• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Alternate History General Discussion

SpanishSpy said:
There's support for the Saudis, who the Islamists don't like at all. Similar given is support for Israel, which has turned the West Bank and Gaza Strip into open-air prisons.
Click to expand...
Only the presence of US military forces in Saudi Arabia is mentioned and it's on religious grounds that non-Muslims should not be there.
Islamist opposition to Saudi Arabia only shows they are religious nutjobs if Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic enough for them. As for Israel, al-Qaeda could have attacked a lot of countries for that
 
“Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis”
 
Ricardolindo said:
Only the presence of US military forces in Saudi Arabia is mentioned and it's on religious grounds that non-Muslims should not be there.
Islamist opposition to Saudi Arabia only shows they are religious nutjobs if Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic enough for them. As for Israel, al-Qaeda could have attacked a lot of countries for that
Click to expand...
And they did.
 
1) "nowhere is US support for Arab dictatorships mentioned"
2) People point out that presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is explicitly mentioned
3) I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship

The only way to square that circle is if you're going to claim that the US troops in Saudi Arabia were not supporting the Saudi dictatorship.
 
Charles EP M. said:
Bin Laden's "Letter to America" lists the US support for Arab governments, an enemy force who "attack us" (he does list genuine issues with 'they don't kill enough Jews and prevent us running a theocracy' because he was an utter cunt running a fascistic cult but 'the West kills Muslims and backs oppressors of Muslims' was a very public recruitment call)
Click to expand...
Catalunya said:
“Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis”
Click to expand...
So, it turns out that the Wikipedia list was incomplete, thanks.
However, I repeat:
Islamist opposition to Saudi Arabia only shows they are religious nutjobs if Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic enough for them.
 
Ricardolindo said:
So, it turns out that the Wikipedia list was incomplete, thanks.
However, I repeat:
Islamist opposition to Saudi Arabia only shows they are religious nutjobs if Saudi Arabia isn't Islamic enough for them.
Click to expand...
I never said that al-Qaeda weren't murderous madmen; they obviously are.

That does not, however, excuse the US of having a significant role in bringing about the conditions that made them popular (as did several other countries).
 
Bin Laden also mentions it in this part:

“Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington”.
 
Incognitia said:
1) "nowhere is US support for Arab dictatorships mentioned"
2) People point out that presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is explicitly mentioned
3) I point out that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship

The only way to square that circle is if you're going to claim that the US troops in Saudi Arabia were not supporting the Saudi dictatorship.
Click to expand...
The US troops in Saudi Arabia had been brought there to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, not to support Saudi Arabia oppressing its own citizens.
 
Coiler said:
Regardless of the politics or personal opinions, the Iraq War debate in regards to alternate history is probably one of the most prominent recent examples of the "great man vs. determinism" argument. The other is if the fate of post-1991 Russia could have been changed for the better compared to OTL.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything great man theory about saying a different US government would have had a different policy on Iraq. If you're going to call that great man theory then a large quantity of post-1900 speculation is great man theory.
 
Ricardolindo said:
The US troops in Saudi Arabia had been brought there to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, not to support Saudi Arabia oppressing its own citizens.
Click to expand...
They may only have been protecting Saudi from external threats - which they were, let's not forget that Desert Shield was to stop Iraq rolling into Saudi - but that is still support propping up the dictatorship, allowing it to focus on internal threats.
 
Coiler said:
Regardless of the politics or personal opinions, the Iraq War debate in regards to alternate history is probably one of the most prominent recent examples of the "great man vs. determinism" argument. The other is if the fate of post-1991 Russia could have been changed for the better compared to OTL.
Click to expand...
Elektronaut said:
I don't think there's anything great man theory about saying a different US government would have had a different policy on Iraq. If you're going to call that great man theory then a large quantity of post-1900 speculation is great man theory.
Click to expand...

I think this comes back to an interesting point wrt great man theory in general. Like, generally, its not a great way of looking at history. But, if you have systems in place that allow for single individuals to chart the course of history, then, well, they can do that. I think that applies best to "absolute" monarchies in early modern European history, but there's something to be said about being the executive in a presidential system of the world's only current superpower, too.
 
Lilitou said:
I think this comes back to an interesting point wrt great man theory in general. Like, generally, its not a great way of looking at history. But, if you have systems in place that allow for single individuals to chart the course of history, then, well, they can do that. I think that applies best to "absolute" monarchies in early modern European history, but there's something to be said about being the executive in a presidential system of the world's only current superpower, too.
Click to expand...
I still think in the grander scheme of things an individual American President’s agency is quite marginal compared to everything else in our sensible universe. Even the individual holding the executive office’s agency is in reality much smaller than the position itself, as hundreds of individual actors influence decisions at all points.

That’s also why a lot of people still think that 9/11 would have happened under Gore, and the US would still go into Iraq, as there doesn’t seem to be any concrete evidence that Gore would be able to stop the former, and wouldn’t be influenced into entering the latter.
 
Lilitou said:
I think this comes back to an interesting point wrt great man theory in general. Like, generally, its not a great way of looking at history. But, if you have systems in place that allow for single individuals to chart the course of history, then, well, they can do that. I think that applies best to "absolute" monarchies in early modern European history, but there's something to be said about being the executive in a presidential system of the world's only current superpower, too.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, Liz Truss makes me more sympathetic to Great Man arguments and more sceptical of the idea there's no such thing & it's all interconnected forces. What Liz Truss did in her brief period in office was very much not what Sunak would have done (and isn't doing now), and doesn't seem what Mordaunt would have done either if she'd scraped through somehow. It's all very much Truss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top