4 ms·

...and a lot pf those homegrown terrorists form the 70/80s were funded by the Soviets. Notice how in the charts the rates drop off after the cold war ends. The

...and a lot pf those homegrown terrorists form the 70/80s were funded by the Soviets. Notice how in the charts the rates drop off after the cold war ends. The same thing happened in Latin America. Presumably this could be a clue on how to solve current problems.

spangry 9y ago
For the benefit of dummies like me, what's the lesson / clue?
- qb45 9y ago
  Rumor has it that certain Arab states are directly funding Islamic terrorism today. Also, Western states and NGOs supported and continue to support various rebels against old, mostly totalitarian and often USSR/Russia-friendly regimes in the region which used to maintain order and keep extremists under their boot. They do it in the name of democracy but how it is turning out we all see.
  - spangry 9y ago
    Ah, thanks, I think I get it now. So, if my understanding of the situation is right, there are a number of conflicts that involve militant Islamic groups, but some of these conflicts are being spurred on by foreign powers with ulterior motives. These foreign powers provide support to some of these groups (in the form of arms, training, and/or direct combat support?) And the solution would be for these foreign powers to, in one way or another, directly address and resolve their disagreements? At that point there's no reason to be waging proxy wars and the foreign powers can withdraw their support / intervention, or intervene with more benign motives (e.g. humanitarian) where appropriate. Just to preface this, my understanding of what's happening in the middle-east is tenuous at best. But I think one possible wrinkle is that we now have a situation where there are 'proxy wars within proxy wars'. Starting from the outermost layer, you've got the US on one side and Russia on the other (I think?). I'm actually not 100% clear on their motivations. And on the inside layer you have two opposing regional powers and major oil producers (i.e. economic competitors, despite the recent tepid OPEC agreement) who also have religious differences: Saudi Arabia (Sunni / Wahhabi - US aligned) and Iran & Syria (Shia - Russia aligned). These two might engage in some direct military action (not with each other though), but also fund groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (who are variously thought of as legitimate political entities, terrorists, resistance movements and so on depending on where you stand). And then there are 'third-party' groups who I'm not sure are strongly aligned with one side or another, but are nonetheless involved: IS / Daesh (who are religiously opposed to Iran, but to whom Saudi Arabia responded by building a 600 mile wall to try and keep them [Daesh] out of their territory), Turkey(?), Kurdistan and Israel (who, weirdly, I guess are nominally aligned with Saudi Arabia and the US, given their concerns about Iranian nukes and conflicts with Hezbollah). Does that sound right to you, or have I gone horribly wrong somewhere?

spangry 9y ago

For the benefit of dummies like me, what's the lesson / clue?

qb45 9y ago
Rumor has it that certain Arab states are directly funding Islamic terrorism today. Also, Western states and NGOs supported and continue to support various rebels against old, mostly totalitarian and often USSR/Russia-friendly regimes in the region which used to maintain order and keep extremists under their boot. They do it in the name of democracy but how it is turning out we all see.
- spangry 9y ago
  Ah, thanks, I think I get it now. So, if my understanding of the situation is right, there are a number of conflicts that involve militant Islamic groups, but some of these conflicts are being spurred on by foreign powers with ulterior motives. These foreign powers provide support to some of these groups (in the form of arms, training, and/or direct combat support?) And the solution would be for these foreign powers to, in one way or another, directly address and resolve their disagreements? At that point there's no reason to be waging proxy wars and the foreign powers can withdraw their support / intervention, or intervene with more benign motives (e.g. humanitarian) where appropriate. Just to preface this, my understanding of what's happening in the middle-east is tenuous at best. But I think one possible wrinkle is that we now have a situation where there are 'proxy wars within proxy wars'. Starting from the outermost layer, you've got the US on one side and Russia on the other (I think?). I'm actually not 100% clear on their motivations. And on the inside layer you have two opposing regional powers and major oil producers (i.e. economic competitors, despite the recent tepid OPEC agreement) who also have religious differences: Saudi Arabia (Sunni / Wahhabi - US aligned) and Iran & Syria (Shia - Russia aligned). These two might engage in some direct military action (not with each other though), but also fund groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (who are variously thought of as legitimate political entities, terrorists, resistance movements and so on depending on where you stand). And then there are 'third-party' groups who I'm not sure are strongly aligned with one side or another, but are nonetheless involved: IS / Daesh (who are religiously opposed to Iran, but to whom Saudi Arabia responded by building a 600 mile wall to try and keep them [Daesh] out of their territory), Turkey(?), Kurdistan and Israel (who, weirdly, I guess are nominally aligned with Saudi Arabia and the US, given their concerns about Iranian nukes and conflicts with Hezbollah). Does that sound right to you, or have I gone horribly wrong somewhere?