Offer up Blair & Bush

Deer

I was wondering the other night after a few too many JD & Cokes (doubles) that if we offered up both George Bush and Tony Blair to the extremists to do what they wanted to with them - would they leave us alone? Could we have a world wide debate to see if such a thing could be done and leave the UN out of it?

I think it would be totally worth it either way... anyone else share my feelings?

seamus

No they wouldn't. Eastern extremism is borne out of a few things, and hartred of Bush and Blair is waaay down the list. If we offered up anyone as a "sacrifice", it would only strengthen their resolve to continue attacking.

The core of the extremist ideology is, surprise surprise, world domination. They want everyone in the world to listen to them, follow their rules, and do as they say. That's not say however, that we should be terrified and just bomb the **** out of them till they all go away. Extremists gather support through oppressed or threatened masses. If the Islamic states were largely left to their own devices and even dealt with on a basis of equality (as opposed to "give us your stuff for cheap or we'll blow the **** out of you"), then there would be far less support for extremist movements against the west.

I'm touching on it in a simplistic way, but that's the core of it.

aidan_walsh

I think its an idiotic notion that only underlines how little an understanding of the situation you have. I'll leave it to others to suggest what you are for even considering it, let alone putting it out for public opinion.

projectmayhem

as seamus said, they don't care about bush and blair.. that's not their agenda. in fact, the extremists know more then the rest of us that bush and blair are just the faces of many people working in back rooms in the white house and #10...

what the extremists want is, again like seamus said, world domination. they don't care about individuals, they want us all to follow their law and their rules

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Deer

First of all Aidan_walsh thank you for your extremely helpful reply.


I suppose my post was a bit glib to start with. I will admit however that I have an extremely limited knowledge of the situation since I rarely watch tv or keep up with current affairs so I suppose I am looking at the whole situation rather to simplistically. I have however just come back from an arabic country and found that the attitude of the NORMAL MAN ON THE STREET was that Bush and Blair were people that in general they wouldn't mind having a go off for want of a better term. Why is this?

In response to Seamus, daveirl and projectmayhem - what do you feel is the chief thing that feeds the extremists? Is it the east/west economic divide? religious? How do you feel it started?

aidan_walsh

You're welcome.

WhiteWashMan

if you want a serious answer id suggest either trying the islamic or muslim or whatever forum is appliacable these days or the politics forum.

the best answer you will get here will probably be that my dogs breath smells of cat food.

which is a good trick since my dog is dead.


and to answer your question, i dont think it would change anything. bush and blair are only figure heads.

Terry

offer them up anyway. it might be fun to watch.

Hobbes

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if you want a serious answer id suggest either trying the islamic or muslim or whatever forum is appliacable these days or the politics forum.

Politics or Humanities forum. Unless you have a serious question about the religon itself don't post these kinds of threads in the Islam forum, they will be moved/binned and you risk being banned.

thanks.

seamus

Deer wrote:

In response to Seamus, daveirl and projectmayhem - what do you feel is the chief thing that feeds the extremists? Is it the east/west economic divide? religious? How do you feel it started?

It's a little bit of everything. The guys at the heart of the extremists are simultaneously religious zealots and megalomaniacs. They have personal desires for power (they're human after all), and religous delusions of righteousness. Outside of that inner core, is a hardcore of religious fanatics, largely brainwashed by the guys of the inner core into fighting the pure religious fight. These are the really crazy ones - the suicide bombers and the throat-slitters. The outer shell of the extremist faction is largely made up of the oppressed and the impoverished. They're angry and need someone to blame. The extremist group can offer the reasons for their poor state of life, a particular peoples to blame it on, and the means to exact revenge.

This applies to any such group, and not just Islamic militants. Look at the IRA - in the last 20 years since Ireland has become more affluent, and Northern Ireland's people have begun to heal the wounds, the support for the IRA has dissolved so quickly. Widespread support in the Republic is all but gone (it's a social stigma now).

Lirange

seamus wrote:

It's a little bit of everything. The guys at the heart of the extremists are simultaneously religious zealots and megalomaniacs. They have personal desires for power (they're human after all), and religous delusions of righteousness. Outside of that inner core, is a hardcore of religious fanatics, largely brainwashed by the guys of the inner core into fighting the pure religious fight. These are the really crazy ones - the suicide bombers and the throat-slitters. The outer shell of the extremist faction is largely made up of the oppressed and the impoverished. They're angry and need someone to blame. The extremist group can offer the reasons for their poor state of life, a particular peoples to blame it on, and the means to exact revenge.

You've attempted to make it sound more structured than it is in reality.

But at least it's not just the oppression/poverty angle. This is the primary easy explanation that people always put forward. You at least realise that it's "a little bit of everything" ... but I do think the prime factor is extremism. It doesn't necessitate abject poverty to be lured into it's pull. All it takes are beliefs and ideas. Poverty can be a component as might many things.

All of the 11 September hijackers came from privileged affluent backgrounds. The home grown London subway bombers were not impoverished. I think that rationale does work for the suicide bombers in Gaza & the West Bank but it doesn't really apply much to this International terrorism: the financiers, religious leaders, organisers, or the people that carry out these operations. Impoverished and oppressed people don't just live in the Middle East or in Islamic countries.

Some people foolishly have sought to capitalise on these acts of terrorism to use as a platform to raise awareness about the fight on world poverty. Even if the claims were entirely true it's not a very intelligent way to promote the cause. Many prudent world-wide anti-poverty activists caught onto this right away (not just Bono but others as well). There are people that are genuinely compassionate, dedicated, and determined to get real results. Then there are naive/idealistic people that are mounting the soapbox to preach righteous zeal and elevate their own sense of self-worth ... but whose actions have little bearing on the welfare of the actual lives they purport to champion.

Black Swan

The Bush's are already growing a replacement for King George II. There is yet another George Bush (perhaps in his late 20's to early 30's). Feeding II to those unhappy people will just speed up the arrival of III to Washington, D.C. Scarey thought, eh? :eek:

Terry

will he be as insane as king george III, or as crazy as his father?
which one is worse?

WhiteWashMan

Hobbes wrote:

Politics or Humanities forum. Unless you have a serious question about the religon itself don't post these kinds of threads in the Islam forum, they will be moved/binned and you risk being banned.

thanks.

no definately post them in the islam forum.

they love this kind of discussion over there. if you can find a couple of peachy quotes as well, then you can have lots of really good debates

Black Swan

Julep: Not much is known about "Prince" George Bush, who would become the III if elected president in the future, other than he is building a strong affiliation with the Hispanic vote in the US (currently about 12 percent of US voters and rising rapidly, especially if King George II has his wish to make over 10 million Hispanic illegals US citizens).

Perhaps the folks who work the politics forum would be better versed than I in addressing your question? Might be a good place to transfer this thread?

Terry

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Perhaps the folks who work the politics forum would be better versed than I in addressing your question? Might be a good place to transfer this thread?

nah. this thread has been AH'ed.
this is the best place for it.