Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

There have always been the alarmist who think the sky will fall in, since Adam was a brat.

 

[untermensche]

Those caught up in the delusion of the State tend to defend and accept any and all abuses by the state.

It is possible to have states without the apish delusions and mental blindness to the crimes committed by that state.

But then one does not get to cry at the playing of the right national anthem or when the right group of hockey players wins the gold medal.

A person is caught up in a state by sheer chance of birth.

But a person has a choice if they accept the religion of the state and all that goes with it.

Like cheering as the state launches an unprovoked attack, based on irrational fears, on a nation that did not attack it. And then a blindness to all that this attack caused and what we are living with today as a result. Like people fleeing war zones.

It's interesting to note that as a whole humans are not that far removed from chimpanzees, only more complex. The state has long since replaced the tribe and though our technological thinking has advanced. our politics has not.

We are not chimps but we are nothing but apes.

And we are destroying a nice place for apes to live.

We are not very clever apes.

But what I'm talking about is what has replaced old time religion in the minds of some.

The religion of the state.

And again the clearest example is the invasion of Iraq, clearly an act of aggression.

But those caught up in the religion of the state cannot see it.

They are completely blind to the crimes carried out by the state.

Blinded by the lies of the apes behaving aggressively. The most absurd lies are swallowed whole.

It is an interesting and disturbing phenomena.

 

[angelo]

Besides the invasion of Iraq, which was most probably the worst decision in American history. The American state has been a force for good in the world more often than not.
It ain't easy been the world's policeman.

 

[zorq]

Besides the invasion of Iraq, which was most probably the worst decision in American history. The American state has been a force for good in the world more often than not.
It ain't easy been the world's policeman.

Hmmm, Trail of tears and other attrocities committed against Native Americans, Japanese internment camps, supporting the slave trade, even the Mexican-American war and Reagan's intervention in Nicaragua were pretty outrageous. Oh, and don't forget every right-wing military dictator around the world the US has supported since WW2(All pretty nasty folks). The US is practically a criminal empire.

I don't think you can name a decade where the US wasn't committing crimes against humanity somewhere in the world.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's interesting to note that as a whole humans are not that far removed from chimpanzees, only more complex. The state has long since replaced the tribe and though our technological thinking has advanced. our politics has not.

Of course we act worse than apes. We are destroying the ape’s habitat because our greed powered by our technology has extended beyond our own territory to wiping out anything that seems to get in the way of our objectives.

Actually Chimps are very aggressive towards those from other tribes. They will ambush them and kill them, sometimes even eating them. Just like us they will kill for the sake of territory even if no harm is being done. We do this on a global scale.

We are more dangerous because we have sophisticated technology. Instead of civilising us it has made us more aggressive where we have developed weapons of mass destruction. Our advancements in engineering and science has made man more dangerous and unstable.

The question is whether a Chimp would act in the same way if he developed the same level of technology?

Religion can sometimes serve as a tool for a common cause in the tribe thus making it easier to herd.

Of course modern society has replaced he witchdoctor with the priest and various therapists to ensure conformity to the mores of the tribe (race or nation).
It’s possible they can get high as follows or perhaps have a knowledge of healing properties of some types of vegetation (or both)
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=lu8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1312,3310635&hl=it

Perhaps CHimpanzes have discovered prostitution though I don’t know how reliable this single reference is

http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0205/msg00085.html
"In chimpanzee communities, individuals exchange gifts (such as fruit or sexual favours) within a group to cement alliances, and punish those who attempt to cheat on such mutually beneficial relationships.
Anthropologists believe that early humans started trading in much the same way.
The word they use to describe this behaviour is 'reciprocity' and our personal relationships work on this basis." (Dunbar 2000:2-3).



And we are destroying a nice place for apes to live.

We are not very clever apes.

But what I'm talking about is what has replaced old time religion in the minds of some.

The religion of the state.

And again the clearest example is the invasion of Iraq, clearly an act of aggression.

But those caught up in the religion of the state cannot see it.

They are completely blind to the crimes carried out by the state.

Blinded by the lies of the apes behaving aggressively. The most absurd lies are swallowed whole.

It is an interesting and disturbing phenomena.

Actually Chimps are very aggressive towards Chimps from other tribes. They will ambush them and kill them, sometimes even eating them. Just like us they will kill for the sake of territory even if no harm is being done. We are more dangerous because we have sophisticated weapons and technology. In turn instead of civilising us it has made us more aggressive. Man has become technologically advanced which fare exceeded his humane advancement.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Besides the invasion of Iraq, which was most probably the worst decision in American history. The American state has been a force for good in the world more often than not.
It ain't easy been the world's policeman.

It's good to see you still have a great sense of humour.

 

[TSwizzle]

Some "refugees" are not too happy with their situation in Sweden;

Abu-Adel, 48, has also made the decision to take his family back to Turkey. Sweden is not right for them, he tells HuffPost Arabi. He is a father to three teenage girls and a younger son.
“I cannot raise them here. The great margin of freedom, which borders on chaos, has turned into a ghost that haunts me everywhere I go,” he said. “The independence that children get, and their freedom to do as they please, and the constant threat of losing my children if I force them to follow our customs and traditions, has become a nightmare that keeps me up at night.”
Abu-Adel said he is used to the “conservative society” he was raised in, and that “sexual freedom is [his] biggest fear.”
“I will take them and go back to our region,” he said. “I won’t allow one of my daughters to have a relationship with a young man under the guise of friendship. And I can’t imagine myself sitting in the spectator chair if my son decides to drink alcohol. Everything is allowed there, and I can’t possibly go on like this.”

HuffPo

Yes, Europe needs more diversity. A lot more.

 

[angelo]

Besides the invasion of Iraq, which was most probably the worst decision in American history. The American state has been a force for good in the world more often than not.
It ain't easy been the world's policeman.

Hmmm, Trail of tears and other attrocities committed against Native Americans, Japanese internment camps, supporting the slave trade, even the Mexican-American war and Reagan's intervention in Nicaragua were pretty outrageous. Oh, and don't forget every right-wing military dictator around the world the US has supported since WW2(All pretty nasty folks). The US is practically a criminal empire.

I don't think you can name a decade where the US wasn't committing crimes against humanity somewhere in the world.

Like I said. It isn't easy being the planets policeman. Without America, Japan would have conquered south east Asia, and Germany likewise Europe.
In case that wasn't enough. The Soviet Union would have conquered the West.
Sure there's plenty to criticise about, but name one nation that is not bound to criticism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hmmm, Trail of tears and other attrocities committed against Native Americans, Japanese internment camps, supporting the slave trade, even the Mexican-American war and Reagan's intervention in Nicaragua were pretty outrageous. Oh, and don't forget every right-wing military dictator around the world the US has supported since WW2(All pretty nasty folks). The US is practically a criminal empire.

I don't think you can name a decade where the US wasn't committing crimes against humanity somewhere in the world.

Like I said. It isn't easy being the planets policeman. Without America, Japan would have conquered south east Asia, and Germany likewise Europe.
In case that wasn't enough. The Soviet Union would have conquered the West.
Sure there's plenty to criticise about, but name one nation that is not bound to criticism.

The scenario in the 1930s and 1940s is different today. The European field was a difficult war which involved all of the allies. (It's amazing that even just before the fall of Berlin, the Germans were periodically driving the allies back at times).

However, the interventions in Vietnam, Laos, Iran (installation of the Shah over a democratically elected government), Libya created worse problems than what it created.
We are currently in WWIV against enemies who know no borders. Europe's no border policy has already been the Trojan Horse by allowing pockets of enemy forces (so to speak) to travel back and forth from ISIS and Al Qaeda territory for training and support. Fortunately those groups have not had the impact they were claiming they could inflict.

 

[angelo]

Like I said. It isn't easy being the planets policeman. Without America, Japan would have conquered south east Asia, and Germany likewise Europe.
In case that wasn't enough. The Soviet Union would have conquered the West.
Sure there's plenty to criticise about, but name one nation that is not bound to criticism.

The scenario in the 1930s and 1940s is different today. The European field was a difficult war which involved all of the allies. (It's amazing that even just before the fall of Berlin, the Germans were periodically driving the allies back at times).

However, the interventions in Vietnam, Laos, Iran (installation of the Shah over a democratically elected government), Libya created worse problems than what it created.
We are currently in WWIV against enemies who know no borders. Europe's no border policy has already been the Trojan Horse by allowing pockets of enemy forces (so to speak) to travel back and forth from ISIS and Al Qaeda territory for training and support. Fortunately those groups have not had the impact they were claiming they could inflict.

Installing a pro Western government in Iran was sound reasoning at that time. Look what happened when the Shah was overthrown. Iran became the Islamic terrorist country it is today. The great shame was that the installation of the Shah couldn't be made permanent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The scenario in the 1930s and 1940s is different today. The European field was a difficult war which involved all of the allies. (It's amazing that even just before the fall of Berlin, the Germans were periodically driving the allies back at times).

However, the interventions in Vietnam, Laos, Iran (installation of the Shah over a democratically elected government), Libya created worse problems than what it created.
We are currently in WWIV against enemies who know no borders. Europe's no border policy has already been the Trojan Horse by allowing pockets of enemy forces (so to speak) to travel back and forth from ISIS and Al Qaeda territory for training and support. Fortunately those groups have not had the impact they were claiming they could inflict.

Installing a pro Western government in Iran was sound reasoning at that time. Look what happened when the Shah was overthrown. Iran became the Islamic terrorist country it is today. The great shame was that the installation of the Shah couldn't be made permanent.

The government it overthrew was not an extremist one. The atrocities under the Shah and the actions of his secret police SAVAH, only spurred the growth of Shia Islamism and eventually the Ayotollah took power.

 

[angelo]

Not extremist? It wasn't that much better than when the ayatollah took over. Anti Westernism was reaching boiling point.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not extremist? It wasn't that much better than when the ayatollah took over. Anti Westernism was reaching boiling point.

Of course it was, because of US and British actions (M16 behind the scenes) created this. The West should have left this to the democratically elected government and the rest is history. It would have remained a secular democratic society or relatively so.

 

[angelo]

Not extremist? It wasn't that much better than when the ayatollah took over. Anti Westernism was reaching boiling point.

Of course it was, because of US and British actions (M16 behind the scenes) created this. The West should have left this to the democratically elected government and the rest is history. It would have remained a secular democratic society or relatively so.

You forget that democracy and Islam are not compatible in that part of the planet.

 

[untermensche]

You forget that democracy and Islam are not compatible in that part of the planet.

Good thing it is not this abstraction "Islam" doing anything.

It is just people, and ALL people are the exact same thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not extremist? It wasn't that much better than when the ayatollah took over. Anti Westernism was reaching boiling point.

Of course it was, because of US and British actions (M16 behind the scenes) created this. The West should have left this to the democratically elected government and the rest is history. It would have remained a secular democratic society or relatively so.

You're ignoring the Soviet meddling that was going on.

It's the usual story, blame the west when they attempt to counter Soviet meddling.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course it was, because of US and British actions (M16 behind the scenes) created this. The West should have left this to the democratically elected government and the rest is history. It would have remained a secular democratic society or relatively so.

You're ignoring the Soviet meddling that was going on.

It's the usual story, blame the west when they attempt to counter Soviet meddling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

What meddling; Only the Americans at the request of the British meddled. The dispute stemmed from Iran's nationalisation of British oil interests. The British didn't like the way talks over its oil interests went and called for USA assistance.
Even some leading American Politicians now realise this was wrong and clearly the Americans meddled to remove a democratically elected government and history shows what happened.

The red below is mine.

Eventually the CIA's involvement with the coup was exposed. This caused controversy within the organization and the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintained that the coup was strategically necessary, and praised the efficiency of the agents responsible. Critics say the scheme was paranoid, colonial, illegal, and immoral—and truly caused the "blowback" suggested in the pre-coup analysis. The extent of this "blowback," over time, was not completely clear to the CIA, as they had an inaccurate picture of the stability of the Shah's regime. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 caught the CIA and the US very much off guard (as CIA reporting a mere month earlier predicted no imminent insurrectionary turbulence whatsoever for the Shah's regime), and resulted in the overthrow of the Shah by a fundamentalist faction opposed to the US, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini. In retrospect, not only did the CIA and the US underestimate the extent of popular discontent for the Shah, but much of that discontent historically stemmed from the removal of Mosaddegh and the subsequent clientelism of the Shah. The US-backed coup, in effect, had ended Iran's last fully democratic government, and there would be no return of democracy even after the Shah's removal.

In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."[5] In the same year, The New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on declassified CIA documents.[8]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course it was, because of US and British actions (M16 behind the scenes) created this. The West should have left this to the democratically elected government and the rest is history. It would have remained a secular democratic society or relatively so.

You forget that democracy and Islam are not compatible in that part of the planet.

It was a democratically elected government that separated Church from State and sought to modernise the country. The reason for staging the coupe stemmed from British Oil interests. This opportunity is now gone.

 

[angelo]

Even without American/British intervention, at that time, Iran was always going to become an Islamic state. Witness present day Turkey which is heading straight down the Islamic gurgler.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Even without American/British intervention, at that time, Iran was always going to become an Islamic state. Witness present day Turkey which is heading straight down the Islamic gurgler.

I
Possibly as we cannot tell, but America doing Britain's dirty work expedited the process and now it is an Islamic state.

Turkey has sort of been steering towards a secular state but in a feeble manner. It bans headscarves in public institutions which is as much use as tits on a boar.

However, its a nice place with nice people though I've been there a couple of times. There is still opposition to its joining the EEC but it's easy enough to get a visa to go there (and of course then slip in to Syria.
Our problems are not so much as Muslims (as most are peaceful) but new concepts that borders should not exist.