Let your freak flag fly... err make that let your terrorist flag fly...

[TLAM Strike]

Old Libyan Flag:
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/13/largeflagoflibya.gif
New Libyan Flag:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/6673/flagoflibya.jpg
Newer Libyan Flag?
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7431/flagofalqaedainiraq.jpg

Yes Libya's new flag is the Flag of Al-Qaeda, as seen on top of the courthouse in Benghazi:
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7522/photo2ia.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/196/photo2ia.jpg/)

Was I the only one who saw this coming? :haha:

http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya

[1480]

Nope. They have become a lot more ballsy with our current POTUS in office. His indifferent attitude towards Israel is why the middle east is going south in a hurry.

[CCIP]

Nope. They have become a lot more ballsy with our current POTUS in office. His indifferent attitude towards Israel is why the middle east is going south in a hurry.

You don't think the conditions of the population, political situation within those countries, continued aftershocks of decolonization and feeling left out of the fruits of globalization have nothing to do with it?

Don't give US domestic politics such credit. They don't deserve it. Nor does it make much sense, considering how despite the Israel situation, Obama has been pretty big on hunting down Al Quaeda on the one hand, and feeding (rather empty) rhetoric to 'friendly' Arab states on the other. In truth, none of those things even matter to the average Arab. Even Israel doesn't matter that much to the average Arab.

Movements like Al Quaeda don't grow on purely ideological grounds. You need to have a steady stream of recruits disillusioned with society at home and some measure of popular support for it to grow like this. And if anything, the seeds of the current Arab Spring have been planted under far more conservative presidents than the current one. In fact I'd argue that the previous several presidents have done a lot more to create the conditions for Al Quaeda than the current one ever will.

[Sailor Steve]

You don't think the conditions of the population, political situation within those countries, continued aftershocks of decolonization and feeling left out of the fruits of globalization have nothing to do with it?
Of course not. A hardcore, lockstep right-winger might be no different than a hardcore, lockstep left-winger, but don't expect one to ever recognize or admit it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Of course not. A hardcore, lockstep right-winger might be no different than a hardcore, lockstep left-winger, but don't expect one to ever recognize or admit it.

On the contrary Steve - a hardcore, lockstep right-winger would see that as a public announcement that a group - now a state - that has repeatedly said it is at war with the US - is in existence and would immediately target it for destruction.

A harcore, lockstep left-winger would see a group - now a state - that has grown stronger in the face of our meanspirited, racist and zionist supporting policies - so we should sit down and stop being the big bad global meanie and have a chat with them to figure out how to make them like us better.

Rather a big difference.

[Platapus]

The enemy of my enemy may be my enemy :yep:

[1480]

I said ballsy, not all of the sudden. I believe it was always there but kept its activities under wraps. Now it does not have to do so. You give these folks way too much credit CCIP. Yes, my belief is Occam's razor, untilI see facts that prove otherwise. Perfect conditions for a backdraft fire so to speak.

Yes, I do believe our ability to reach out and touch someone is a great deterrent. You will argue that there are no statistics to back up my claim, but no one has come up with a way to measure deterrence. I assume when you said domestic policy, you actually meant foreign. Obama ordering drone attacks against 'leaders' of AQ does not do much in the long run because cellular organizations can still operate even when parts of it cease to function, that is why they are set up that way. Dog and pony show to show that this administration is actively combating terrorism. I am not sure what an average Arab thinks, yet if Israel is such a non-factor, why the anti-Israeli rhetoric:

" In March 2003, 12-year-old Hoda Darwish was sitting at her desk in a UN elementary school in Khan Younis on the Gaza Strip when an Israeli high-velocity bullet was fired through her classroom window. It hit Hoda in the head. The doctors at the hospital said that she would never awaken from her coma."

From the biggest news source in the middle east. A bit of yellow there....

I am glad we can have this discourse, keeps the synapses firing.

@SailerSteve: an end a round is still a form of attack. Rather than attacking the messenger, attack the message. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate.:yeah:

[CCIP]

Well, the let's play that game historians hate: what-if :88)

Let's assume you got McCain as president and we had hardline support for Israel. What would this change in the Arab Spring?

If anything, I suspect this might result in increased tensions between Israel vs. Hamas and Hesbollah; potentially spilling out into another conflict in Gaza or Lebanon. That sure doesn't help the average Libyan or Tunisian or Egyptian, and it sure doesn't prevent revolutions, in fact only encourages them. Give more money to Mubarak? I honestly don't think much of anything would've prevented Egypt from revolting like this, and more importantly - it seems that the Egyptian military were far from a pro-Mubarak party from the start and quickly swooped to claim the spoils of the revolution, still retaining primary control in the country. And they're no big fans of Israel either, no matter how much money the US gives them.

What else would stop this? Isolationist refusal to get involved wouldn't really help, although it might keep Gaddafi still alive and in power - but I don't think it'd completely wipe out these rebelling guys either. They'd probably get more extremist and angry as a result. Al Quaeda would get even more heavily involved in funding, training and supplying them in place of NATO - they're not big fans of Gaddafi, and they're eager to have a source of angry, desperate recruits to brainwash. You'd just be stuck with this dragging out for years.

Why would the Arabs NOT revolt in your view, anyway? The people on the frontlines of this are, at the end of the day, just angry and poor, politically disempowered and feeling left behind by a world they know more than ever about thanks to widespread satellite TV, access to social media, etc. etc. Unless a Republican president sent in B-52s on round-the-clock missions to indiscriminately bomb the Arab world with cash, candy, widescreen TVs and Ferrarris, I don't think there'd be that much of a difference.

Obama hasn't exactly taken a soft stance on either Israel or the Arab Spring - just not a very firm one, either. But in the end, my view is that it doesn't really matter. There's tens of millions of unhappy Arabs driving all of this, and there ain't nothing anyone can do to prevent that.

[mapuc]

Some time ago, a friend, send me a youtube video, showing some elderly guy, saying that America was trying to prvent the arabic people to get democracy.

I can't find this video.

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

On the contrary Steve ...
No, my point is that any hard-core lock-step anything automatically blames everything on the other side. It's Bush's fault. It's Obama's fault. That kind of thinking, or at least of posting, is less than useless.

I@SailerSteve: an end a round is still a form of attack. Rather than attacking the messenger, attack the message. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate.:yeah:
Your message is that Obama is evil. You've said it many times. I see nothing to debate. I didn't like Bush much. I don't like Obama much. That said, the Blame Game helps nothing, accomplishes nothing, and is not debate but mindless rhetoric. If you actually want to discuss something useful, please do so. Until then, my comment stands.