Here Comes the War on Terror, v 2.0

[Saz]

[Saz]

[Saz]

[The Dharma Bum]

that is f**k ridiculous, a modern version of "white man's burden" skewed into a justification for continued irresponsibility and ignorance when it comes to dealing with other cultures

we are the worst subverters of democracy in the middle east and if those societies are broken it is because western civilization broke them. We are over there to steal their resources and control their markets, not help them build a utopia or even just a prosperous society

the truth is Islamic radicalism in general is a product of anti-communist western intelligence activities. A weapon that has blown up in our faces.

[Indy]

I'd say Afghanistan 1 is what started it all (besides our sordid, pro-dictator history in the Middle East). There, we decided to arm and fund Islamic crazies because we wanted to stick it to the Soviet Union just THAT bad--i.e., the communists. Without our arms and cash (and in particular Stinger rockets), the Soviets would have wiped out the mujahadeen and who knows that the world would look like now?

Because after the Soviets left, these people were convinced it was because God was on their side and not because of us--and who wants to stop fighting when you've determined you're God-powered?

But yeah, we'd support any despot in the region (and really, on the planet) if he wasn't "red." You know, like Saddam Hussein. Which is doubly ironic because he wasn't commie, he wasn't Islamist but he was an enemy of Iran and their Shiites, so of course we backed him in that. And where have the Shiites been in all the Islamic terror of late, especially the kind of heinous/nihlist type of the AQs and ISISes? Nowhere.

We sure know how to back the wrong horse regularly--and use the wrong criteria.

It really is like The Joker in The Dark Knight if you think about it.

[Professor]

How about we let them do to themselves whatever they want to do, so long as it doesn't spill over? And continue to buy oil from them, until we come up with the next, best thing (Gigafactory, anyone?).

[The Dharma Bum]

The idea of using a rebellion for a "neo-caliphate" as a political tool to subvert a target state really goes back to TE Lawrence.

That's exactly how they subverted the Ottoman Empire and replaced them with their puppets the Sauds, who we've controlled ever since. The US merely revisited the strategy during the Cold War and that evolved into the situation today.

[DiscoCicero]

[DiscoCicero]

[exploited]

I don't know if you can simply blame it on a particular interpretation of religion either though. There are lots and lots of Muslims who believe thieves should face amputation, that women must be veiled and escorted by men, that homosexuals should be executed... but the crucial thing is that most such people have no interest in fighting for those things outside their own tribe. There are extremists, and then there are those who lust for power and are simply appealing to cultural norms as a means of getting it.

At the same time, the West has encouraged extremism for a long time, while also undermining legitimate liberal-democratic movements, when they didn't fit into our grand strategy for the Cold War. And I honestly can't think of a single example of military intervention that has resulted in anything other than an increase of extremism.

So it's both, not one or the other. A combination of terrible domestic and international policies that results in a shit storm.