For KL/anyone. Hells Angels & AQ

[Merryprankster]

I didn't have time to respond (or the desire at the time) to something absurd said on another thread, so I am doing it here.

The gist of the conversation was this:

I said that a sociologist might consider that the forces that formed Hells Angels and Al Qaida are very similar.

KL asked "Prithee how," while making some not terribly cogent rant on how you can't possibly compare the two.

I never followed up.


Anyway, here's the thing; the sociological/psychological forces involved in the creation of the two are very similar.

The Hells Angels began after WWII. People had formed bonds during the war, had experienced new and exciting (albeit dangerous) things, and were dissatisfied with the life they led in the U.S. They didn't like the idea of settling down. Energized and restless, they sought the same sense of identity they'd had during the war. After all, these guys had just kicked some Nazi/Japanese ass! A tough crowd... At the time, motorcycles were an inexpensive and for many who served, familiar way of experiencing/expressing this, along with drugs, crime and violence. Networks developed during the war helped the Hells Angels grow.

Al Qaida began at the end of the Afghanistan-Soviet Union war. People had formed bonds during the war and had experienced, new and exciting (albeit dangerous) things, and were dissatisfied with the lives they led when they went back to their home countries. They didn't like the idea of settling down. Energized and restless, they sought the same sense of identity they'd had during the war. After all, these guys had just kicked some Soviet ass! A tough crowd. Many formed Islamic radical groups at home (FIS, GIA, etc) to express/experience this. Violence and crime were part of the equation. Networks developed during the war helped the Islamic radical groups network together under the AQ umbrella.

Motiviations and ultimate goals aside, the sociological factors that molded the group, the members and the origins aren't all that dissimilar. Both groups went to war with a powerful ideology. Both groups won. Both came back to countries where their energy and sense of victory had no outlet. Both had a desire/need for identity. Both formed groups in an effort to change their home front experiences. Both use/used violence. Both relied on contacts grown during the war to build themselves.

So yeah, that looks a lot alike.

[red5angel]

:D

[red5angel]

don't forget the beards.....

[Vash]

Mp > KL.

[David Jamieson]

That was the weakest thing I've read. :rolleyes:

You actually believe that malarky?

The hells angels was formed originally by a group of flyers who besides their penchant for flying (yes they were airmen), liked motorcycles as well because of the same sense of freedom.

The members who became what is now the criminal organization taht is the Hell's angels have so little in common with the original group it is amazing that you didn't denote that point merry. But I'll chalk that to your lack of knowledge or the persistence in sweeping generalizations that you make towards whatever doesn't fit your view.

AL Q on the other hand were born out of a war that went on and on for more than 20 years. As the Mujahadeen, the Muslim guerillas were supported in thier protracted war with the soviets in Afghanistan. they existed in a war that was outside influences playing both ends against the middle. The war didn't end for them at all, it just continued in different shapes.

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban rose to power and was linked to the new focus of AlQ which appeared to be organizing terror strikes against any and all that would usurp the power of teh arab nations from arabs.

I think the agendas are slightly different. For instance, the Taliban set to work immediately detsroying the poppy fields in afghanistan. But now that they are gone, them poppies is growing again with the blessings of the new democratic leaders and their supporters abroad despite any bs lipservice any of them pay to wars on drugs and terror.

Meanwhile, someone's sister got a little too deep into a crack debt in Philly and now has to be a ***** to pay it off to some biker. Can you see the dissimilarity now?

[Merryprankster]

Reading for comprehension....


I said that a sociologist might consider that the forces that formed Hells Angels and Al Qaida are very similar.

Of course they are different organizations now. But that's not what was being discussed.

Here is a recap of the ignorant thing you said:


The difference is what is the impetus for the formation of a group such as AQ vs what is the impetus for the formation of a group like the others I mentioned?

and here is what I responded THEN:


A sociologist might claim they were the same. The Hells Angels and AQ have similar beginnings.

I've seen YOUR explanation and it's tripe.

And you will note, it is to this point that I have responded, in full, with historical evidence to back it up.

But by all means, continue to say stuff with no grounding in reality. The rest of us will look to the facts.

I've always loved how you decide to change the subject (we were talking about the impetus for FORMING such a group, remember?) when you are getting *****ed though.

Carry on....

[Yum Cha]

Hells Angles:
FORMED by the desire to express PERSONAL FREEDOM and ESCAPE the horrors of war. "Hey brother, lets PARTY, get wasted and get laid!"

AL Q:
FORMED by the desire to FIGHT for RELIGIOUS and NATIONALISTIC (Pan Muslim) "moralities." "Hey brothers, lets kill infadels!"


HOWEVER,
The circumstances, of there being a bunch of "ronin" on the loose following the end of a major war are similar.


Merry, you said it, forces that formed, not circumstances...

KL>MP

[Mr Punch]

Yum Cha, you're talking about personal forces. Merry was talking about sociological/societal forces.

Mat>The Wooooorrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllllddddddddddddd!!!! Bwuhahahhahhahhahahhetc.

I'm with Red. They should hand out razors and soap to counterract these bearded menaces to society.

[Yum Cha]

Mat,

I got a better idea, give KL and Merry the razors, and see what comes of it....

Armed, full-contact debate....the KFO Reality Show.

KL may have the better logic, but I'd have to back Merry with the straight razor....

[Vash]

Originally posted by Yum Cha
KL may have the better logic

I 'bout pooped myself a little bit.

[Royal Dragon]

Eighty Ones and You:

You know, I think the 81's had more to do with being outcasts after Nam than anything. Yes, sure they, and the Outlaws and others exsted before, mostly as rebelious social clubs, but things got criminal when service men returning from nam were rejected by alot of society. They found acceptance within themselves, and formed a distane for normal society that lives on to this day.

Then they realised Methanphetamines could make them rich and the whole thing turned in to a criminal cult.

It is a sophistcated world, where they have smaller "Affiliate" clubs that act as slow brainwashing, recruiting and training cells designed to find, and recruite the real baddies into the main club.

For example, the Outlaws have the Black pistons, Rebel knights and so on. Hells Angels have the Hell's Hencmen etc... (AlthoughI think the Henchmen are now done and gone but you get the picture)

They more miltant branches even have thier own combat systems, fighting styles and training regimes. Many of these guys would take a notable Kung Fu master and rip them in half as soon as look at them.

I think the psycology of the whole thing is facinateing, it's a complete social microcosum, complete with thier own religious branches, law and order and everything.

[David Jamieson]

royal, you read too much thriller stuff about bike gangs. Lol. they really aren't that complex, are barely organized and frankly there are a lot of average joes who would drop em like a bad habit if it weren't for the fact the attack in packs, have no individual character they can call their own for the most part and in general, the gangster types are just the dirtbags that we think they are. I am a biker and I can't think of a better idea than to focus more anti crime forces on these turds and let us bikers just ride for the sake of it and get these speed freak, pimp, thugs off our precious metals. :p

listen, vash, wipe yer ass, lol, In my opinion Merry's "logic" is often nothing more than sophism or plain semantics or spin holing something into a quagmire where it gets boring to banter points. IE: He will constantly refer you to read some Tome or 500 page article instead of replying with what he actually thinks.

I personally think that this is because he doesn't think and half the time accepts the stuff he offers up as his stance at face value.

as soon as you make an argument against it, if you aren't already frustrated with this guy's style or lack of it, he'll make another way of sending you down the rabbit hole. lol.

This is called evasiveness and although it is a mark of intelligence, it isn't very smart. It leads nowhere and I guess it's safe because it lets Marry never be accountable for what he says. He always has the quick out of well, I agreed with that, but not this or some other stuff.

Other people of limited intelligence regard this trait as really smart and will often be seen wadding up and adoring the one who spouts this nonsense.

But enough about how I feel.

[Merryprankster]

Yum Cha, you're talking about personal forces. Merry was talking about sociological/societal forces.

Thank you Mat. That is precisely the distinction. A psychologist is concerned with the personal reasons an individual has for doing something. A sociologist is concerned with the systemic factors that identify what choices seem reasonable. Political scientists call this bounded rationalism. That is, the decisions you find reasonable are to a great extent bounded by the social and cultural structure you find yourself within.

I was making the argument that a sociologist might look at these two groups and determine that the structural factors driving their creation are not terribly dissimilar - in fact, they are VERY similar. This makes sense given that their experiences are also similar.

A psychologist might have a different take - The forensic profile of a Hells Angel and an AQ terrorist would probably look different in several respects. I continue to assert, however, that the sociological profile of the groups origins are quite similar.


Yum Cha, the Hells Angels were not an attempt to escape from the war. They were to some degree an attempt to recapture it.

In a list, the similarities:

Bonds created during war
Powerful moral ideology driving the war/warfighters
Sense of victory and accomplishment within the group
Sense of group identity
Dissatisfaction with post-war life/Energized Restlessness
Desensitization to (or even appreciation of) anti-social behaviors (in a sociological vice psychological sense) in order to express any of the above.


There are of course differences between the groups, especially now. But that doesn't mean that the forces shaping the beginnings of the two organizations are also dissimilar. If you take the above list, they almost lead any rational person to the conclusion that you need to join or form a violent group.

But the same experiences effect different people differently - I might go to war and become desensitized to violence. Somebody else might not. You might go to war and not experience a sense of group identity or success. Somebody else might.

A Psychologist asks "Why does a person choose to make the decisions they do within the framework?"

A Sociologist asks "What's the framework, how did it get there, what implications does this have?"

[Merryprankster]

Merry with the straight razor

Occam's Razor, more likely.

[David Jamieson]

Bonds created during war
Powerful moral ideology driving the war/warfighters
Sense of victory and accomplishment within the group
Sense of group identity
Dissatisfaction with post-war life/Energized Restlessness
Desensitization to (or even appreciation of) anti-social behaviors (in a sociological vice psychological sense) in order to express any of the above.


Wit a couple of adjustments you pretty much stated how countries are founded, any society is formed and governments organized.

By a small adjustment to this, we can compare anything like say, VOFW halls or Legion Halls up here in Canada.

The deeds and actions of a group are what defines it Merry, not the sociological aspects of it's impetus for formation.

You can call a turd a badger all you want, but it's still a turd and not a badger.

[red5angel]

listen, vash, wipe yer ass, lol, In my opinion Merry's "logic" is often nothing more than sophism or plain semantics or spin holing something into a quagmire where it gets boring to banter points. IE: He will constantly refer you to read some Tome or 500 page article instead of replying with what he actually thinks.


This is the thread ender right here. This should also end all serious discussion with KL forever. KL actually DERIDES MP for pointing to creditible and thorough sources of information for his information and his opinions and KL's only way to combat that is to claim they are too big! LOL!!! Fu**head. The whole post is just indiciative of what the problem is - oh also that Kung Lek tends to claim thta he has something in common withe whatever to try to gain credibility. Now he's a biker from the hood, must be a real tough guy.

I cna't decide whether to laugh ysterically or cry, I'm thinking of going with both at the same time just to honor this momentous occasion.

[David Jamieson]

well red, in my opinion, when it comes to discussions like this, you will take sides with the one who suits your emotional stance. Which tends to be pretty redneck and knee jerk and aggressive. lol

I site your own words of ending discussions forever and other such sandbox tyranny. LOL. :p

[Merryprankster]

Ah, I see.

So, having opinions based on actual evidence is:

boring
semantics
sophism

Fascinating.

I have made it quite clear what I think:

Like you, I do not believe that the Hells Angels and AQ are groups with similar goals.

However, from a sociological perspective the FORMATION of these two groups is quite similar.

I BASE this on evidence. Those are those pesky things called "facts" which you never seem to know about or use.
You can find them doing "research," a process that seems to escape you.


FWIW, since semantics is the study of meaning, semantics is the most important part of any argument. Reduction, so that we all understand what we are talking about, is kind of important, and impossible without semantics.

I SEE your point KL, and I SEE Yum Cha's. However, I think that Yum Cha approached it psychologically, rather than sociologically, and I think you misinterpreted my discussion about the origin of the groups as a contemporary comparison...which it is not.

[David Jamieson]

Merry, the only points you tend to "see" are your own.

You are attempting to position your view as the correct one.
In short, no one's views are ever "correct" or "incoorect" when it comes to matters of choice and opinion.

But a spade is a spade, and that's what facts are. You haven't offered facts, you only proselytize. Which is cool.

But yes, I find a lot of your arguing tactics to lose sight of the above points and you often mistake someone elses opinion as a "fact" simply because that opinion is codified and accepted in the circles that are like minded.

anyway...

[Merryprankster]

I've had many disagreements on this forum with many people. When they are well-informed, I don't have a problem with it.

"You're wrong," which you are so fond of, does not constitute an argument.

Case in point - without knowing anything about AQ, without having done the research, read the books, studied middle eastern history, Islam, the AQ Charter, the personalities, anything else, you insist that their motivation is political. This implies a political solution. Never mind that their CHARTER calls for unending war against the unbelievers until the whole world falls under their interpretation of an 8th century Caliphate. No, if we just "left 'them' alone, you say, everything would be cool. Except that's not what THEY think and it's not THEIR stated goal.

Another case in point - Your assertion that we're in Iraq for "oil." Never mind that our refineries in the U.S. are tooled for Nigerian, Gulf of Guinea and Venezuelan crude and it would cost BILLIONS to retool (and which our companies have not done). Never mind that oil, despite what people think, is not a fungible commodity. Never mind that we import less than 20% of our energy requirements from the Middle East. Never mind that destabilization and uncertainty in a market sector increases prices because commodity and future options rise.

The only argument you could possibly make is that since so many Asian countries fund our debt, we went into Iraq to secure cheap oil for THEM, since they import around 90% of their oil from the Middle East, to ensure they keep propping up our borrowing ways. I bit conspiracy minded, but plausible, and a jumping off point for a real discussion.

But since you don't bother with trivial things like "evidence," you couldn't be troubled to find some.

When the evidence doesn't support something, a jury usually acquits. When the evidence doesn't support your point of view, you claim that logic is boring, semantics and sophistry.

[red5angel]

well red, in my opinion, when it comes to discussions like this, you will take sides with the one who suits your emotional stance


But a spade is a spade, and that's what facts are. You haven't offered facts, you only proselytize


the irony slays me here.....



Merry, the only points you tend to "see" are your own.

your stupidity KL is almost infuriating. Can't you see how ignorant this comment is? YOU are accusing someone who is trying to have a discussion with you, of not listening to you, who has come back with plenty of sources to underscore his points, even though they may be too large and complex for you to bother with. YOU are insisting on not debating him directly but continuually accusing him of evasion and not listening to you. I'ts insane it really is fukking insane dude. I don't get it, I really really don't


"You're wrong," which you are so fond of, does not constitute an argument.

Kung Lek's way too stupid to get this. It's true.

[ZIM]

You will never defeat his Liger style, MP. :p

[David Jamieson]

Always the same 3 blathering on about what a commie i am. lol!

whatever:rolleyes:

rednecks. :p

[red5angel]

you're not a commie, you're just a self absorbed ass that can't see past his own opinions, a Loser of the worst kind.

[David Jamieson]

..and you're the one getting infuriated with what is said on an internet forum. An even bigger loser. LOL :p

[red5angel]

blahblahblah loser boy Shouldn't you be riding with your gang in the hood?

[David Jamieson]

yes red, I'm off for a ride with the gang in the hood. LOL
You can be such a shlemiel. (can be? hmmmn. hahaha)

[red5angel]

:o

[Merryprankster]

I thought of another way that KL could support his argument that we're in the Middle East for "oil." Never mind that a short bit of research will show that "oil" as a fungible commodity is a misnomer.

You could argue that we're not in the ME for oil, but profits for American business...whatever that means in an age of global companies where profits transcend political boundaries.

Assume that Bush leaked to his oil buddies that he was going to war in Iraq. They could buy "oil" futures at a specific price. Then, when he announced they were going to war, as oil prices rose, they could undercut the going rate and still make a handsome profit.

Of course, since KL doesn't do research, thinks facts are irrelevant, and can't be bothered to find evidence to support his creative writing exercises, he can't formulate that sort of argument.

Again, plausible, if a bit conspiracy minded. Even better might be an analysis that throws Asian bankers into the equation.

Asian bankers who finance our debt buy oil futures to get the profit. This ensures they continue to fund our way of life.

Better yet, Jewish Asian bankers.

I can "see" all sorts of viewpoints when a coherent case is made, but generally, you fail to do so, or talk around the issue, or change the subject.

The closest you ever came to actually having a point was the day you outlined your belief that U.S. policy had disenfranchised the ME as a whole and that this was the driving factor in Islamic Radical Terrorism. It was really genuinely close to being a good argument, as far as it went. I happen to think it's not an especially strong argument, because most of the problems in the ME are a result of their own economic policies, which the U.S. has been encouraging them to alter for years. But, it had the advantage of being coherent and having a couple of facts in it.

Your argument as a whole is much better applied to Latin America - not in the Radical Islamic Terrorist sense of course, but in the disenfranchisement sense.

[red5angel]

the failure in your logic MP is that this is not conspiracy minded enough. It also doesn't rest all ofthe worlds evils on Bush.

[FuXnDajenariht]

doesn't personal reason shape social structure?

[Merryprankster]

doesn't personal reason shape social structure

Yes, but it's a group phenomenon. One persons conception of how society should structure itself does not necessarily mean that society follows suit.

You need something of a consensus on how society should be.

This doesn't mean that one person can't have a huge impact. Marx, Weber, Jesus, etc. But several people have to find value in their conceptions before it becomes a social structure - and many many more before it becomes a dominant cultural paradigm.

At least, IMO. After all, what you find reasonable in response to stimulii will depend in part upon the sociological structure you grew up in.

[FuXnDajenariht]

but like minded individuals who set about creating their own social structure is like a self fulfilling prophecy. and we are talking about sub cultures.

[Merryprankster]

like minded individuals who set about creating their own social structure is like a self fulfilling prophecy

Yup. As I said, a group phenomenon. Once the group is established though, you're going to consider that social structure and the forces it exerts on you in your own decision-making.

Or not - and risk expulsion from the group. Happens all the time that somebody leaves or is forced out and establishes a competing organization.

Or is killed for wanting to do something different.

[David Jamieson]

More sophistry from Merry.

Conspiracy, blah blah blah. YOu think America is in teh middle east for the better of teh middle east or the better of america?

What is the purpose? I don't understand why america would care about the foibles of the arab world so deeply...I mean...without the oil factor there, that would give them (the arab nations) about as much voice as many of teh african nations with serious problems that the US does little or nothing about.

You honestly don't think your nation is some virtuous beacon of freedom do you? Because if you do, you are a mere ditto head as I suspected.

By the way, why don't you look up some facts that don't come from an Anne Coulture diatribe for a change. In fact, stop looking at American political essays alone and start reaching out beyond the boundaries of what you want to hear and what you want to understand and accept.

Merry, you and red seem to have difficulties with the "fact" That I, like billions of other people on teh planet think that the current government in the USA is pretty much ****ed up on so many levels it is bizarre.

And they are continuing with their bizzare crusade that is ultimately gonna cost more people in the middle east their lives, businesses and lifestyle.

Ya got 130,000 guys wandering around in the desert on George's little crusade for whatever the reaons is now, I guess it's been spun in so many directions that people are already forgetting that teh PRIMARY reason was WMD's in Iraq. And now, you got Condie wandering around spouting the same stuff about Iran!

And as an aside, what is being done about North Korea? They're outright admitting they have nukes and we know Kim IL ain't adverse to probably using them if he doesn't get some aid he'll have to expand.

spin that fact boy. And while we talk about facts, you go ahead and show me where my facts are incorrect? My opinions, you can disagree with all you want, but what is done is done and the result of the deed shows. Your emperor has no clothes.

[red5angel]

In fact, stop looking at American political essays alone and start reaching out beyond the boundaries of what you want to hear and what you want to understand and accept


blahblahblah. I'll do it when you do it ;P


teh PRIMARY reason was WMD's in Iraq.

you'd still be pushing that wouldn't you.....

[Merryprankster]

Anne Coulter is tripe. I have one book because I wanted to see what she was all about. Turns out she's all about bad research.

And I've repeatedly said that Iraq is a mess. I don't really understand what your point is.

Are we there for the Middle East? No, but we're not there for oil. A very narrow point.

Trust me, I remember we went in for:

WMD
Something about Iraq and AQ (which was bunk from the beginning)
Then Regime change
Then freeing the Iraqi People
Then establishing an outpost of Democracy

THAT is spin KL. If you're looking for spin, that's it right there. What I have said is consistent from day one:

1. The rest of the world does not determine what we do with our power. Whether or not what we're doing is a good idea or not is a separate issue.

2. Al Qaida/Radical Islam is a cultural conflict, not a political one. Thinking it's political is a trap of western thinking. Both you and many in the current administration share that in common.

3. The United States, while hardly acting altruistically all the time, is not the terrible source of evil you want it to be.

4. The environment that crafted the problems in the Middle East is more the result of Old World Empire dissolution than the United States. As I have noted before, this is not true in Latin America, where it really is, our fault.

5. You don't have any idea what you are talking about because you haven't actually studied the subject.

My opinion is based on my own research and evidence gleaned from reading, watching and being the student of a variety of points of view. I can direct you to some pretty good sources. You need them. How about....

Rashid Khalidi, the noted Palestinian Historian?

Bernard Lewis, the Dean of Middle Eastern Studies?

Ilan Pappe, the authority on the beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Rohan Gunaratna, the AQ and LTTE expert?

Bernard Reich, the AQ founding documents, Qutb, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.... Entire transcripts of UBL speeches, Zawahiri...

The list goes on. While you busy yourself vomiting up the detrius you managed to vacuum up over the course of cursory glances on a subject, some people have formed real thoughts on the subject based on *gasp* actual research.

Oh, and have you noticed that none of these authors are American? Shocking, isn't it?

However, I recommend starting somewhere simpler. Perhaps MAD Magazine, or the Little Engine that Could. Bernard Lewis might be too much to start with.

I anticipate the intellectual snobbery response. So I ask, what's snottier KL - My insistence that proper study is required to actually form an intelligent opinion on difficult subjects, or your insistence that you can understand the issue without actually knowing anything about it?

[ZIM]

Natan Sharansky for topping it off, if only because Bush is enamoured with "The Case for Democracy"

Good list, MP. A few new ones for me.

[Ben Gash]

Where on earth does this stuff come from? AQ's origins lie in sixties Egypt, where there was a large backlash against the westernisation and pseudo-democratisation that was occurring there at the time. After this movement was brutally put down (after some serious terrorist activity on their part), it's leaders and thinkers dispersed throughout the arab world. 15 years later one of it's leading lights became a mentor to Osama Bin Laden, a minor royal of the house of Saud. There has long been tension in Saudi between the House of Saud and the Islamic leadership due to the extensive links to the West from the oil trade, and the slow but continuing process of disestablishmentarianism (in many way the Sheikhs rule in name only,something they'd like to change).
As a minor royal with little hope of gaining status or power, Bin Laden was ripe for turning to the extremist view. With his connections and wealth he steadily gained a following, preaching against the "decadent" west and his "decadent" family. AQ became increasingly militant, sparked into full scale militancy by the Saudi co-operation in the first Gulf war. Bin Laden became increasingly embarrasing to the House of Saud , and they eventually yielded to pressure from the Clinton administration and exiled him.
Bin Laden settled in East Africa and, somewhat PO'd with America (I think during this period one of his sons died as well), he planned the bombing of the world trade centre. This of course led to Clinton piling pressure on his new hosts, who in turn deported him. Unwelcome in most countries due to American influence, he fled to Afghanistan, where the newly risen Taliban were sympathetic, and we all know the rest.
Ironically enough, however, there is a grain of truth to MP's link. The leaders of the Egyptian movement were heavily influenced by (and in many cases studied under the advocates of) a fifties American school of thought that stated that the rise of individualised liberalisim and existentialism at the expense of society would lead to inevitable social and moral decline.
Wow, were THEY off the mark. Crack anyone? ;)

[FuXnDajenariht]

im more of a vodka person myself... :D

[David Jamieson]

So I ask, what's snottier KL - My insistence that proper study is required to actually form an intelligent opinion on difficult subjects, or your insistence that you can understand the issue without actually knowing anything about it?

That's a pretty snotty and beligerent thing to say right there Merry. Anyway... This is leading off topic into a never ending the crusade for Iraq thread, so **** it.

I find it interesting how you insist on thinking I said something that I never have. a la


or your insistence that you can understand the issue without actually knowing anything about it?

such a freak you are with all your delusional crap. Whatever Merry. Your views are highly skewed, you seem to only "know" the propaganda side of things and will only confirm those items on that list that fit with your blinders on America is the greatest myopic view.

I can accept you being the ugly american. It seems to be a trend these days. I guess if ya can't shake the cloak, may as well leave it on eh?

[Merryprankster]

Ben, you've got your facts wrong. It's your story that has a grain of truth, not mine.

The Egyptian group you are referring to is the Muslim Brotherhood, and you are correct that it was a response to perceived secular pan-Arab Nationalism, ala Nasser.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood goes back to the British in Egypt days, not fifteen years ago. They were around befor King Farouq! They do have members worldwide. Some of this group morphed/formed into the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, (EIJ) which we'll get to in a minute.

Bin Laden is not a member of the Royal family at all. The Bin Laden Family is from the south and east of the penninsula and is actually Yemeni in decent, not Saudi Arabian. He was never and has never been a member of the House of Saud. They made their money in engineering contracts for the Royal Family. Influential and rich perhaps, but nothing close to royalty.

Your assertion that the EIJ eventually formed AQ is sort of a partial truth.

During the Afghanistan war, large numbers of Arabs headed there as mujahedin to fight the Soviets. During this time, a key figure, a Palestinian by the name of Abdullah Azzam, formed the MAK - the "Arab Office" of Afghanistan. It handled training, logistics, support for incoming Arabs. UBL's role at this juncture was largely financing for equipment. However, as we're all aware, purse strings matter and he DID fight. Abdullah Azzam became UBL's mentor.

UBL became extremely close to the Egyptian members of the MAK. Towards the end of the conflict, Abdullah Azzam wanted to form an organization that would support mujahedin around the world. He believed the primary purpose of this organization should be to train equip and fund fighters to protect/free Muslims who were persecuted worldwide. He also was not keen on terrorist acts and did not want to engage the United States, considering it suicide. All of this was around 1989, I believe. Might be 1988.

UBL and the Egyptian faction, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, wanted to attack the United States however, and believed that terrorism was a justifiable method. They bumped off Abdullah Azzam, formed Al Qaida, established a charter which calls for jihad until the world is righteous and a sworn enemy in the U.S. (and Israel of course). EIJ merged with AQ - that's how Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor, became UBL's number two. Let's be clear....UBL put the United States as an enemy back in 1988-1989, NOT after Gulf I as so many people want to believe.

After the war many of the Arabs left and went back to their home country and disatisfied with the direction of things there got quite restive. In Algeria, for instance, they began agitating for Islamic reform, forming radical parties like the GIA and the FIS. Old Muj fought in Bosnia, in Chechnya and other places around the world. The old bonds of war reunited many of these people under the AQ umbrella when their countries sent them on the run for violent or criminal acts or they simply didn't have the opportunity to do anything else.

UBL's serious beef with the Saudi Royal family actually began in Gulf War I, when the Saudi's rebuked his offer of Mujahedin to fight the Iraqis and allowed the United States in. To him and many others, this is a violation against a Koranic injunction against allowing infidels on the land of the two Holy Mosques. UBL, embarresed by the rebuke and angered over the U.S. presence, declared the House of Saud apostate. For those of you familiar with sharia (not you KL), an apostate is considered worse than an Infidel, because they have seen, but rejected Allah's word. Well, the House of Saud has it's own internal problems regarding perceptions of its legitimacy as an Islamic government and couldn't let that stand. They expelled him. It wasn't a result of U.S. pressure - they needed to get rid of him for themselves. We can have a separate discussion about KSA's problems if you like.

For the record, it's not the "oil" dealings with the west that the Islamic radicals had problems with, its a host of stuff, including treaties, arms sales, etc.

Off to Sudan...Afghanistan again.

That's the history of the organization in a nutshell.

However, this is separate from a discussion of the SOCIOLOGICAL factors that led to the creation of AQ, which I assert could be viewed as similar to the factors that created the Hells Angels, from a sociological perspective; ie, group dynamics, similar group and individual experiences, etc. A history of the organization is a different thing. One is a comparison study of sociological forces and dynamics...the other is not. Political philosophy and Ideology aren't the driving factors in sociological studies. You're looking for the group dynamics that led to a particular pathway.

I never claimed a link between the two organizations, only that a sociologist might view their formations as a result of similar forces.

Just because two organizations have different political goals or ideology does not mean they aren't sociologically similar. The FARC and GSPC have widely disparate goals, but you can make the case that both have their roots in lack of opportunity and need for group identity.

And no, no reason by analogy will ever be perfect - never what I suggested.

[rogue]

MP, did you ever check out Bodansky? I thought that Laurie Mylioie gave a good argument for Iraqi involvement in the first WTC attack, but it seems she was wrong. did you check any of her work out and if so where did she go wrong?

While we were responsible for some of the troubles South O the Border we did clean up some of the mess too. We'll always get involved somewhere, I just hope we're learning to do it the right way.

[Merryprankster]

Rogue,

Mylroie's problem is that she's an old cold warrior, not to mention fixated. The Cold War was about as "realist" as you can get, from the political model perspective. It was state on state action. State centric and national power focused.

She's fixated on Hussein. She has blamed him for the OK city bombings, Kenya and Tanzania, as well as WTC one and she keeps trying to make WTC two connections.

A very popular conventional wisdom amongst terrorism analysts for a long time is that no international terrorist group could function without state support. It was too hard, too expensive and the barriers too great.

Seeing the realism bent here? That's old thinking and in today's world it gets you killed. One of the major impacts of globalization has been the "pluralization of power" in that individuals and organizations can attain power previously only attainable by states. Obtaining bomb-making materials, for instance, is fantastically simple. Bill Gates has more money than many countries which are quite capable of obtaining arms. Indonesians conduct credit card fraud in the United States. Colombians export heroin to Europe, and Russian arms dealers provide weapons in return. Crime and violence on a massive scale can be accomplished by one individual, or a concerted group...and they hide out and prosper in the seams of the international system.

So, you don't need a state sponsor any more. Laurie Mylroie won't give that idea up. She subordinates UBL and AQ to Hussein, claiming that UBL provides the ideology and the recruits, while Saddam directs the actions. It's quite implausible and overwhelmed by other evidence.

UBL and AQ are diametrically opposed to Saddam and the Baathist philosophy. The idea that they would be in cahootz is somewhat odd, from an ideological perspective. You might argue a mutually beneficial connection of some kind, but I can think of nothing. AQ had plenty of money and arms coming in from illicit activities around the world so they didn't need state support. Since AQ doesn't need Hussein, how does Hussein call the shots? You'll note in her testimony she's focused entirely on possible state sponsors for Ramzi Yousef.

She also makes some pretty spurious statements that reveal a fairly unsophisticated understanding of Islamic Terrorism. For instance, she claims that it's clear that Yousef wasn't/isn't an Islamic Fundamentalist because he partook of nightlife and had a Filipina girlfriend during his time in Manila. She claims that the fact he entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport suggests he was Iraqi.

If there are two things we know about AQ it's this.

1. They are exceptionally good at false documentation, fake or fraudulent.

2. They condone "going native" because it hides their true intentions.

Ahmed Ressam, (Millenium Bombing Plot, LAX), for instance was quite the nightclub guy. AQ training documents suggest engaging in normal activities, shaving their beards, etc. There's a host of other stuff that you could go point by point, but my personal opinion is that she's got some sort of paranoia about Hussein.

Maybe Saddam did something to her family. I don't know. But I've seen nothing that convinces me he was behind any of this.

Anyway, I think her problem is her refusal to believe that international organizations can be self-sustaining and require a state sponsor. That's going to shape a lot of your assumptions and cause you to discount contrary evidence. I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who works in the field that takes this seriously.


While we were responsible for some of the troubles South O the Border we did clean up some of the mess too.

Very little. We aren't very good at this nation building stuff historically. What we have usually done is provide training, arms and aid to corrupt institutions. That has little impact on the nation as a whole. I would argue that the majority of the success stories in LATAM are mostly of their own doing... FWIW, the CAFTA agreement is being considered in Congress this April. I hope it passes.


We'll always get involved somewhere, I just hope we're learning to do it the right way.

That'd be nice. But as long as the standard is moral perfection, nobody is going to meet it....not even the beloved UN - first the oil for food scandal and now all the rapes and prostitution networks in the DRC.

My point being that power is resented by people who don't have it for two reasons:

1. They don't have it.

2. They consistently overestimate its ability to solve problems and become seriously disillusioned when it can't fix everything. Hostility soon follows.


Has anybody besides me appreciated the irony that "the left," which was the first to scream that the U.S. needed the UN to legitimately exercise its power is also the first to scream the Iraqi elections are illegitimate, even though the UN was involved in their setup and conduct and declared them valid?

Is the UN the final arbiter of international legitimacy or not? Make up your **** minds! OR, is it only right when it conveniently coincides with your point of view? That's something lots of people are guilty of....

Re: Bodansky, I've heard of him and based on the journals he's published in, I've probably read some of his stuff. Can't say I've made a concerted study though.

[rogue]

Thanks MP for filling me on Mylroie. I read a Bodansky book on UBL before 9/11 that was pretty good.

How about state enabled terrorism? Even if states aren't sponsoring it they could be turning a blind eye to what's happening on their soil or who and what is passing through their ports. Or am I just about ready to join KL in sporting a tin foil hat?

[Merryprankster]

How about state enabled terrorism? Even if states aren't sponsoring it they could be turning a blind eye to what's happening on their soil or who and what is passing through their ports. Or am I just about ready to join KL in sporting a tin foil hat?

Oh no. State apathy is very much a problem.

Check out this.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/terroristwithin/chapter2.html

Ahmed Ressam, the Millenium Bomber, was hauled in front of a Canadian Judge twice. Even though he'd skipped out on immigration hearings at least once, and been arrested for crimes twice, he was given fines and probation - never mind that he violated his probation the second time...


Canada's not just guilty of it. To some extent, we were/are too.

I also don't want to overblow terrorism as a problem. However, if I have to rank order threats to the U.S., I put terrorism above China. Of course, I also roll my eyes any time anybody says China is a threat.

If you look at it strictly from a balance of power issue, than China might be a threat. But then, so is the EU from that perspective... Hmmmm...

Is a liberalizing nation bent on increased income that desperately wants to join the global marketplace really a threat?

The biggest threat IMO is failed and failing states. That requires an entirely different sort of security apparatus and approach than the one we've got going now. And that threat isn't just to the U.S.... it's basically to any non-failed state.

As for KL's tin foil hat, I don't think he's a conspiracy nut. He just doesn't bother to do his homework. Working from a different set of assumptions, you can take the same facts and analyses that I look at and come up with a different argument. But he doesn't because he doesn't actually know anything about this stuff.

For instance, I am not a gloom and doomer. I'm a classic liberal internationalist. I think that free markets and internationalism will eventually pry open even the darkest places. I think that it's not a question of the "West vs. the rest," which phrases the issue of globalization in terms of cultural war (See AQ), but the "Best vs. the rest."

In order to join the global marketplace and reap the benefits thereof, you must have transparency and the rule of law, because Foreign Direct Investment doesn't arrive without stability and openness. This is EXTREMELY threatening to places missing some element of this because it exposes a kleptocracy for what it is. Transparency and the rule of law are not "western" or "U.S." or any other culture. Islamic Banking has seen great strides in both, with a uniquely Islamic bent - consequently, there is improved functionality and investment. Shocking.

People used to ask "Am I better off than I was?" And if that was the case, they were pretty much satisfied. But now, people can watch TV, go on the internet, etc. The question has become "Am I as well off as I should be?" If the answer continues to be no, then you're going to see a push to join the international marketplace, even if it requires revolution.

A neo-marxist counter argument to this is that the global system will last only as long as you have people around the world that the international "haves" can exploit to perform the labor necessary to sustain the system, ie developing nations. Once that disappears, ironically through rising quality of life worldwide, and these places become educated, they will understand their exploitation and revolt. So the international capitalist model didn't stop the proletariat revolution, it only delayed it.

Or, you could take the same set of facts and argue that cultural and ethnic identities are so strong that without the curbing effect of Cold War style realism, the world will erupt into continuous low intensity conflict that will severely inhibit, stop or even reverse liberal internationalism. The global marketplace, with its multilayered networks, creates pockets of culturally distinct "tribes," around the world. That is, assimilation is no longer a requirement when you reach a new nation, because by tapping in to the modern networks, you can maintain a much stronger sense of your "traditional" ethnicity, complete with ideology, values, etc. So you've got global tribes and if a few of them behave in a reactionary way to change, what happens in Ramallah can have direct consequences in Vancouver. The global tribe identity trumps geographic location and immediate cultural surroundings.

So there are lots of valid counter arguments, looking at the same evidence. But it requires actually knowing something, or at least being curious.

[rogue]

That is, assimilation is no longer a requirement when you reach a new nation, because by tapping in to the modern networks, you can maintain a much stronger sense of your "traditional" ethnicity, complete with ideology, values, etc. So you've got global tribes and if a few of them behave in a reactionary way to change, what happens in Ramallah can have direct consequences in Vancouver. The global tribe identity trumps geographic location and immediate cultural surroundings. Now I find that is interesting. My next door neighbor who was from Pakistan would always tell me how distressed he was about the Americanizing (my made up word) of his daughters. Even though he owned a home here, made good money here he never fully assimilated. His solution was to take his family to live in Saudi Arabia where he started to turn very fundamentalists much to his wifes distress. But if he has an online support group, much like many of us do, why move? So I can see the global tribe situation happening. Thansk for the link, I'm going to have to sit down and read the Seattle Times story tonight.


Once that disappears, ironically through rising quality of life worldwide, and these places become educated, they will understand their exploitation and revolt. I've seen some of this with Indian programmers. We've noticed that where $25 an hour bought a high level programmer a couple of years ago the same $25 only gets you an entry level person now. The cost of the off shore high level programmer is now high enough that he's eating into all the savings we were supposed to see by off shoring. The revolution in this case is happening but not with violence.

[Merryprankster]

But if he has an online support group, much like many of us do, why move?

Yup.

Re: The Indian thing, the neo-marxist position is that eventually India will move into the exploiter vice exploited category...then the "labor" market moves to somewhere like Ghana or something.

Eventually, you run out of third-world places.

[rogue]

But how do we keep the clash of cultures caused by lack of assimilation of some groups from getting out of hand? I'm not even thinking about the majority of people but more of the bad blood that some have of been carrying for decades.


Eventually, you run out of third-world places.But what if the first world business realize this and create permanant third world countries? Nah, that would never happen.
Now where is that roll of tin foil. :D

[David Jamieson]

But what if the first world business realize this and create permanant third world countries? Nah, that would never happen.

dude...

[Merryprankster]

But how do we keep the clash of cultures caused by lack of assimilation of some groups from getting out of hand? I'm not even thinking about the majority of people but more of the bad blood that some have of been carrying for decades.

While you will never totally eliminate it, when things are good, it's harder to point at the neighbor that is unlike yourself and go "This is why I have no work, bad food, sick children." Rising tide raises all ships, etc (some more than others, but such is the nature of society...even socialist ones.)




But what if the first world business realize this and create permanant third world countries? Nah, that would never happen.

Now that IS the tinfoil hat talking. How are you going to do this? Who takes the cut? Using the labor pool of a country requires investment of some sort, be it pay, infrastructure, etc. It's actually a form of rentier state...and those are increasingly difficult to maintain precisely because of social globalization. What do you do....ban private ownership of laptops? No internet? You certainly can't control THAT thing - not well anyway. Even if you tried to say it's already happening, the fact is simple - there are tribal villages in the middle of Africa that are part of the global network. There are cell phones in the poorest places on earth. Are the purveyors of such goods and services going to keep quiet as you limit their market? Paying them off will be very expensive, never mind their expatriates...

Better communication makes it harder, not easier to control the population. You could conceive of total centralized control, but as we are well aware, that is not how this has developed. It's been very decentralized, very ad hoc. What is so critical that the internet would cease to function if it stopped working? Or cell phones? The cat is out of the bag. A 1984 type scenario would require putting the cat back in. That's always proved a problem. They scratch and bite.

[LeeCasebolt]

This is vastly more interesting when there're actual facts being presented and analyzed. Thanks, MP.

Now, define "fungible" for me.

[rogue]

Now that IS the tinfoil hat talking. I was just trying to make KL feel at home.;)


Rising tide raises all ships, etc (some more than others, but such is the nature of society...even socialist ones.) But that also means the possibility of bad things happening when the tide goes out. Unless there is enough time and the offspring have better things to do than dig up old scores that may need settling.


Better communication makes it harder, not easier to control the population. True.

[FuXnDajenariht]

owning a cellphone doesn't make you part of the global community... whos taking your call? :p

please ignore the bulldozers... look! ringtones!

[David Jamieson]

Merry's "facts" are apparently partial in factuality and rich in the american punditry opinions that influence a lot of his statements on how things are.

Truth is, in my eyes, that American human intelligence into these organizations is clearly weak and all the info on UBL, ALQ etc is supposition, lucky guessing and in some cases educated guessing.

If the information was solid, UBL wouldn't be free and there wouldn't have been the issue of WMD suspicion in Iraq.

While what Merry says overall has some merit, there is egrigious stuff woven in there to fit his opinion.

That's cool, for Merry I guess and I guess a few of you others, but it doesn't strengthen a position on the point that one can correlate pretty much anything to anything else and make the criminal organizations of america on the same level as terrorist organizations that are global and in the US as well (to some extent? Dude, all those 911 highjackers got on tehir planes in america and some of em apparently lived there for a while etc etc. This is by definition harbouring them and clearly indicative of yet more poor human intelligence) or those who pick up arms for a cause that is ethical or moralistic in their eyes.

[LeeCasebolt]

Merry's "facts" are apparently partial in factuality and rich in the american punditry opinions that influence a lot of his statements on how things are.

Please cite your sources.

[David Jamieson]

Just read the thread Lee.

[Merryprankster]

Lee,

Fungible is the idea that something is interchangeable with another thing. Oil is not fungible in that Iraqi crude is not the same as Iranian crude is not the same as Venezuelan or North Sea crude.

So when people talk about "oil" they usually are talking about the entire market, without understanding that you can't just move one type of crude to another place and get the same results. You have to tool a refinery to crude with certain characteristics.



Please cite your sources.

He doesn't have any. Remember, citing sources is a waste of time. If I direct you to an article or author that provides either facts or analysis, that's "boring." There were a couple of other adjectives he used. I don't recall them offhand.

The funniest thing, I think, is that most of the people I read are NOT American. That's what happens when you get into a subject. God forbid. Must chap your ass KL. If you don't like my analysis, by all means, refute it with more than "You're wrong."

And like I said, it's not like my analysis is correct. Perhaps the neo-marxists have got it right after all.

However, consider this; the world GDP was roughly 53 Trillion dollars last year. Merchant shipping traffic volume was something like 6 billion tons. 16 million containers entered the United States alone. $2.5 trillion in fund transfers are conducted by JPMorgan-Chase conglomerate every day. That's just one bank! 1.25 million people, roughly, work in the international maritime community. Fewer than 1% are U.S. citizens.

Yet.... many people think that a few people or interests control this animal called globalization. The United States doesn't even have the reserves to prop up its currency if the international market starts speculating against it. There's too much money flying around - what is a few hundred million in the Federal Reserve going to do vs. the trillions daily?

Testimony on the hill says we only inspect around 2% of the containers entering the United States. The U.S. owns only a few hundred thousand tons of shipping. 20% of seamen worldwide hail from the Phillipine Islands. Many of the remaining are from former Soviet Bloc countries

Each year, roughly 300,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States. 500 to 600,000 enter the EU nations. Some 170 million people are migrants, permanent residents in places other than that in which they were born. Many of these migrants provide remittances to their home country which are the single largest source of foreign capital flow into their country.

During the 12 day west coast port lockout of 2002, the U.S. economy lost approximately 1 billion dollar per day and that was just during those 12 days. Nobody has been able to calculate the economic loss afterwards...but the backlog of shipping didn't end until 7 weeks later.

Estimates of economic impact from that slowdown suggest that it cost developing South Asian economies around .8% of their yearly GDP. Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Indonesia estimate losses between 1.2% and 1.6% of their yearly GDP...from a 12 day lockout.

Who controls what? Does that system look like something that is well-regulated? Does it look like something that states have a handle on in terms of understanding or controlling it? I think the sheer size of the **** thing suggests that while some states might have more clout than others, the idea that something or someone is "controlling" it or "using" it is difficult to swallow.

Internationalism, globalism, is pluralizing the world. Notice the reaction from the right here in the United States to the idea that we have to change our regulations to meet international criteria. It's not just the trade stuff, it's what it means - we don't have control. States are no longer the sole power brokers and in many respects are at the mercy of the international system. Regional economic communities (Common markets, Free Trade communities, etc) and international regulating bodies have exploded over the past 10 years because it increases collective bargaining power. It's the statist version of unionization...and it works. Note the EU.

Oh, BTW, the Shiites won. Since they have many factions not too keen on the U.S. and since Alawi was the hand-picked U.S. guy, you'd think the illegitimate elections would have had a victory for Alawi.

Oh... wait... the UN said they were legitimate AND the Shiites won.



But hey, don't take my word for any of this. KL has his take on things, I'm sure with corrorborating data. Research he can point you too, etc.

[rogue]

Oh... wait... the UN said they were legitimate AND the Shiites won. ****, John Kerry lost that election too? :(



It's the statist version of unionization...and it works. Note the EU. Not being the brightest crayon in the box, could you explain what you mean?:confused:

[Merryprankster]

The scope of the international system is enormous. The volume of activity means that no single actor has the power to change the system or reconstruct it. Contrast this with when Britannia ruled the waves. Britain's actions (or inaction) had an enormous effect on...well, pretty much everything.

However, states that join regional or international conglomerates are creating a single bargaining unit.

The EU is a great example. Individually, each of the EU nations is less of an actor within the international system. Collectively, they can more frequently get their way. I find it analogous to trade unionization. Not each state will maximize their own utility, but they can get more of what they want by joining up with their neighbors.

Not to mention the decreased cost of doing business across political borders within the regional economic unit!

[David Jamieson]

He doesn't have any.
whatever:rolleyes:



Remember, citing sources is a waste of time

I reiterate, whatever :rolleyes:


The funniest thing, I think, is that most of the people I read are NOT American. That's what happens when you get into a subject. God forbid. Must chap your ass KL. If you don't like my analysis, by all means, refute it with more than "You're wrong."


What chaps my ass is your quotes of convenient support as opposed to actual stuff. Or spinning something into what it isn't. Or drifting off topic in an attempt to obfuscate blunders, or even not expressing what you think and instead, cutting and pasting what others think and then conveniently backpeddaling on the erroneous points.


However, consider this; the world GDP was roughly 53 Trillion dollars last year.

*cough* you're wrong.

oh sorry, a source: http://www.wallstreetview.com/GDPRankings.html
hey it's even an american source! :p


And like I said, it's not like my analysis is correct.
no **** sherlock.


Perhaps the neo-marxists have got it right after all. What's that, some trendy nerd club at your uni?


$2.5 trillion in fund transfers are conducted by JPMorgan-Chase conglomerate every day. That's just one bank!

again, you are wrong, or rather exagerrating, you are refering to a record day. THe correct volumes are: (here's that source again and oh, it's JP Morgan themselves! )
http://www.jpmorgan.com/cm/cs?pagename=Templates/InfoCtrArticle/TSInfoArticle&cid=1074624110620&c=InfoCtrArticle


Yet.... many people think that a few people or interests control this animal called globalization.

Just for fun:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

and

http://www.genevabriefingbook.com/chapters/wto.pdf


There's too much money flying around - what is a few hundred million in the Federal Reserve going to do vs. the trillions daily?

First of all, "a lot" of that money is american and secondly the federal reserve is a hella lot more than a "few hundred million" here's the current record, seeing as you want the source:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/Current/


The U.S. owns only a few hundred thousand tons of shipping. Now does that statement make sense to you considering the amount of goods imported that the US has purchased and exported to other countries? This conflicts with the trade numbers and hardly seems plausible.


Each year, roughly 300,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States. This is the number that experts agree on.
http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigration_facts.html


20% of seamen worldwide hail from the Phillipine Islands. Many of the remaining are from former Soviet Bloc countries
sorry, but this seems as relevant as the phrase "pudding is good". What are you infering here?


During the 12 day west coast port lockout of 2002, the U.S. economy lost approximately 1 billion dollar per day and that was just during those 12 days. Nobody has been able to calculate the economic loss afterwards...but the backlog of shipping didn't end until 7 weeks later.

Estimates of economic impact from that slowdown suggest that it cost developing South Asian economies around .8% of their yearly GDP. Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Indonesia estimate losses between 1.2% and 1.6% of their yearly GDP...from a 12 day lockout.

Who controls what? Does that system look like something that is well-regulated? Does it look like something that states have a handle on in terms of understanding or controlling it? I think the sheer size of the **** thing suggests that while some states might have more clout than others, the idea that something or someone is "controlling" it or "using" it is difficult to swallow.


Didn't the PMA lockout the workers?
And isn't the PMA and the ILWU in cahoots?

http://www.nmsa.us/pma.htm
Looks like a US internal thing more than international meddling.


Internationalism, globalism, is pluralizing the world. Notice the reaction from the right here in the United States to the idea that we have to change our regulations to meet international criteria. It's not just the trade stuff, it's what it means - we don't have control. States are no longer the sole power brokers and in many respects are at the mercy of the international system. Regional economic communities (Common markets, Free Trade communities, etc) and international regulating bodies have exploded over the past 10 years because it increases collective bargaining power. It's the statist version of unionization...and it works. Note the EU.

It's looks more like when the rules you had your hand in writing turn against your favour it becomes convenient to knock the thing that you thought you would benefit from...and you do. Many participating Countries benefit. the EU is powerful economically speaking and moreso now than they would have been had they remained independent entities that couldn't compete alone in the larger market that is the world.


Oh, BTW, the Shiites won. Since they have many factions not too keen on the U.S. and since Alawi was the hand-picked U.S. guy, you'd think the illegitimate elections would have had a victory for Alawi.

Oh... wait... the UN said they were legitimate AND the Shiites won.


duh, they were the only ones that had open neighborhoods on election day. The task at hand is fixing the mess, if it can be done diplomatically with the aid of the UN, well then I'm for it and in fact, search my junk and you'll see that's been my position from teh start of that whole stink. eat it. :p


But hey, don't take my word for any of this. KL has his take on things, I'm sure with corrorborating data. Research he can point you too, etc. Same data, different take I guess, I dunno, most of these are source source kind of sources. You tell me.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by rogue

But what if the first world business realize this and create permanant third world countries? Nah, that would never happen.
Now where is that roll of tin foil. :D Leave France outta this.

[rogue]

Merry, you said that you don't see China as a threat. I think they may be but not directly to the US. I can't help but think that they may resort to gun boat business practices with India over oil.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I'm a classic liberal internationalist.

I don't think I've ever seen you describe your own views here.


I think that it's not a question of the "West vs. the rest," which phrases the issue of globalization in terms of cultural war (See AQ), but the "Best vs. the rest."

Except that, by and large, "the rest" want global liberalization -- in fact, they want it more than "the west" does. If there is a "vs." it must be the informal international union of classical liberals and developing countries vs. the informal international union of socialists and theocrats.


A neo-marxist counter argument to this is that the global system will last only as long as you have people around the world that the international "haves" can exploit to perform the labor necessary to sustain the system, ie developing nations.

Right, but this argument doesn't hold water. Firstly, the Marxists depend upon a contrived and inherently flawed definition of 'exploitation' which the exploited party himself does not accept -- it's exploitive in socialist thought to pay someone more than he currently makes if that pay is coming from another country. This is contrived as a disproof of classical liberalism, but is revealed to be a purely circular argument and refuted for that reason.

Secondly, their contextualization here hangs on the idiosyncracies of their two-class socioeconomic model, and falls under the three-class model of classical liberalism which makes generation of the middle class a goal and attributes value to an agent as their ability to wilfully exchange products of their labor, rather than their association to the means of production. In other words, you have to assume the socialist model to be accurate before their argument is found to be accurate, which again is purely circular.

(The failing of the classical Marxist determinist history have been historically proven at this point, I think.)


The global marketplace, with its multilayered networks, creates pockets of culturally distinct "tribes," around the world.

And this would be an immense challenge to an international socialist economy, but it plays directly into classical liberal thought of competitive advantage and so does not present that system with any fundamental problems.

[Merryprankster]

I don't think I've ever seen you describe your own views here.

On this stuff no. Nice of you to notice, unlike others who throw labels around without paying attention (that would be you, KL)



Except that, by and large, "the rest" want global liberalization -- in fact, they want it more than "the west" does. If there is a "vs." it must be the informal international union of classical liberals and developing countries vs. the informal international union of socialists and theocrats.

Sort of. More generally, I view it as "traditionalists," rather than socialists and theocrats. Globalization comes with cultural baggage, not intentionally but because network links have always transmitted cultures. Many are fearful of that. Singapore, for instance and Malaysia, while embracing economic globalism, have fought hard campaigns against cultural globalism by emphasizing "Asian values," whatever that means in each place.

Reactionaries vs. Progressives, really. Funny how the fight never changes....

And when I say "the best vs. the rest," I mean that in terms of systems. You can either have transparency and the rule of law coupled with free markets, or some other system. History has demonstrated that "some other system," doesn't generate as much wealth.

You will get no argument from me about the failings of Marxist determinism. I was merely suggesting that it is a possible counter argument. I've noticed their approach to history is similar to religion....if the prophesied event doesn't happen, you just keep finding reasons to push the date back.



And this would be an immense challenge to an international socialist economy, but it plays directly into classical liberal thought of competitive advantage and so does not present that system with any fundamental problems.

Not from an economic perspective, no. But from a security perspective, it creates real challenges, because a person who is a violent reactionary "traditionalist," who feels culturally threatened by globalization can use the system and the tribal pockets it creates around the world to build networks that support or conduct violence.


Merry, you said that you don't see China as a threat. I think they may be but not directly to the US. I can't help but think that they may resort to gun boat business practices with India over oil.

Interesting thought. I haven't really looked at the issue. I can tell you that India recently conducted naval exercises in the Gulf an the Indian Ocean. It's like their version of the Great White Fleet. They are serving notice they have arrived as a regional power. China doesn't really have that yet... but we'll see....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
More generally, I view it as "traditionalists," rather than socialists and theocrats.

I think that has some value over my formulation, in including the mercantilist-statist faction, but perhaps also some loss, as it may falsely exclude Trotskyite international socialism. On the other hand, by ignoring post-Marxist innovations in socioeconomic theory, maybe they are a kind of traditionalist.


Globalization comes with cultural baggage, not intentionally but because network links have always transmitted cultures. Many are fearful of that.

For sure, but I think this is an accidental rather than essential problem -- there's no reason why globalization has to come with this cultural baggage.


But from a security perspective, it creates real challenges, because a person who is a violent reactionary "traditionalist," who feels culturally threatened by globalization can use the system and the tribal pockets it creates around the world to build networks that support or conduct violence.

Whereas in a non-globalized world, the reactionary's impact is limited to their geographically-isolated milieu? That's an interesting point I'll have to think more about.

One general thought I have: I feel sometimes that economic and cultural globalization are not only distinct, but in a certain sense opposed. Under economic globalization (international [classical] liberalism), there is less motivation for large-scale e/immigration, firstly because the principles of competitive advantage work constructively with distinct and isolated sociocultural bodies, and secondly because the divide between first- and third-worlds is decreased. If this is the case, such economic globalization may in face decrease the international "tribal pockets" you mention. (I'm not sure if I actually buy this argument; it's something I entertain.)

[Merryprankster]

For sure, but I think this is an accidental rather than essential problem -- there's no reason why globalization has to come with this cultural baggage.

YES! However, with one caveat from my POV. While it is not essential to the economic globalization process, it is an inevitable by product. You simply cannot conduct trade without some cross-cultural contamination. The question is not if, in my mind, but to what extent. And that scares a lot of traditionalists.


Whereas in a non-globalized world, the reactionary's impact is limited to their geographically-isolated milieu? That's an interesting point I'll have to think more about.

Yes. Friedman's super-empowered angry individual.



Under economic globalization (international [classical] liberalism), there is less motivation for large-scale e/immigration, firstly because the principles of competitive advantage work constructively with distinct and isolated sociocultural bodies, and secondly because the divide between first- and third-worlds is decreased.

You're referring to a mature global, liberal system. And there will be less incentive for such mass immigration - on the other hand, a common global labor market (which a mature system would have) makes such a concept/distinction meaningless.

However, in a nascent global, liberal system, such as we have now, there is plenty of incentive, thus the potential for security issues...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
You're referring to a mature global, liberal system.

Yeah, my thinking leans towards the idealistic alot of the time. This counter-argument, at least, is an accurate response. I would make this part of a more general point: [classical] liberalization, I think, almost always comes with problems over the short-term. This is one of the fundamental points inhibiting its development, particularly given the short-term cycles of modern democracies. To advocate [classical] liberalism, you not only need to really care about people in other countries (really as in caring for them as opposed to caring for the moral indignation they permit you), you also have to be willing to pay a short-term cost to attain a long-term benefit. For example, I think it's well demonstrated that protectionism offers some short-term benefits to the local economy. (This is why we need statesmen rather than mere politicians.)


While it is not essential to the economic globalization process, it is an inevitable by product. You simply cannot conduct trade without some cross-cultural contamination.

Don't you think it is possible to instill cultural values which, for example, recognize the distinction between culture and economics I've alluded to, or other such developments which allow intercultural (eg. trade) encounters to be approached constructively rather than as a threat? I'd have to think more about specifics here, but it strikes me that the opposite certainly goes on: there's certainly a large pancultural movement drilling it into people's heads that trade is inherently oppressive, etc..

[Merryprankster]

Don't you think it is possible to instill cultural values which, for example, recognize the distinction between culture and economics I've alluded to, or other such developments which allow intercultural (eg. trade) encounters to be approached constructively rather than as a threat?

Yes you can, but this requires that both cultures have tolerance/cultural respect as part of their value system. That is not always going to be the case.

The perception IS the reality in this case. It doesn't matter if , for instance, the encounter is constructive in reality, mutually beneficial and non-exploitative, both economically and culturally. If one side, or a significant portion of one side perceives it as a threat, you've got problems. Hopefully not permanent, but problems nonetheless.




To advocate [classical] liberalism, you not only need to really care about people in other countries (really as in caring for them as opposed to caring for the moral indignation they permit you), you also have to be willing to pay a short-term cost to attain a long-term benefit. For example, I think it's well demonstrated that protectionism offers some short-term benefits to the local economy. (This is why we need statesmen rather than mere politicians.)

It's funny you should mention this. In my most recent seminar paper I argued that U.S. hard power should be used to secure short term gains as necessary, but was inappropriate to secure long term solutions. Similarly, U.S. soft power must persue long term gains even if it means making political enemies out of political allies in the short term. Put simply, our use of power should be in pursuit of the liberal internationalist system, because THAT is what fuels our interests and security.

Question for you....does the international system function better when there is a hegemon to maintain it? Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, etc....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
The perception IS the reality in this case.

So we have a moral obligation to spread the good news to affect perception? :D


does the international system function better when there is a hegemon to maintain it?

I see the connection implicit here between this point and your remarks about soft and hard power, long and short-term goals. You've hit, on purpose I'm sure, what I think is the most difficult question.

By nature, I lean towards isolationism regarding explicit projection of power. I'm comfortable making exceptions in the case of moral/humanitarian causes. But even this is a significantly nuanced point -- would opposing Stalinist economic policy count as a humanitarian cause? Would opposing dictatorship count as a humanitarian cause? Reasonable arguments can be made, at least, for answers in the positive.

In this case, although the reasoning behind projection of explicit power is different than that of creating a hegemon, the outcome may be comparable.

As with any centralized power structure, I'm dubious of any Pax X maintaining a [classical] liberal ideology, given the subversive nature of statist-mercantilist ideology. I'm certainly dubious of 'Americana' on this account.

On the other hand, I'm dubious of this very perspective of mine as being nothing more than 'Hegemon is OK so long as it's the kind of hegemon I endorse,' which was precisely the problematic attitude to begin with.

Yet on the other hand I wonder if [classical] liberalism, that is -- of freedom, counts as an ideology in the same way the variety of non-free ideologies do.

So... does the international system function better when there is a hegemon to maintain it? In theory, I suppose -- no. In practice, I suppose -- it may be necessary to create the international system. Yet on the other hand, in practice, it may be precisely the thing that inevitably develops away from the desired international system. In short, I don't know, and this is a very difficult problem.

[Merryprankster]

The only reason I bring it up is because it's one of the theories being bandied about now in different guises.

Neo-Conservatism and Bennett's idea the the U.S. should shift to a role of "system management," are really just new terms for the old hegemonic system theory.



So we have a moral obligation to spread the good news to affect perception?

Provided it meets the important criteria of being true :D


W/regards to use of power, it's sticky. If we don't who will? If they do, is that desirable? I contend we are weaker now than at any point since Vietnam. Iraqi insurgents have demonstrated you can fight and mire down the U.S. armed forces. The reputation of power is far greater leverage than power itself. Why? Because actually exercising power is messy, complicated and inherently limited - it reveals what the actor can and cannot do.


As with any centralized power structure, I'm dubious of any Pax X maintaining a [classical] liberal ideology, given the subversive nature of statist-mercantilist ideology. I'm certainly dubious of 'Americana' on this account.

I have to say I think this is unfounded...or perhaps simply unnecessarily cynical. The United States has included free trade as a principle in its National Security Strategy reports since at least 1991...and I really don't think this means free trade for some, but not for you.

I've got more on this, but it's Valentine's day and I must go hang with my wife.

Cheers!

[Christopher M]

Well, I am a cynic, so that makes sense. This is more of a concern than an argument; although that's not to say I agree it's completely unfounded. Thinking about this issue, I find it difficult to accurately quantify: I could mention the steel tariffs, softwood tariffs, and rejection of Doha at Cancun as examples of capricious protectionism, but I don't know of any academic studies that put them into perspective (I'm sure there are some, but this isn't my field). On the other hand, I could turn to the academic studies I know, but I don't think they account for that kind of selective capriciousness very well. Well, I did that anyway, and here (http://gnosia.tripod.com/ef/ef.html) is what I found. Hardly a worker's paradise, but not the leading light of liberalism either:

For example, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Germany, Ireland, and France have both less tax on international trade and fewer regulatory trade barriers recently. Canada and Japan have less tax on international trade.

[Merryprankster]

Interesting graphs.

On the other hand, this compares some of the most dedicated free traders in the world, excepting China.

That's a bit like comparing the finish times for the top 10 100m sprinters in the world - not really much of a difference and still way out ahead of everybody else.

Also, the rate of taxation is higher in many of those places, so it all balances out, when you think on it.

Hey Chris, I don't generally bother to un-ignore KL. Was he confusing facts and analyses again? Re: "my facts are 'half-truths?' I don't recall ever claiming the analyses were by necessity correct, but the facts are pretty much indisputable. (until the next draft of history) :D

[Merryprankster]

TORONTO - Nineteen foreign students arrested by a federal anti-terrorism task force two weeks ago have possible connections to al-Qaeda and may have been scouting the CN Tower, law courts and other buildings, officials say.

Canadian authorities claimed, in documents disclosed yesterday, that police raids had turned up material suggesting the men, 18 Pakistanis and an Indian, sought information about the size and operation of Canadian landmarks.

Officials also said there had been repeated fires in the apartments inhabited by group, suggesting "that these persons may have been involved in testing explosives or making explosives in the kitchen."

The dozens of pages of documents released by the Immigration and Refugee Board elaborate on allegations that have raised fears an Islamic terrorist "network" based in Toronto was plotting attacks in Canada and the United States.

I believe this came off the wires in 2003. But, not to worry....it's a POLITICAL conflict with AQ, remember? So Canada has nothing to fear.


Oh yeah... and you remember Ahmed Ressam, the Millennium Bomber?

MONTREAL — By the summer of 1996, his third in Canada, Ahmed Ressam had built a circle of friends.

Most were disaffected young men, Algerians who spent their days playing soccer, smoking cigarettes and decrying the corrupt culture of their new country while simultaneously exploiting its generous immigration and welfare laws.



Hmmm....

And a plan to explode a bomb in Outremont (admittedly directed at the Jews, but....)

[rogue]

Those terrorists, umm I mean freedom fighters, don't count!:D

Remember KL: All is well, serenity now!

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Interesting graphs.

I was surprised to see France do so well on the trade issues, and I expected better of New Zealand and Ireland.


On the other hand, this compares some of the most dedicated free traders in the world, excepting China.

Well I arbitrarily picked what countries to graph based on what seemed pertinent. But yeah... keep in mind I'm a cynic and an idealist. :p


Also, the rate of taxation is higher in many of those places, so it all balances out, when you think on it.

There are alot of other measures in the report, including stuff on taxes, which I didn't include. The Cato Institute publishes one too, but I prefer this one.


Was he confusing facts and analyses again? Re: "my facts are 'half-truths?'

I didn't really pay much attention; my general feeling is that there's not a coherent enough argument there to even accuse it of any particular error.

... discussing the issue of a Pax X and global liberalization today, someone made the same point I think you alluded to, that liberalization needed more than free trade, but also stability (due to the importance of investment), which more heavily weighs in the favor of a Pax X. My thought was that we need someone to "pull an Ataturk" (my expression!) on the global scale. There's (we agreed in discussion) a serious catch-22 of requiring the power-base to establish the liberalization, while on the other hand, such a power-base is inherently self-reinforcing in a way which jeopardizes liberalization ('pendulum of history').

[Merryprankster]

a power-base is inherently self-reinforcing in a way which jeopardizes liberalization ('pendulum of history').

Unless the power-base is built on liberalization!

Network theory states that network nodes have power the larger and "thicker," the network. That is, a telephone on its own is useless, but becomes valuable when lots of other people have them.

Similarly, the position of the United States is stronger relatively, the larger and stronger globalization becomes (absent the advent of a node comparable in impact...and even then, the absolute strength still rises....)

I think the political strategists in both main U.S. parties recognize that free trade is quite desirable for this reason. The real factor here is guys who are losing jobs in sectors the U.S. simply isn't competitive in any more. They'll scream for protection. That's going to impact policy.

I have to admit, I was surprised about France too. Maybe the EU had some influence on that. I'd like to see a comparison that eliminated free trade within the context of the EU. That is, France's numbers might be skewed because of the Economic Union - low to no barriers inside the EU, high outside?

In general though, I think you will see continued movement towards increased global liberalization, with the U.S. supporting that.