest of the world.  When the twin towers fell, when the London Underground was bombed, when James Foley's head was lopped off, much of that blood was on the hands of corporate America and their congressional lap dogs that have stood idly by while the wealth of the world has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  Powerlessness to affect your own life positively and the inability to see any future other than poverty drive young men into the arms of extremists who promise a different world.  It was inevitable after the economic deregulation of the 1980s,  the rise of mobile capital, and the fall of the nation-state.

So thank Ronald Reagan and his masters for the perpetual and never ending war on terror, and all the death, and emotional ruin that have resulted.  

But hey, Wall Street hit a new high and interest rates are still low, so **** it, right?

Discuss.....  

Yeah- I remember the chapter on Economic Rape was my favorite when reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"
The problem with Capitalism is that its so rarely practiced. Its time we give it a chance.

You need to understand the corruption of US sovereignty and economic soundness by the creation of the Federal Reserve. Perpetual never-ending war is not part of the conservative agenda, but it is associated with the International Bankers that always prosper in times of war. And the Federal Reserve is controlled by International Bankers.

Reagan's presidency was not marked by any long term wars. In fact, the USSR and the world feared Reagan and the US military, thus allowing the US to avoid conflict. Do you think the International Bankers liked that?  Oh no they didn't, that's why Skull and Bones, CFR Member George HW Bush was elected. He was all for the New World Order and acted out on Iraq at the behest of the UN. Bush was aided and abedded by his Neo-Con warmonger pals-  None of Whom were Conservatives in the mold of Reagan.

The History of the USA since the turn of the 20th century was vast expansion of progressive, socialist, globalist policy. The conservative movement has had mere moments of success in slowing and briefly halting socialism, collectivism and globalism.  Reagan was fought tooth and nail by every left-wing asset on the left. He was demonized and to this day is blamed for imaginary crimes against humanity. In fact, he stood firm and unapologetically for the constitution, the rule of law and capitalism. But the avalanche he stood against made his efforts almost symbolic. The Idea that his policies are affecting today's military and todays economy is ludicrous. His political appointments left with him and his judicial appointments are mostly retired or dead. The bureaucracy is vastly Democrat, liberal and permanent. It was that way BEFORE Regan took office. It was that way since FDR. They are the regulators and rule makers. They move from academia, big business and back to government, affecting public policy, legislation and enforcement of the all too numerous administrative law and regulations.  

If people that yap about this crap really knew how the government works, they'd likely not believe the leftist shit they think. But for most of you leftists, you don't know, and you don't know you don't know. You are ignorant of the world and that's why you believe people like Obama and all of his hope and change, lower the oceans bullshit. You watch the movie JFK and you think its a documentary. You look at the Kennedys and think the sun shines out of their ass, when in fact, they never did much. JFK was a party boy Senator of low esteem among his peers. RFK was a little paranoid prick. The only thing people can say about them is that they had so much potential. Well, they never showed that potential. What they showed was that they were incompetent rich-boys who were in way over their heads in any position they occupied, be it US Rep, Senator, Atty General or President. Their reputations were saved by death and they were indeed "enlarged in death beyond what they were in life" ( quote of RFK eulogy by Edward Kennedy).

Chew on that. I could go on, but don't feel like in right now

Sorry to tOP, but the premise offered is nonsense.

First, the concept of "religious extremism" (presumably he means Islamic, but not clear) has little to do with economic deregulation.  While I am no fan of deregulation, the correlation of deregulation does not equal causation.  

While the concentration of wealth has returned to the levels it was at in the 1920s (which I personally believe is a bad thing), if you go out beyond the 1920s, you will find that there was a much greater concentration of wealth prior to the 1920s.  Remember the robber barrons and the trust-busting of the 1890's?  Well, what do you think they were busting back then?  It wasn't Girl Scouts and the Salvation Army.  So if not driven by wealth concentration, what is causing the extremism?

The rise of fundamentalism is usually far closer tied to political oppression rather than "economic deregulation" or wealth concentration.  Look to Iran...the decision to prop up the Shah in the 50's led to the extremism of the '70s, which was directed at the US because the US was the entity allowing the Shah to remain in power to act as a counterweight to the USSR. Look to the Palestinians...the decision to carve the nation state of Isreal out of the lands previously held by the Palestinians (without much say by the Palestinians who were previously there), led to the extremism of the '60s - today, directed at Isreal as well as the US because of the US support of Isreal.  Shoot, look at the Troubles in Ireland if you want a recent example that is not Islamic...the Protestant Brits politically and militarily oppress the Catholic Irish and it results in a religious/political terrorist campaign lasting for decades upon decades.

Son of Sparta wrote:Shoot, look at the Troubles in Ireland if you want a recent example that is not Islamic...the Protestant Brits politically and militarily oppress the Catholic Irish and it results in a religious/political terrorist campaign lasting for centuries.

A lil correction, Sparta.

xsanguine wrote:

A lil correction, Sparta.

Thanks....though the Troubles are generally understood to be a 40 year period (or so)...though you are right that the tensions there certainly have existed for longer than that period (going bact to the 1600s).

as I've said over and over again, religious people are the most dangerous people on the planet. The history books are full of examples.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:as I've said over and over again, religious people are the most dangerous people on the planet. The history books are full of examples.

You must be very afraid...we'll pray for you, dude.

Son of Sparta wrote:

Thanks....though the Troubles are generally understood to be a 40 year period (or so)...though you are right that the tensions there certainly have existed for longer than that period (going bact to the 1600s).

I'm just being picky... certainly the contemporary Troubles stem from the 70's (and the portion I have the most knowledge on), but even going back to Michael Collins and the battle for Ireland's independence in 1921... going back to Cromwell and prior to. A lot of good history in there. I'd love to see Dan Carlin do a podcast on the history of Ireland going back 500 years or so... I've an intimate interest on the subject (friends in west Belfast, Armagh, etc) and acquired quite a bit of knowledge but Dan would put me to shame with the way he can research and orate an historical topic.

Ever read Killing Rage by Eamon Collins (my favorite book of all time of any subject)? If not and you have an interest, pick up a copy. I've got a friend who grew up next door to Eamon prior to his murder and the Irish perspective is very passionate and the way they describe it, it almost makes you want to take up arms... heh.

Son of Sparta wrote:

You must be very afraid...we'll pray for you, dude.

thanks but just in the last 10-15 years, there have been tens of thousands of deaths directly attributable to religious folks like Bin Laden, bu$h, and Obama.. you should probably pray for them.. might make you feel better..

of course, you could just walk down to the 7/11 and buy some gum... just as effective..

Son of Sparta wrote:Sorry to tOP, but the premise offered is nonsense.

First, the concept of "religious extremism" (presumably he means Islamic, but not clear) has little to do with economic deregulation.  While I am no fan of deregulation, the correlation of deregulation does not equal causation.  

While the concentration of wealth has returned to the levels it was at in the 1920s (which I personally believe is a bad thing), if you go out beyond the 1920s, you will find that there was a much greater concentration of wealth prior to the 1920s.  Remember the robber barrons and the trust-busting of the 1890's?  Well, what do you think they were busting back then?  It wasn't Girl Scouts and the Salvation Army.  So if not driven by wealth concentration, what is causing the extremism?

The rise of fundamentalism is usually far closer tied to political oppression rather than "economic deregulation" or wealth concentration.  Look to Iran...the decision to prop up the Shah in the 50's led to the extremism of the '70s, which was directed at the US because the US was the entity allowing the Shah to remain in power to act as a counterweight to the USSR. Look to the Palestinians...the decision to carve the nation state of Isreal out of the lands previously held by the Palestinians (without much say by the Palestinians who were previously there), led to the extremism of the '60s - today, directed at Isreal as well as the US because of the US support of Isreal.  Shoot, look at the Troubles in Ireland if you want a recent example that is not Islamic...the Protestant Brits politically and militarily oppress the Catholic Irish and it results in a religious/political terrorist campaign lasting for decades upon decades.

But wait.... no Ronald Reagan?

check this out.. Fox News had one of the Duck Dynasty rednecks on last night to discuss the rise of radical Islam -  - and then the redneck went on to say.. (and I'm not kidding) that ISIS either needs to be converted.. or be killed.


"convert them or kill them"

god, I love religious people..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
thanks but just in the last 10-15 years, there have been tens of thousands of deaths directly attributable to religious folks like Bin Laden, bu$h, and Obama.. you should probably pray for them.. might make you feel better..

of course, you could just walk down to the 7/11 and buy some gum... just as effective..

Actually, I already feel pretty good, thanks for the concern. But I am sorry for your fear....

You seem to have a key point confused. Love 'em or hate 'em, neither W or Obama took hostile action to further a religious cause (unless you count economics as a religion). The fact that those two chaps may be religious does not mean their religious views motivated their actions any more than you could say "well, they both have pretty decent heads of hair...that's why they killed a bunch of folk!" 'Course, that nonsense doesn't make for appealing bigotry .... so I suppose that is out.... let's stick to the tried and true bigotry

Son of Sparta wrote:

Actually, I already feel pretty good, thanks for the concern.  But I am sorry for your fear....

You seem to have a key point confused.  Love 'em or hate 'em, neither W or Obama took hostile action to further a religious cause (unless you count economics as a religion).  The fact that those two chaps may be religious does not mean their religious views motivated their actions any more than you could say "well, they both have pretty decent heads of hair...that's why they killed a bunch of folk!"  'Course, that nonsense doesn't make for appealing bigotry .... so I suppose that is out.... let's stick to the tried and true bigotry

I think Obama and bu$h missed the part in the 10 commandments where it says (in an admittedly confusing fashion) "thou shalt not kill"...

but since when have religious people been terribly concerned with hypocrisy..

Son of Sparta wrote:

Actually, I already feel pretty good, thanks for the concern.  But I am sorry for your fear....

You seem to have a key point confused.  Love 'em or hate 'em, neither W or Obama took hostile action to further a religious cause (unless you count economics as a religion).  The fact that those two chaps may be religious does not mean their religious views motivated their actions any more than you could say "well, they both have pretty decent heads of hair...that's why they killed a bunch of folk!"  'Course, that nonsense doesn't make for appealing bigotry .... so I suppose that is out.... let's stick to the tried and true bigotry

he should go after Desmond Tutu, that evil bastard!

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I think Obama and bu$h missed the part in the 10 commandments where it says (in an admittedly confusing fashion) "thou shalt not kill"...

but since when have religious people been terribly concerned with hypocrisy..

So your problem is that the "religious" people you have pointed out (W and Obama) weren't religious enough???

Now I think I might see why you are afraid....

Son of Sparta wrote:

So your problem is that the "religious" people you have pointed out (W and Obama) weren't religious enough???

Now I think I might see why you are afraid....

my problem with religious people is that they're responsible for killing more people than anyone else on the planet..

I assume you deny that..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
my problem with religious people is that they're responsible for killing more people than anyone else on the planet..

I assume you deny that..  

An artful dodge...

Like I said, my problem is with people with hair. They kill way more people than bald dudes.

Hair is the common strand....

Son of Sparta wrote:

An artful dodge...

Like I said, my problem is with people with hair.  They kill way more people than bald dudes.  

Hair is the common strand.....    

thanks for proving my point..

I'm going to go home tonight and watch the news.. to see how many people died today at the hands of religion... and to see which villages the christians will airstrike next..

he agrees with you. who wants to invest in a franchise?

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-franchise-sets-sights-us-175343212--abc-news-topstories.html

Of course he does. He knows that disaffected young people are easy to manipulate and he speaks to their paranoia and fear. When you've got no work and all your resources are exploited for the gain of a few, why not listen to fanatics?