Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You may call it BS, but I can see the reasoning for their rankings.

Also note that there is a high correlation between economic freedoms and over freedom including political freedom. You somehow confuse anarchy with economic freedom.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then please share those reasons with us rubes. Because I can't see them. I am pretty sure that if you look at - say - the number of death squads and/or political murders pro capita, all three of my pairs would come out the other way around.

I'll freely admit that death squads pro capita is a rather blunt metric for political freedom, but if you can't speak your mind without getting gunned down by goons then you can't very well have a free and open society, can you?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you a rube? I don't believe I would even think in those terms.

If you want to use that gage as the amount of freedom, then so be it. But most use a wide variety of measurements to get the number.

And if you can't check out any book that you want at the library? Or even start your own book club for local residents-what does that mean?

I once met a group that traveled around Cuba for a while, and yes it was very enlightening for myself. But once they questions from the audience, I asked them if they had visited any libraries even if at universities. Well no they had not. They felt that was a trivial thing to explore and was not where true freedoms are measured.

From my experiences, I saw that any philosopher I wanted to read about was there. Orwell, to Marx to Hitler...

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 07:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know about the state of the universities in South America, but I am pretty sure that it is easier to check out a book you want to read in a Russian library than in an Afghan library. If for no other reason then because Russia has far more libraries and universities pro capita than Afghanistan. By some orders of magnitude, I am given to understand.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That seems to be my point. If you have followed some news out of Cuba, many people are trying to start their own book clubs and spreading information that is contrary to the ruling propaganda machines. So you might be right in Russia and Afghan but not in comparison between Iraq and Cuba. I would say the later pair has Iraq as the winner. Maybe you know of other information but those areas not controlled by AQ or any other extremist groups then CDs, DVDs and yes books freely flow and are exchanged.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you know of other information but those areas not controlled by AQ or any other extremist groups then CDs, DVDs and yes books freely flow and are exchanged.

First, it should be noted that there is no Al Qaeda presence in Vietraq. There are various domestic partisan groups that like to style themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" but there is not a shred of indication that they have anything to do with what is usually understood as "Al Qaeda."

That being said, "in areas not controlled by partisans" is a pretty big qualifier. The Americans can barely keep the various Green Zones secure. And when it comes to that, I am pretty sure that you can't just walk into a bookstore in the Green Zone and pick up a book by Sayyid Qutb or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad... One person's anti-government propaganda is another person's terrorist tract and all that.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 04:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as AQ in Iraq and the parent organization, I see a difference without merit. As long as they believe in the philosophies of the group then they are the same with respect to the outcomes for the victims.

Notice I did not say partisans in that quote, it was extremists. How would you characterize Kurdistan? But maybe you have some information about what is accepted or not accepted in various parts of the country, no?

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not a "parent organisation." They have completely different origins and there is little and less reason to treat them as one organisation. If the way they treat their enemies were the deciding factor in whether an organisation was a part of Al Qaeda or not, the US Marine Corps would be a part of Al Qaeda. Well, except that I doubt that Al Qaeda has access to quite as much white phosphor.

And of course you said "extremists." But you were talking about partisan organisations. And while I have not studied the matter extensively, I think it is fair to assume that it will be hard to find the complete works of Kemal Atatürk in the Kurdish territories. So no, I don't buy the assertion that you can pick up any book you like in Vietraq. Not even if you exclude the parts of Vietraq where people are shooting at each other on a regular basis. Which in any case makes any comparison apples-to-oranges...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 04:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again Jake, I am talking about results or methods for grouping peoples together. Although I hope we both can see that happening a lot in politics. What I am saying is that no matter if Marxist is in Cambodia or in China as long as they believe the same things and pay allegiance to each other then for all intents and purposes they are the same group of extremists.

I can't imagine that we really want to see what their markets have and judge it by that, but if you want to pursue looking at any laws that prevents such books as you mentioned from being distributed, let me know.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 05:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Duh!!!
"Again Jake, I am [NOT] talking about results or methods for grouping peoples together."

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 05:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're succumbing to the "big man" fallacy of history writing. Or in this case the "big idea" version. Marxists in Cambodia are not the same as Marxists in China (or as Marxists in Nepal for that matter).

They may or may not have contacts with each other and may or may not be on friendly terms, but it is patent nonsense to claim that they are "the same group of extremists" when their organisational structure, political goals, strategies, tactics and membership are unrelated, evolved separately and will likely continue to evolve separately. Simply saying "here be commies" is not an argument.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 02:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, I am saying if they recognize each other and abide by the same philosophies and ideologies even to supporting each other in resources then they are the same. I see a lot less correlations with the Anglo-Disease than what I am talking about here.

I would also ask that you pay attention. Notice I did not say the Marxists in Vietnam and Cambodia were the same, I said China and Vietnam had the same goals and desires.

Now of course you could be right that they separate their ways, we have seen a lot of groups separate and go their ways. And from I read their was already some falling out during the control of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford

by Ronald Rutherford (rdrradio1 -at- msn -dot- com) on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 04:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, I am saying if they recognize each other and abide by the same philosophies and ideologies even to supporting each other in resources then they are the same.

And none of your examples do. FFS, half of the partisans in Vietraq that are being labeled "Al Qaeda" are Shia Muslims. Calling them Al Qaeda is like accusing an Ted Haggard of being a member of the Opus Dei.

And besides, the Marxists in Cambodia (or Viet Nam, if you prefer) manifestly didn't have the same goals and desires as Marxists in China. Both wanted to kick the US out of Indochina and both groups were (more or less) Marxist, but if that's criteria for likeness, then the Pope and the American fundagelicals are the same brand of extremists - both are Christian of some description and both want to kick gays out of America.

Finally, you are begging the question when you argue that there has been "a falling out" - if there was no collusion in the first place, then a falling out is not really the proper description.

So can we please end this detour?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Apr 20th, 2008 at 06:34:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series