News of the day

The left claim extremism is a recent phenomena but Jihadist attacks are notably on the up because A. there are more Islamists living in Europe and B. propaganda is more easily accessed thanks to the internet being more readily available.

^ Yeah maybe, but as I alluded to, that assumes they would not be attacking if we had never subverted, toppled, vacuumed or segregated them.   But that may not be true.

As far as the drought thing, yes I believe life in the desert is no picnic and does contribute to problems.   In the words of a great fictional president on why the Middle East is so unstable; "It's very hot and there's no water" .

About radical Islam, back in the 18th century, when Ahmad Shah Abdali was going to war with the Marathas, he invoked jihad to compel the Maratha ally Sujad Ad Daula to fight for him. So invoking jihad for dubious and dangerous purposes is as old as Islam itself. In the long run, Islam must be reformed and Muslims must disown its radical strains. In the short run, IS must be crushed. A few strikes on Saudi wouldn't hurt...seriously. This is war and as undesirable as war is, pretending that it's not a war and just a bunch of fundamentalist loonies will not help matters at all. The present situation could have been avoided had US establishment not believed that ISIS is just Al Qaeda Junior and nothing to worry about. They should have been crushed when they tried to establish their caliphate in Iraq. But US was so busy squabbling with Russia over Assad that they lost sight of the bigger enemy.

Matthew _Gill wrote: The left claim extremism is a recent phenomena but Jihadist attacks are notably on the up because A. there are more Islamists living in Europe and B. propaganda is more easily accessed thanks to the internet being more readily available.

rogerthat wrote: Matthew _Gill wrote: The left claim extremism is a recent phenomena but Jihadist attacks are notably on the up because A. there are more Islamists living in Europe and B. propaganda is more easily accessed thanks to the internet being more readily available. There's another reason. With the oil slump, Saudi is in trouble. Hence they may likely be running out of funding for IS. So IS is using desperate tactics to attract recruits and targeting major European cities is an effective way to advertise their 'importance'.

Maybe, although as a terrorist organisation attacking enemy targets in the way they do doesn't really equate to 'desperate' tactics. It's simply what they do.

With regard to Saudi, I agree they fund ISIS although officially private interests fund them, not the government or royal family through oil revenues, but if oil slumps too far that will obviously impact on all economic interests there, and as Saudi's biggest oil customers the US and EU are indirectly funding the terrorists attacking them. A f***ed up world, I would say.

I found this an interesting read...

I’ve just read that article and I have problems regarding it on several levels, even if it is (or perhaps, because?) it’s penned by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I have a great respect for several members of the Kennedy family, but let’s not forget: they are politicians, and therefore, by my (admittedly) own definition, highly untrustworthy.

I don’t doubt that the CIA and the US have been playing a nasty role in the Middle Eastern area for a very long time, but then my doubts about the validity of the article begin.

First, I doubt it’s possible that the power of the CIA is so all-encompassing as to be able to incite coups and rebellions in the area by the dozens at just the mere snap of the fingers, as the article seems to suggest. I mean, what almighty and omniscient power do they hold over an area that is unbelievably rich in its own right anyway? Let's not forget that during the 50's, 60's, and 70's, the timeframe of the article's main viewpoint, they were already immensely prosperous.

Secondly, I fail to follow the logic. If the CIA had to stage those myriad coups to make the area outwardly US friendly and thereby securing the US as fuel trade partners, then surely they can’t have been US friendly to begin with. Yet, if that then is the natural attitude towards the US in the Middle East, how can the author say that US hostility was caused by CIA meddling? By his own account, it was like that anyway. It’s false logic. Or does he mean they became even more anti-American?

Third, and most importantly: where is the evidence? Where is the proof, where are the sources and the reliable witnesses to these statements? Paid off? Assassinated? Executed? Living in witness protection somewhere? It’s all allegations.

I know that immoral and despicable measures were taken by the CIA to ensure that the US would be supplied with oil, and if the author had made that point, I could have overlooked my other doubts, but as he uses his false logic to put the blame for the Middle East’s current attitude solely and squarely at the CIA’s door, that is just plain wrong, which he unwittingly goes on to prove in his own article, starting pretty much at the very beginning of it.

I think I see what the author is trying to do here: make the reader see another angle or shake false impressions conveyed by the US media, which is very admirable, but at the same time he seems to overstep the mark, thereby placing his efforts in a highly dubious light.

It's a shame. The article could have been insightful.

In lighter news, life imitates art down under.

awesome... I am all about fashion. Men's and especially women's...

let's see what you have there....

BlueScar wrote: Found here some news about fashion trends for men in 2016  Interesting hairstyles, look beautiful but I'm a bit cinfused about the name of this style