radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

sposo2 is correct.
there is no proof.not in any definitive sense.
there is only conjecture and suspicious coincidence,which leads to more questions which have not been answered satisfactorily.
this is where spoco and i diverge.
history has shown us that those who rule will exploit it's own citizens for it's own machinations,even if that device is wholesale slaughter.
read Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
or chalmers johnson:
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Project/dp/0805075593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253120736&sr=1-1 (to give you context)

no body? then there is no case.
the REAL question to start with,and this can be verified,documented and is blocked at every turn,is the WHO and the WHY.
this has never been answered fully or even in part and what we were told has been proven to be not only false,but laughable.
let's start there.
so i cant blame anybody being suspicious of the governments accounts for 9/11.
their answers on these two questions have been suspicious from the start in their inaccuracies and outright lies.
try to avoid the physics and possible demolition of the trade towers.
not because your questions are invalid,but because the physical evidence is no longer there and to attempt to argue the validity of a government conspiracy with no physical evidence puts you in the hole at the beginning.
ask WHO and WHY.
even playing field.

the white house keeping its distance is the best foreign policy move i have seen from the white house in?..god,feels like forever.Iran has many pro-american constituents,but not from the mullahs.right now islam is so incredibly fractured it is a powder keg.i know i am just stating the obvious,but something has to be done and it wont help if its from an outside source,it has to come from within.

thats why i was cheering the protesters when they bogus election blew up in the mullahs faces.they may have restored some order after many deaths (nede being the most prominent)and many imprisonments but the word is out.now its just a matter of time.my hope is that the west stays out of it.there is a time to offer the hand of assistance,now is NOT that time.it would be too easy for iranian leaders to pounce on that and propagandize it to their own machinations.

if i had to point to a group to blame it would be the neo-liberals,now known as neo-conservatives.mrFisk posted an amazing doc today concerning just that topic so its fresh in my mind.i started paying attention to these guys around 2002,did some research and found an almost hidden group of empirialists who were pretty upfront about their goals.PNAC is a document i have posted about ever since.these guys mean business.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-American-Century

one more point.
while much is addressed in this documentary.it's prudent to know why Iran has a problem with the US.it was not just ONE thing,it was many.
but the two biggest,i feel anyways.
was the CIA/SAS backed coup of democratically elected(yes,iran used to be a democracy,until we showed up)mossadeq so that a much more "west-friendly" dictator in the form of the shah could be installed.(mossadeq kicked BP out of iran to nationalize the oil fields).
the second of course was the espionage game played with both iran and iraq to keep the region unstable and therefore unlikely to consolidate and take over oil production,THEIR oil production.that war lasted NINE years and the US played both sides.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called the grand chessboard.its an eye-opener on foreign policy,and explains many of the reasons why the US what they did.they were not exactly altruistic reasons.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
the consequences of such actions?
chalmers johnson has the amswer:blowback
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson
interviews here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=chalmers+johnson
brzinzski here:
http://www.videosift.com/search?q=Zbigniew+Brzezinski

Fantastic video. More people need to hear information regarding zbigniew brzezinski.

An answer to that question is given at the beginning of the complete segment

>> ^jrbedford:
Is there a reason he keeps calling him "chief"?

>> ^Ornthoron:
Although Scarborough technically got pwned here, I'm frightened that he may come out on top nonetheless. I'm talking about the comment at approx. 2:00, where he says that he looks forward to Brzezinski educating him and the american people. I believe he is trying to categorize Brzezinski as an Ivy League elitist who talks down to people. I hope it doesn't work.


I'm hopeful that after 25 years people are starting to realize that when Republicans attack smart people for being smart, you shouldn't sympathize with the attacker.

Not that Brzezinski should be anyone's primary or sole trusted voice on foreign policy, but people who think Joe Scarborough is some sort of policy expert or "common man" really needs to be tarred and feathered.

>> ^Irishman:
What makes me laugh is that after months of hanging around, this video only gets enough votes to get published when I change the video embed to some completely unrelated bullshit.
What a crock of shit the voting system has become here.


What are you talking about? I've never seen the video until today, I watched the content, commented, and voted accordingly. If this has nothing to do with the original video, how about you change the title appropriately? If you changed the video to a different thing after votes have already been placed upon it, what has become a crock of shit is not the voting system, but your post itself. Honestly? There's no reason to get upset over something so trivial.

People aren't listening to him because he's talking about real politics, real international policy changes and radical internal political change.

Obviously most Americans would rather spend time being entertained by the stage managed wrestling match of Obama vs McCain, so they can get the satisfaction of seeing who is going to pwn who live on TV, whilst the Brzezinski family, who are the brains behind Obama get in by the back door.

You can read all about Zbigniew Brzezinski's anti-Soviet, anti-Muslim geopolitical agenda in his own book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower"

Yes, read in his own words how Brzezinski destroyed the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, how he plans to take apart the Russian Federation and use Afghanistan to build an impregnable US military base against China, Russia, and whoever else stands in his way.

Better read it in fact, because it is going to be the manual for the Obama presidency. Or dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. Your country, your choice.

Ron Paul was the correct answer.

Yeah, it's almost as if somebody wanted you to vote for Obama...

In reply to this comment by choggie:
"That said, thanks to the abysmal restrictions of our two-party political system here in America, those of us who do not want to see an extension of the Bush administration are left with no choice but to support Obama."

That make little, if no sense at all.....no, the success of continual programming to support the agendas of either party, and the agendas of the top tier, herders, means the so called "choices" come form the same agenda.....

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man behind Obama's campaign is CFR.
Biden is CFR.

Fail you can believe in.

Obama isn't the antichrist. But the man who bought and paid for him is...

http://www.videosift.com/video/Zbigniew-Brzezinski-The-Man-Behind-Obama

Woah Woah Woah! I NEVER said the US aided the Taliban. As far as I can tell you are the one that brought that gem in to the conversation. It is you that are jumping to conclusions.

A) My credibility, your credibility, what does it matter. You brought two sources to the table, I brought four. You don't like my sources, I don't like yours. And yes in my view the us state department's public affairs is nothing more than a creation for suck puppetry propaganda.

B) I see you agree with me that's good.

"a greater us support for the afghan mujahideen meant more military successes, which in turn meant that osama and the rest of the arab mujahideen didn't necessarily need to risk their necks in battle, as we have seen was the case during the soviet invasion - this could certainly be seen as a benefit for the latter"

C) Look closely at my first citation from an interview given by Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. He said, "It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." And prior history notwithstanding, without the ISI's, and through them the US, insistance on bringing in Arabs to fight with the mujahideen there would LIKELY be no Al Qaeda. Not a forgone conclusion, but definitely well within the realm of possibility. Like it of not blowback exists. And as long as we continue to meddle within the internal affairs of other countries we have to know what we are risking and then act preemptively to mitigate the potential for blowback. Instead we get politicians, both Democrat and Republican, willy nilly trying to satisfy some itch.

D) LOL at your ability to open your mind

So she *IS* the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski - nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Brzezinski

Enzo - she's 40. But she's Polish, hence the hawt.