Why does the Third World hate us?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
The conventional whine in the West, that terrorism stemmed from the poverty and destitution of the wretched of the earth is convenient and politically correct psychobabble.

From the anarchists of tsarist Russia to the IRA of 1916, from the Irgun and the Stern Gang to he FOKA in Cyprus, from the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, the CCC in Belgium, the Action Directe in France, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Red Army Faction again in Germany, the Rengo Sekigun in Japan, through to the Shining Path in Peru to the modern IRA in Ulster or the ETA in Spain, terrorism came from the minds of the comfortably raised, well-educated, middle- or upper-class theorists with a truly staggering personal vanity and a developed taste for self-indulgence.

In this theory, those who could order another to plant a bomb in a food hall and gloat over the resultant images all have one thing in ocmmon. They possess a fearsome capacity for hatred. This is the genetic "given". The hatred comes first; the target can come later and usually does.

The motive also came second to the capacity to hate. It might be the Boshevik Revolution, national liberation, or a thousand variants thereof, from amalgamation to secession; it might be anticapitalist fervor, it might be religion exaltation.

But the hatred comes first, then the cause, then the target, then the methods, and finally the self-justification. And Lenin's "useful dupes" always swallow it.

The leadership of Al Qaeda runs precisely true to form. Its cofounders are a construction millionaire from Saudi Arabia and a qualified doctor from Cairo. It matters not whether their hatred of Americans and Jews is secular based or religiously fueled. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that America or Israel can do, short of complete self-annihilation, that would even begin to appease or satisfy them.

None of the leaders of terrorism truly care a damn for the Palestinians, Afghanis or Iraqis - save as vehicles and justifications. They hate the West, not for what it does, but for what it is.

The West is a constant reproach. It is rich to their poor, strong to their weak, vigorous to their idle, enterprising to their reactionaries, ingenious to their bewildered, can-do to their sit-and-wait, pushy to their timid.

It only needs one demagogue to arise and shout, "Everything the Americas have they stole from you," and they'll believe it. Like Shakespeare's Caliban, their zealots stare in the mirror and roar in rage at what they see. That rage becomes hatred; the hatred needs a target. Conveniently, global communication networks and commerce allows the zealot to become spectator of the stereotypical TV family lifestyle. We are judged as worthy or not to live by the antics of Paris Hilton and the like.

The working class of the Third World does not hate the West; it is the pseudointellectuals. If they ever forgive you, they must indict themselves. So far, their hatred lacks the weaponry. One day they will acquire that weaponry. Then America and its allies will have to fight - or die.


Adapted from Frederick Forsyth's Avenger.
 

upsciLLion

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
5,947
1
81
So really Bin Laden is just like the snotty brats in Mean Girls that think they can walk all over people and do what they want because their parents have money. Hmmm...
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
That description fits Bush perfectly.

The world's arch terrorist. It's either his way or face the wrath of the U.S. military.

Like I keep pointing out -- terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
That description fits Bush perfectly.

The world's arch terrorist. It's either his way or face the wrath of the U.S. military.

Like I keep pointing out -- terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

If he was his way or face the wrath of the US Military all of the Middle East would be rubble.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
That description fits Bush perfectly.

The world's arch terrorist. It's either his way or face the wrath of the U.S. military.

Like I keep pointing out -- terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

If he was his way or face the wrath of the US Military all of the Middle East would be rubble.

So far Bush is having a tough enough time turning just Iraq into rubble. Let's wait on the entire Middle East.

But if George can't wait, what rogue action of the Bush administration do you think will finally force the rest of the world to react?

Do you really want to go down that path?

 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
That description fits Bush perfectly.

The world's arch terrorist. It's either his way or face the wrath of the U.S. military.

Like I keep pointing out -- terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

If he was his way or face the wrath of the US Military all of the Middle East would be rubble.

So far Bush is having a tough enough time turning just Iraq into rubble. Let's wait on the entire Middle East.

But if George can't wait, what rogue action of the Bush administration do you think will finally force the rest of the world to react?

Do you really want to go down that path?

The rest of the world couldn't react to a man who gassed his own people. You think they'd react to someone who is Commander in Chief of the United States Military?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

I don't know, what did we do to a man who had 250,000 people killed?
 

upsciLLion

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
5,947
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

You can't say the weapons don't or do exist. The only thing that has been confirmed is that we haven't found any in Iraq. The large amount of heavy truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to our invasion seem pretty damn suspicious, but I guess that fact doesn't meet your needs, now does it.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

You can't say the weapons don't or do exist. The only thing that has been confirmed is that we haven't found any in Iraq. The large amount of heavy truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to our invasion seem pretty damn suspicious, but I guess that fact doesn't meet your needs, now does it.

No, no, no, using historical facts is only allowed when it suits my needs.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

I don't know, what did we do to a man who had 250,000 people killed?

Are you talking about the same man who we put into power and gave him the weapons to do so? I think so!

The 3rd World hates us because we play geopolitical hot potatoe with them and then when they really do need us, we kick them in the face.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

You can't say the weapons don't or do exist. The only thing that has been confirmed is that we haven't found any in Iraq. The large amount of heavy truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to our invasion seem pretty damn suspicious, but I guess that fact doesn't meet your needs, now does it.

No, no, no, using historical facts is only allowed when it suits my needs.

Large amount of heavy truck traffic???

Bwahahahaha!

What happened to our crack satellite intel??? Didn't it pick up all those trucks???

It picked up troops amassing along the Syrian border when there were NONE. Maybe it missed all those trucks.

It seems American 'intelligence' only sees what it is there when it isn't, and what isn't there when it is.

Very flimsy evidence on which to base the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare, don't you think???

 

upsciLLion

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
5,947
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
Originally posted by: BBond
You people like to repeat history as though it is happening right now as long as it fits your needs.

Whether or not Saddam gassed his own people, the WMD Bush said was in Iraq was not there. It didn't exist.

What should we do with the people whose lies make them responsible for 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?

You can't say the weapons don't or do exist. The only thing that has been confirmed is that we haven't found any in Iraq. The large amount of heavy truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to our invasion seem pretty damn suspicious, but I guess that fact doesn't meet your needs, now does it.

No, no, no, using historical facts is only allowed when it suits my needs.

Large amount of heavy truck traffic???

Bwahahahaha!

What happened to our crack satellite intel??? Didn't it pick up all those trucks???

It picked up troops amassing along the Syrian border when there were NONE. Maybe it missed all those trucks.

It seems American 'intelligence' only sees what it is there when it isn't, and what isn't there when it is.

Very flimsy evidence on which to base the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare, don't you think???

Our satellites did see them, but they can't see through the canopies.

That's not why we went to war. It's a possible explanation of why no WMDs have been found.

Our intelligence said there was a very good chance they had WMDs. Even British intelligence said the same thing. Even Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector said so. Nobody could know without a doubt without actually going in and invading the country. So we did after a number of weeks of squabbling. The weapons were moved, the invasion came, nothing was found, now it's argued about day in and day out.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Are you talking about the same man who we put into power and gave him the weapons to do so? I think so!

The 3rd World hates us because we play geopolitical hot potatoe with them and then when they really do need us, we kick them in the face.
Actually I'm sort of glad you brought that up.

My feeling is, the pre- and post-Cold War world are very different entities. While you and I (I assume you are in your early twenties like myself and many here) were just wee lads when that struggle ended, it was a pretty titanic, all-consuming one while it still raged. Like communism, capitalism is more than just an economic theory. It's an ideology and way of life. Like all ideologies, it's one that tolerates no competitors. While capitalism has some obvious flaws it's also "the best we've got". I'm pretty okay with it myself.

So, capitalism vs. communism. We had what was called the Zero-Sum Game, where it is impossible for both players to win. States that 'turned' to the opposing ideology were seen as veritably infectious to surrounding states, which frankly is pretty accurate when you consider how many KGB front organizations worked. In the 70s and 80s, with the strategic importance of oil quite clear, it was important to keep Iraq, Iran and the Middle East in general "ours". Made for strange bedfellows. It was like pairing up with Stalinist Russia against Hitler in WW2 - not exactly a guy you'd want in your corner as he was liable to lodge a knife in your back - but necessary. In essence, a "greater good" thing.

When the big bad USSR was gone (it was once big, and it was once bad), the U.S. did the equivalent of fscking the girl who takes you to her place and escaping in the middle of the night. Don't need ya anymore, so good luck on your own, Saddam! Not the most polite exit but it's hard to think of a solution short of adopting every damn satellite country in the world. The world, depolarized, goes back to being fscked up all over.

Is it the U.S.'s fault Saddam was where he was? ...Sort of, but it's a stretch. The U.S. didn't turn him into a madman, he got there on his own. The U.S. didn't make his sons freaks. The U.S. didn't make him gas his own people. The U.S. did turn a blind eye to some of his maniacal excesses while he was involved in fighting for the "greater good", but does the U.S. owe every country in the capitalist world a freakin' pension for playing along? You'd think nobody but the States got any benefits out of capitalism at all. :p
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
I know well about the practices of the Cold War, but what goes around comes around. The US has been selfish to the point of... well an analogy doesn't even work here. I think the 3rd world is fed up with being exploited, given false hopes, promises, etc etc. As of right now, we are continuing to support dictators around the world because it serves our interests. I understand the totality of communism vs free-world (a disparate juxtaposition if there ever was one). I've heard horror stories of duck/cover and the like. I understand many of the policies, but we installed friendly dictators to the point of obession. Overthrowing a governmen time and time again across the world doesn't exactly breed good will towards one's countries. And we still haven't stopped this practice.

Very few countries have benefited from our culture of greed. Outside of Europe and Canada, there are masses of people disillusioned with our policies. And captalism is flawed in the sense that it requires constant growth. You know what else requires constant growth? Cancer. Our current system of captalism is much like a cancer on the world, only this cancer brings some short term benefits. Insidious isn't it? There is good captalism, in one where the economy is in a relatively stable state, or our current model where a drawback on expected growth leads to a recession. As the Earth (and the universe) is finite, a wall will come into being to stop growth. Whether the wall is of our making (reducing consumption, population control) or nature's (resource depletion, climate change, epidemics, etc), it makes no difference to the machine of captalism. A planned society emphasizing steady-state sustainability would be a much more benign and successful system than our current culture of avarice. But I digress.

We have used democracy as an ideal only when it is convienant to us. When it comes to Egypt or Saudi Arabia, democracy becomes a liability. This is the double-standard that has been played (along with others) for decades now. And the third world has woken up to this reality.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,881
6,420
126
Ridiculous, just more "they Hate us for our Freedom(or Insert other Mindless answer)" claptrap.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ridiculous, just more "they Hate us for our Freedom(or Insert other Mindless answer)" claptrap.

I should have known he was in his early twenties. That explains a lot.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Are you talking about the same man who we put into power and gave him the weapons to do so? I think so!

The 3rd World hates us because we play geopolitical hot potatoe with them and then when they really do need us, we kick them in the face.
Actually I'm sort of glad you brought that up.

My feeling is, the pre- and post-Cold War world are very different entities. While you and I (I assume you are in your early twenties like myself and many here) were just wee lads when that struggle ended, it was a pretty titanic, all-consuming one while it still raged. Like communism, capitalism is more than just an economic theory. It's an ideology and way of life. Like all ideologies, it's one that tolerates no competitors. While capitalism has some obvious flaws it's also "the best we've got". I'm pretty okay with it myself.

So, capitalism vs. communism. We had what was called the Zero-Sum Game, where it is impossible for both players to win. States that 'turned' to the opposing ideology were seen as veritably infectious to surrounding states, which frankly is pretty accurate when you consider how many KGB front organizations worked. In the 70s and 80s, with the strategic importance of oil quite clear, it was important to keep Iraq, Iran and the Middle East in general "ours". Made for strange bedfellows. It was like pairing up with Stalinist Russia against Hitler in WW2 - not exactly a guy you'd want in your corner as he was liable to lodge a knife in your back - but necessary. In essence, a "greater good" thing.

When the big bad USSR was gone (it was once big, and it was once bad), the U.S. did the equivalent of fscking the girl who takes you to her place and escaping in the middle of the night. Don't need ya anymore, so good luck on your own, Saddam! Not the most polite exit but it's hard to think of a solution short of adopting every damn satellite country in the world. The world, depolarized, goes back to being fscked up all over.

Is it the U.S.'s fault Saddam was where he was? ...Sort of, but it's a stretch. The U.S. didn't turn him into a madman, he got there on his own. The U.S. didn't make his sons freaks. The U.S. didn't make him gas his own people. The U.S. did turn a blind eye to some of his maniacal excesses while he was involved in fighting for the "greater good", but does the U.S. owe every country in the capitalist world a freakin' pension for playing along? You'd think nobody but the States got any benefits out of capitalism at all. :p

Who has been teaching you this nonsense???

Rush???

 

ATIuser

Banned
Nov 20, 2004
44
0
0
Why do they hate us? Because they'remorons who believe the liberal bullshit that everything we have was gotten from victimising them rather than from our own hard work.
Any of you who believe this are morons too.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: yllus

The working class of the Third World does not hate the West; it is the pseudointellectuals. If they ever forgive you, they must indict themselves. So far, their hatred lacks the weaponry. One day they will acquire that weaponry. Then America and its allies will have to fight - or die.


Adapted from Frederick Forsyth's Avenger.

This writing is a bit of a stretch at trying to "rationalize" the result but fails to get to the meat.

It bascially boils down to no matter how much goodies you put in a cage, most animals will eventually want out of the cage. When a Country becomes totally overrun by a Dictatorship the animals will want out of the cage no matter how well off the Country is doing under the Dictatorship. If the common folk are doing poorly that will accelerate the process.

Just watch the U.S. as it is becomming a "caged" Country. OKlahoma was nothing.
 

Sysbuilder05

Senior member
Nov 10, 2004
409
0
0
You can't say the weapons don't or do exist. The only thing that has been confirmed is that we haven't found any in Iraq. The large amount of heavy truck traffic between Iraq and Syria in the days leading up to our invasion seem pretty damn suspicious, but I guess that fact doesn't meet your needs, now does it.

So..those trucks we're never unloaded?? Spy satellites can see a fly on a horse's ass but they never ever saw those trucks being unloaded?? Still sitting there 18 months later with WMD in the back?? Ah well...makes for good(phoney) invasion material for Syria doesn't it??

Get a grip,if there were truly ANY chemical weapons in Iraq they would have been used against American soldiers. Or are we supposed to belive that SH played nice guy and figured if he hustled WMD out of the country then Bush would leave him in power when none were found?!? You Bush apologist's really have to do better than that....

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
"Get a grip,if there were truly ANY chemical weapons in Iraq they would have been used against American soldiers. Or are we supposed to belive that SH played nice guy and figured if he hustled WMD out of the country then Bush would leave him in power when none were found?!? You Bush apologist's really have to do better than that.... "

Certain EU countries were working behind the scenes after the invasion on something very similar to that very scenario, which of course was never gonig to fly.



So where are they then? They most certainly did exist, even if you use Saddams fudged declared numbers they were never all produced.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: yllus
The conventional whine in the West, that terrorism stemmed from the poverty and destitution of the wretched of the earth is convenient and politically correct psychobabble.

From the anarchists of tsarist Russia to the IRA of 1916, from the Irgun and the Stern Gang to he FOKA in Cyprus, from the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, the CCC in Belgium, the Action Directe in France, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Red Army Faction again in Germany, the Rengo Sekigun in Japan, through to the Shining Path in Peru to the modern IRA in Ulster or the ETA in Spain, terrorism came from the minds of the comfortably raised, well-educated, middle- or upper-class theorists with a truly staggering personal vanity and a developed taste for self-indulgence.

In this theory, those who could order another to plant a bomb in a food hall and gloat over the resultant images all have one thing in ocmmon. They possess a fearsome capacity for hatred. This is the genetic "given". The hatred comes first; the target can come later and usually does.

The motive also came second to the capacity to hate. It might be the Boshevik Revolution, national liberation, or a thousand variants thereof, from amalgamation to secession; it might be anticapitalist fervor, it might be religion exaltation.

But the hatred comes first, then the cause, then the target, then the methods, and finally the self-justification. And Lenin's "useful dupes" always swallow it.

The leadership of Al Qaeda runs precisely true to form. Its cofounders are a construction millionaire from Saudi Arabia and a qualified doctor from Cairo. It matters not whether their hatred of Americans and Jews is secular based or religiously fueled. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that America or Israel can do, short of complete self-annihilation, that would even begin to appease or satisfy them.

None of the leaders of terrorism truly care a damn for the Palestinians, Afghanis or Iraqis - save as vehicles and justifications. They hate the West, not for what it does, but for what it is.

The West is a constant reproach. It is rich to their poor, strong to their weak, vigorous to their idle, enterprising to their reactionaries, ingenious to their bewildered, can-do to their sit-and-wait, pushy to their timid.

It only needs one demagogue to arise and shout, "Everything the Americas have they stole from you," and they'll believe it. Like Shakespeare's Caliban, their zealots stare in the mirror and roar in rage at what they see. That rage becomes hatred; the hatred needs a target. Conveniently, global communication networks and commerce allows the zealot to become spectator of the stereotypical TV family lifestyle. We are judged as worthy or not to live by the antics of Paris Hilton and the like.

The working class of the Third World does not hate the West; it is the pseudointellectuals. If they ever forgive you, they must indict themselves. So far, their hatred lacks the weaponry. One day they will acquire that weaponry. Then America and its allies will have to fight - or die.


Adapted from Frederick Forsyth's Avenger.
Us?? Aren't you a Third Worlder living in Canada?