BruceVC

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes. You are not seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya, ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point? Technically you're right since the name change to ISIS wasn't announced until April 2013 but functionally you're wrong. The expansion of ISI (the precursor to ISIS) occurred as early as December 2011 when it established the Nusra front in Syria (less than a year after the civil war started). Non-Syrian jihadists began joining ISI/ISIS almost immediately. The details: According to various sources, the Syrian civil war either started on 20 March 2011 in Daraa, after security forces opened fire on the protesting crowd or April 25, when the Syrian Army initiated wide scale attacks in multiple towns resulting in 1000+ deaths. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq, and in October, 2002, he formally joined Al Qaeda to create Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq – AQI). On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi was killed by an American airstrike. He was replaced by Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian. A few months later, in October 2006, al-Masri united several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions] and on October 13, declared the formation of Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islamiyya (Islamic State of Iraq—ISI). On Oct. 15, 2006 he named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi its leader. ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. Al-Nusra front (also the Nusra front or Jabhat al Nusra) was formed in Syria in December 2011 when emir Baghadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julian to Syria. The group officially announced its creation on 23 January 2012. That's clearly less than a year after the Civil war started but not by a lot. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi played a key role in establishing Jabhat al-Nusra. But he considered Abu Mohammed al-Golani, Nusra’s leader, to be his subordinate with a duty to obey him. So Baghdadi announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the integration of its members into ISI, with the new organization being called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. Golani refused the order, but ISIS appeared on the scene with strength anyway. ISIS quickly announced its areas of operations publicly and took control of wide areas without facing much resistance, benefitting from the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters who defected to ISIS. Some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists. In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced AQI’s operations in Syria and the group’s name change to ISIS; he reiterated the claim that AQI/ISI created the Al Nusra Front in Syria. Al-Baghdadi further stated that the two groups were on the verge of merging. Al-Julani agreed that AQI/ISI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disputed this claim as well and officially annulled the merger, dictating that ISIS should limit its operations to Iraq. On June 29, 2014, ISIS again changed its name to simply the “Islamic State" or IS. Loyalty to al-Qaeda may be the common denominator between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS has been under al-Qaeda’s banner since ISI was founded and inspired by the approach of Zarqawi, and from the jihadist doctrine stipulating “the loyalty of the branch is from the loyalty of the main [organization].” Therefore, ISIS’s loyalty is to al-Qaeda as long as [iSIS’s] emir Baghdadi “didn’t invalidate the allegiance” in an open manner. It should be noted that Baghdadi had refused to implement the decision of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri to dissolve ISIS while maintaining Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI intact. http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1 http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#ixzz39w0GZag4 PS: I'll take my shots at Obama in another post. This is a good post and I appreciate the way you always provide technical details around your perspective, but it doesn't fundamentally change my point that the Syrian conflict is the main reason ISIS exists in its current form and structure I'll respond properly tomorrow, I just landed from the UK and I am busy doing some other things before work tomorrow

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual. As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic. The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed. 2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone. What happens next? Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt? I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for. The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power. I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant. If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good. "Wow so the problems in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I ever heard one" really? is a common criticism and it is gaining much popularity. US influence in the region has been waning for years. obama's handling (non-handling) o' the syria situation were making him look weak and impotent, but recent problems in libya, israel and iraq has all called obama leadership into question. libya were touted as the big success, until recently. now it is looking to some folks like just another example o' obama fail. kerry gets no respect amongst the palestinians or israelis, so the egyptians, who is outspoken enemies o' the muslim brotherhood, gets called into to mediate 'tween israel and hamas? wtf? am not even needing to bring up recent arguments o' obama fail regarding isis/is in iraq. ​am not saying all the criticism is fair, but that you ain't heard obama being blamed is shocking. Presidents typical get disproportionate blame. the notion that media sources outside the US is going easy on obama is striking us as a bit odd. HA! Good Fun! How exactly is Obama looking weak by his actions in the ME? Lets break this down, he didn't listen to the Israelis and decided not to bomb Iran, we now have Iran coming to the negotiation table not through military threat or action but through sanctions and the economic impact that were hurting there economy . He didn't not to ignore the US security council veto and act unilaterally in Syria, because the USA would have had to act alone in Syria because after the chemical attacks even the British parliament voted on no military action. This just makes sense as after Iraq you can't seriously think the USA is going to go against the UN security council unless there interests are really threatened.,...and in Syria it is a terrible war but the USA is not really impacted by this. And once again the Libya regime change was handled correctly, its the new Libyan governments responsibility to manage there government. The USA cannot be expected to do this unless you suggest they try to do it like they did it Iraq and we know how that ended up No USA president has ever resolved the issues between the Israel and Palestinians, so if this makes him weak then so are all previous USA presidents So tell me what you would do differently if you were the president and you could order military action based on the political and historical reality of the ME? I find it strange that people think the definition of the USA being weak is not using military force to resolve every possible crisis, this is not weak to me but prudent and what is to be expected after Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm not saying you are saying this Gromnir, but this is a criticism that is often levelled at Obama..for example " you decided not to attack Iran"...this makes us look weak. Despite the fact the crisis over Iran has been reduced through sanctions and not military intervention

Volo,I know you talking about others when you say they are losers. I know you don't think I'm a loser....right Volo

. What happens next? Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt? I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for. The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power. I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant. If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good. Wow so the problems in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I ever heard one GD is right is some ways, if America hadn't gone into Iraq Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be suppressing brutally any sectarian violence within his county. The Arab spring would still have happened and therefore the Syrian conflict would still have happened. But ISIS would never be as powerful as it is now as the original ISIS fighters, who would have still flocked to Syria anyway to fight Assad, wouldn't have been able to align themselves with the disenfranchised tribal Sunni's in Iraq., So in that case there is no doubt the invasion of Iraq has lead to the formation of ISIS in its current structure But I don't blame the USA for the situation because if Al-Maliki had incorporated the Sunnis into his new government ISIS would also not be in the same position. So I guess it depends on who you want to blame? I feel countries need to take control of there own destinies and Iraq was given that chance in 2011, you can't blame the USA for Iraq mismanagement of there new political system?

Yeah, I'm the same around the Gothic series. I played them all except for 4, I don't consider 4 part of the series it was so bad. But I did love the other 3. The one complaint about Gothic 2 is I tried to complete the game as a Fire Mage and it became very difficult in combat at the higher levels, you notice this in the dragon battles. So the game especially later on makes it almost impossible to finish if you follow the magic path What I do like about Risen and Gothic around there standard game design is where you can go where ever you want but there are certain monsters that will always defeat you at lower levels, I remember in Gothic 1 I learnt the importance of learning how to run....and run quickly

Not debating with some one spouting nonsense does not prove that nonsense is true. Speak for yourself. I followed the 2008 election very closely and Obama laid out his agenda then. Since being elected he has in no meaningful way strayed from his original platform. If Obama isn't what you were expecting; it means you weren't paying attention to him. Obama is not an actor; he is the president of the United States of America, and deserves more respect than what you are showing him. What was marketing for fools? The Obama campaign? Anti-racist ideology does not present things because only people make presentations. Also, if anyone thought, "a black guy president is better than a southern wasp texan"; I can say with confidence they are not anti-racist. As an outsider who works for an American company and travels to America normally once a year I also think Obama has been one of the best presidents the USA has ever had. I know this view isn't shared by many Americans on these forums but I am confident history will remember his presidency in a positive way. I think the guy is sincere and inspirational

... wow, you're completely serious. My point is proven, you've brought no arguments to debate, just "wow you can't be serious omg!" The "racism" thinking is stopping people from using intelligence... Last time the race card was used to fool everyone, and I agree even I fell for it (but it was the last time), was for the election for obama... Man we all believed that ****, thought something would change, I remember his speech in cairo, I was really hopeful....he really is a good actor, he's got the charisma.. In the end, it was all marketing for the fools...reality is not "a black guy president is better than a southern wasp texan", this is the way "anti-racist" ideology presents things, but reality is: military industrial complex and goldman sachs owns politicians, and if you don't understand that and keep on playing the race card, you're just falling for their game, you're being a fool... ------ And coming back to the subject of orcs, it is pretty obvious that an "anti-racist" criticism of tolkien's orcs is a very anachronic and unrational thing. It would be like criticizing ancient athenians for slavery and no votes for women, preventing you from seeing what was great about it, which was the great and still unmatched democratic system they had.. So yeah criticizing tolkien as being "racist" is very out of context and anachronic (and wrong of course).. Here is an interesting consideration for you, is something anachronistic if it is relevant and still impacts people? Take homophobia and racism, If you believe these don't exist in American culture on some levels then you are right. Its silly to discuss them because what's the point. But just the fact that many states in the USA don't even allow same sex marriage can we say that true equality and non-discrimination exists in the USA? You tell me.....

When has Piranha Bytes ever let you play as anything other than GWhiMP™ (Generic White Male Protagonist).* * GHwiMP is a registered trademark of Keyrock Corporation, all rights reserved. All uses of GWhiMP are made with the expressed permission of Keyrock Corporation. Wow, this is a day a never thought I would see. Keyrock actually making a comment about a SJ issue, these things normally don't bother you at all or you just don't comment? Would you guys think less of me if I said " I am going to be playing this game and have really enjoyed the past 2 games" [quietly]Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, Bruce, I've got an image to maintain.[/quietly] [loudly]Woman, get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich![/loudly] /brofist //burp ///pulls underwear out of ass crack ////guzzles can of Natty Ice /////crushes can against forehead On a serious note, I wasn't particularly making that (lame) joke as a "OMG, they've never let you play as a woman or any other race, those discriminating pigs!" way. It was more of a "you're always stuck playing the same nameless lazy generic white male character, it would be kind of nice to get a little bit of variety once in a while". I'm all for female protagonists and black protagonists, and Hispanic protagonists, and Asian protagonists, etc. but not so much because I feel everyone must be represented equally all the time, rather because it gets boring playing the same stock character all the time. Anyway, generic character criticisms aside, I enjoyed the first two games also and would likely play the third if it came to one of my platforms of choice. For all my criticisms of Piranha Bytes, I still like them as a developer quite a bit, though I do feel like they've very much fallen in a rut, granted their rut is still better than a lot of other developers' output. I thought that joke was funny and not lame at all and I know what you mean, also my impression of you and your view on SJ issues is that its not that you don't care about them its just that you feel a gaming forum isn't the place to necessarily raise or discuss them

My birthday holiday trip is sadly coming to an end. I am flying back to South Africa tonight, yesterday I went around London by myself shopping which was very interesting. I spent the time trying to prove my dads advice wrong, he said to me "In London you shouldn't greet random strangers, people will think its odd" And he was right in a certain way, I noticed some people you will greet with a friendly " Morning " will look at you and walk past. But I did have several people who greeted me back and were prepared to chat for a short while I went to Harrods which has the most incredible food emporium but its horribly expensive but the good news is there are major summer sales specials at various shops. I ended up buying 5 x Hawes and Curtis long sleeve shirts for work, all 5 shirts only cost 100 pounds. This is an excellent price considering the quality of the shirts Oh at Harrods I did buy some Nerf ammunition. Nerf is a type of toy gun that this new lady at my office plays as a hobby, she is really hot and I like her. So I thought getting her a present is a good way to make a positive impression We then ended up going to Itsu for dinner which is a famous sushi restaurant franchise in London, I love sushi and this restaurant didn't disappoint. The sushi comes around on a conveyor belt and you basically take what you want off the conveyor belt. It was the best sushi I have ever had What else can I say about my trip It was important spending time with my dad and stepmom., They don't live in Johannesburg, they live in Durban so I don't often see them that much so this holiday was mostly about spending time with them, And we did have quality time together which was important to me London really is the centre of the world for a number of reasons. Its this incredible melting pot of finance, cultures and history. I cannot stress enough the thousands of tourists who were visiting and all of them were excited to understand more of the history and see the sites of this great city. For those that live in London( like Walsie, Monte and Kroney) I am very envious of the amazing city you live in. Of course being on holiday and staying in an area like Chelsea you tend to only experience the good about London but I still say its a great place Today I'll be buying several types of cheese I saw at various shops and just chilling. But the holiday overall exceeded my expectations and I can't say enough positive things about the entire trip

Its funny but with the drain on your countries resources and fact you guys have really large numbers of illegal immigrants this comment is the last thing I would expect to hear from you? What are you going to tell me next, you support the Democrats?

When has Piranha Bytes ever let you play as anything other than GWhiMP™ (Generic White Male Protagonist).* * GHwiMP is a registered trademark of Keyrock Corporation, all rights reserved. All uses of GWhiMP are made with the expressed permission of Keyrock Corporation. Wow, this is a day a never thought I would see. Keyrock actually making a comment about a SJ issue, these things normally don't bother you at all or you just don't comment? Would you guys think less of me if I said " I am going to be playing this game and have really enjoyed the past 2 games"

Interesting, you boys just throw your refugees in concentration camps for processing right ....errr I meant to say detention camps

There are a few, but I'd also look at, say, the Amish in America for example. Its a parallel society that has decided for itself what it needs within the confines of a much larger culture. There are a few, but I'd also look at, say, the Amish in America for example. Its a parallel society that has decided for itself what it needs within the confines of a much larger culture. The Amish are a perfect example of a low-tech sub culture that don't need to told how to live. I personally know a few Amish people and they seem perfectly happy to me. I say live and let live. No need to "uplift" people. Heck, that's how the European conquest of Africa started. Let's not encourage the mindset of, "Our way of life is better than theirs; so they should become like us." It leads to trouble. Just set a good example. If others want what you have; they'll emulate you. Well, personally know a few Amish people may be an exaggeration. We're acquaintances really; not friends or anything. The Amish are a good example of people who have rejected the advantages of modern society, I did completely forget about them and other religious groups, But as we agreed on earlier they also don't live in poverty so they apply to the second group in Amenteps 2 groups. Anyway back to Orcs

Tribal culture still exists to some degree on every continent except Antarctica. Your local personal experience is one perspective but not the whole picture. That is a bit arrogant (though, I'm sure it you aren't doing it on purpose). Modern society has brought a lot of benefits including the ability (if not the political will) to end poverty. However, primary societies all over the place developed ways of surviving and thriving in their own environments that worked for them. If you want to open your eyes to this, a good starting point is a book written in the 1930's by a dentist named Weston Price who did an extensive study comparing tribal groups eating a western diets to their counterparts who were still eating their traditional diets. I'll spoil the ending for you: the traditional people knew things about health and nutrition that 'modern' people hadn't figured out. The poverty that you see in your backyard is due, in part, to people losing their tribal knowledge as a result of being invaded (the solution, as you said, is to fully modernize - lost knowledge is hard to regain and the world has moved on). That book sounds interesting, I'll give it a read

But understand, you've defined poverty and non-poverty, and declared that your version of poverty is bad. But the definition is still yours, not theirs. During the 40s and 50s there was a big movement to bring money and erase the blight of poverty from the Appalachia area of the US. But most of the people who grew up there never really knew they were "poor" until the government came and pointed out that getting water in a well and pooping in a hole was bad compared to tap water and an indoor toilet. And that's not to say they were stupid and just didn't realize that there were other meats to choose from than squirrel and opossum* for dinner. They had a different life than people in Washington, in New York or in Chicago had. And because they had a different life they expected different things out of it. Not better/worse but different. Understand that the "average indigent South African" at this point may not be a separate society within your society but a part of your society, and therefore remains culturally similar in expectations, if disenfranchised within the larger society. What we're talking about is more akin to if you went to, lets say, North Sentinel Island with a huge armed force and telling the Sentinelese that they're living in poverty and you're bringing them a better way of life and killing those who don't accept your way. Or going into an Orc encampment and killing them all and looting their bodies because they've been attacking people who wander on their lands. *for one thing, there were turtles, raccons and chipmonks. Okay your have explained your point nicely and yes we were talking about two different groups of people. I was talking about people who are well aware of modern conveniences, who really reflect most impoverished people in the world, and are part of our society but are disenfranchised due to economic conditions. You were talking about people who don't know much about the outside world and probably don't care about it and those people being forced to uplift themselves by Western societies because "they know whats best for them ". And yes this is wrong and my lifestyle wouldn't apply to them But in your example are there really many groups of people who are so isolated from the modern world? I know tribes exist in the heart of the Amazon but apart from that I imagine the global and interconnected has touched and resonates with most folks?

But the thought you may get ripped off using a taxi shouldn't be a reason not to use one or negate the fact a taxi is more convenient that is the main reason we don't use a taxi when we go to NY. other reasons include but isn't limited to the following: rude cabbies racist cabbies who don't pick-up minority fares exorbitant cost seats with mysterious foreign substances heck, in the literal thousands o' trips we has made to the bay area, we has only used a cab two times. use bart instead. we were not wealthy the last time we were in london, so we didn't use cabs much, but while they is better than NY cabs at avoiding the aforementioned shortcomings, your tale o' tourist fleecing does suggest that london cabs ain't flawless... and we suspect they is still as expensive as we recall. convenience typical has a cost. HA! Good Fun! Okay good points raised and I agree convenience does have a price, it shouldn't but it does when it comes certain taxi drivers as we experienced.

But the thought you may get ripped off using a taxi shouldn't be a reason not to use one or negate the fact a taxi is more convenient

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi? ... 'cause you paid ~$40 for the taxi? HA! Good Fun! Yes but as I mentioned we were ripped off, the taxi driver took us on an intentionally long route and thought we wouldn't notice

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... Of course but you need to realize just how busy London is at the moment. Its summer and there hundreds of tourists enjoying the WW1 commemoration at places like the Tower of London, so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi?

Why are they less fortunate? Because they don't live like you do? The idea that - in generalities - you can "improve" the lives of "less fortunate" you're already assuming that your way of life is correct and those who don't live that life need your interference to be enlightened to your righteousness. No offense Amentep but I do think my life is correct, not because I am arrogant but because I don't live in poverty. And why wouldn't anyone who lives in poverty not want to uplift themselves? As I said in the post above if you ask your average indigent South African what they expect from society and there government they always say the same thing " a job and basic services ( housing, water and electricity) and a future for there children". This is irrefutable and understandable considering the conditions many poor people live in

Native Americans? Due to genocide and imperialism their societies may not look the same as they did centuries ago but they still have tribal identities and culture. After murdering them, robbing them of rights, and continuing to practice discrimination against them, it's a little awful to take symbols and stereotypes associated with them, remove the human element, and stick them on monsters. What good are technical advancements if they come with oppression and exploitation? Why does "less technically advanced" always equal "less fortunate"? Okay I see what you are saying, I am a software consultant and I live in a world of 1 and 0 so I need examples in order to get clarity. So thanks for the Native American example Yes there is no doubt that atrocities were committed in the past against various tribes in various countries. But nowadays the intention of Western countries is to help less fortunate countries or societies within reason, this of course does not mean all Western assistance doesn't have ulterior motives or is completely altruistic but if you think of the millions of dollars that gets poured into Africa and certain countries it is really suppose to uplift people. And I am not talking about investment from corporations, that's obviously about positive return but the country invested in obviously benefits through jobs and taxes and allows the governments of those countries to enhance and implement education and healthcare and other areas of social transformation So not all foreign aid is about exploitation. And finally why wouldn't any culture with a sense of the advantages of living in a global and educated world not want to be part of a system where you have electricity, housing and jobs? So this wouldn't apply to tribes in the heart of the amazon who don't know much about the outside world but if you go your average rural African person that is what they endeavour to....jobs, basic social services and a future for the children that lies outside poverty This is a natural part of a progressive society ?

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists. Ukraine is not, but civilian plane could be and then it would be attack on NATO country But even then NATO will not go to war unless the Ukrainian separatists said something like " we shot the plane down as act of war against a NATO country" and since they are firstly even denying they shot the plane down and Malaysia isn't part of NATO there is no chance of military intervention by NATO over this tragedy

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes. You are not seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya, ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point?

To me, I interpret what ashtonw is saying to be that tribal cultures in sci-fi/fantasy are often seen as backward subhumans in need of the enlightenment from (or eradication by) the main culture. Its a reinforcement of the type of cultural imperialism that says it is okay to play colonial and bring civilization to the savages because its for their betterment to be forced to follow your culture than their own. Mind you just as problematic is the Noble Savage view of primitive culture; in this scenario they should be embraced and emulated -- if not joined - because they have held on to an inherent "honesty" lost in modern culture. This view can eradicate an existing culture just as easily as the other... I'm not sure what she means , she mentioned Tribal culture. Tribal culture still exists today but they exist primarily in Africa and South America. So I don't know why it is an unreasonable assumption if you mention tribal culture and I assume you mean black tribes. Ashton maybe give some examples so I understand you properly? But yes of course racism is not always white vs black, any racial group can demonstrate racism. I would think that is obvious? But also what is inherently wrong with bringing technical advancements to less fortunate people? Why should we see this as bad thing, the main reason for this is that is associated with Colonialism and this more about the abuse of less advanced cultures and controlling of there natural resources. But if you can improve the lives of people less fortunate this is a good thing and something we should aspire to, its the implementation of it that to me can be controversial Let me give an example. As most of you probably know there is the spread at the moment of the Ebola virus in some Western African countries, this is a very deadly and concerning virus that doesn't exist in Western countries. So what is wrong with the World Health Organisation coming to places like Liberia and telling them, and helping them, that they really need to improve certain aspects of there healthcare and social conditions to prevent this type of virus?

Oh yes, the danger of being a member of a privileged class: seeing racism when it's not there. Can we just toss Tolkien aside for the moment (because I hate LoTR and I never finished the books) and just look at how tribal cultures in scifi and fantasy in general are treated as inhuman, barbaric, primitive "others" and what this says about how we view the real people who live in tribal cultures (who may not be necessarily black). Alright lets have this debate, I want to be clear on your point. Are you saying that generally in Sci-fi and fantasy, like Orcs, tribal cultures are seen as barbaric and primitive and what this really represents is symbolism for black people nowadays? If I understand you correctly. I don't see the connection because many modern tribes have been integrated into society? And yes of course there are black people who live still live outside cities. For example in South Africa we have millions of people who live in rural areas but we don't consider them primitive or barbaric. Most of them are not sophisticated due to lack of education or poor education buts that just a reality. And of course education is key to change this and our government spends the most money in its budget on education. But this takes time So I still don't see how barbaric tribes in fantasy realistically represents black people?