[L M McCoy]

Why do we have such a bad rep here? I don't understand the whole "Jews have it out for everyone" concept.

[Comte De St. Germain]

This thread is a perfect example of Godwin's Law. Everyone brings up the Nazis in every discussion when it's about American foreign policy we're talking about here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Also some potent examples of Reducto ad Hitlerum(quite the lulzy name for a coined fallacy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[mikado]

Hwuzhere: let's not forget the general trend of bringing Islam in the discussion whenever there is a topic about culture, foreign policies, or policies towards foreigners.

Frankly I expect Islam to even sit durably in the Game section.

I did not know that religion and nationality were so crucial for people here, especially Americans.

Personally, I am far more interested in relations between men and women, feminism, self confidence etc.

[Cattle Rustler]

And jews. Don't forget jews.

[Samseau]

(08-10-2014 04:48 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Personally, I am far more interested in relations between men and women, feminism, self confidence etc.

It's because the relationship between feminism and the larger political situation is too clear to deny. Something is going on, the connections are too obvious for it to be meaningless.

For example, the current wars that have bankrupted America are centered around Israel, land of the Jews. Israel was a nation founded on complete equality between the sexes, going so far as to have the women shower and change in the same rooms as the men. Likewise, American female Jews were the leaders of Second Wave feminism centered around Betty Friedan and her Feminine Mystique. Strange how both groups of Jews on two different sides of the planet had the same conception of the sexes, no?

It gets stranger when you realize the reason most Muslims attack America is because America supports Israel. Although Americans don't see it this way, Arab Muslims believe the Jews have taken over America and use it's resources to accomplish Jewish interests in the Middle East.

   

I remember seeing this picture posted on some major news site about five years ago that was doing coverage of an Islamic protest and this image came up as one of the protest signs.

You can clearly see how the Muslims perceive the Jews as the cuff of the sleeve on the shirt of America, controlling the hand of force against Muslim nations with the blood of Arabs on its hands. The lone Arab looks on forlornly while many Arab traitor nations, such as Turkey, are told to keep quiet by American influence.

And then you have to ask yourself, why is America at war with the Arabs when their main beef is with Israel? Arabic Muslims see the same group of people who pushed feminism, multiculturalism, porn (strange but true it was a Jew who mainstreamed porn in the 1970's), abortion, (insert progressive cause here), are also the same group of people taking over the holy land and manipulating America into fighting wars on behalf of Israel. Arabs are 100x more conservative than Westerners, and that is why Arab cities do not have the same level of debauchery that Western cities have. Naturally they oppose all progressive indoctrination.

So when you see Muslims rioting in Europe, it's not just on behalf of Israel, they are also rioting against feminism, the casual hookup culture, abortion, gay marriage, (insert progressive cause here), which Arab Muslims believe are all caused mainly by Jewish influence. So for Arab Muslims, attacking the Jews accomplishes two aims at once: removing the progressive death-cult virus of abortion and debauchery, and also stopping the wars in the middle east.

Now, you can understand how the same wars in the Middle East bankrupting America and Feminism are all connected. Even if the Jews aren't behind all of this, it doesn't matter because that's how the Arab Muslims perceive it. And to be totally honest, I can't really refute any of Arab's claims about Jews because if we evaluate America from the perspective of "Judge by actions, not words," then it is rather apparent that the Jews are the most powerful and influential group of people in America leading the West into war and decadence.

[Eldon]

"In the same way, Iraq and Afghanistan were both clear military victories."

This is akin to burning down a house that had a roach infestation problem and saying the exterminator was successful. Well yes, yes he was!!!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...m-20140717

[TigerMandingo]

delete

[Fighting888]

When it comes to the current conflict with ISIS, I don't see Israel or Jewish populations as being the instigators here.

I tend to blame Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia funds jihadist movements and sends its radicalized young men to die in these jihads. This has the result of destabilizing Saudi Arabia's neighbors (strengthening Saudi Arabia's position), increasing the influence of Saudi Wahhabist Islam (making Saudi Arabia more capable of exerting power over other territories), and eliminating young men who might be a threat to the ruling Saud family (increasing the stability of the current monarchy).

Read this article below. I posted the article before, but it's really worth reading.

Once you read the below article, it'll make sense why Saudi Arabia funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

The Saudis are truly the master manipulators of the Middle East.

When you consider how many American politicians are benefactors of Saudi financial largesse (such as the Bush family), perhaps the Saudi are master manipulators within Washington DC.

Read the below article.

Quote:

People are saying that the Saudis are asking for big trouble by backing jihad against Syria’s President Assad.

According to the Daily Beast:


“Saudi Arabia is playing a dangerous double game—turning a blind eye to the jihadists flocking from Riyadh to Syria while assuring the West of its commitment to fighting terror.”

This is the famous “blowback” theory: Saudi Arabia itself will become a target when the Saudis fighting in Syria come home. There was serious “blowback,” we’re told, after a generation of Saudis, most famously a tall guy named Osama, went off to do jihad in Afghanistan, and it could happen again.

You’ll notice that this story has a certain poetic justice to it: Saudi shall reap what it sows, and the terror they inflict on others will be done unto them. Here’s a good tip on reading war stories: whenever they stink of poetic justice, don’t believe them. There is no poetic justice, just a lot of very prosaic injustice. What goes around doesn’t come around. Karma’s not a bitch, she’s a myth (or a mythess). The only blowback in Saudi Arabia comes from those giant beans they love to eat.

The blowback theory rests on the assumption that the Saudis are just rich idiots playing around with things too powerful for them to control. It’s easy to see them as bumpkins who just got lucky by finding the world’s biggest oil reserve under their desert. Those silly Saudis, huh? They just have no idea what they’re stirring up. This is the view of Saudi Arabia you get in the Daily Beast story:


“Saudi Arabian officials are doing little to try to stop [Saudi jihadis] flying out from the Riyadh airport—a further sign, say Western diplomats, of the Kingdom throwing caution to the wind when it comes to the Syrian civil war.”

Let’s try a different theory: that the Saudis know exactly what they’re doing. That they are, in fact, geniuses at exporting trouble while keeping the homeland quiet. What other Middle Eastern faction has held power as long as the House of Saud? They’re coming up on a century in control of the bulk of the Arabian Peninsula, and in that century they’ve buried a lot of groups that looked a lot shinier and more modern, starting with the Al Rashidi, who were more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and adaptable than the Sauds. The Sauds crushed them anyway.

Then there was the rise of the Communists. Nobody even remembers that 50 years ago the Middle East was crowded with clever, university-educated Marxist Arabs who were going to sweep the bad old monarchies away. Now, the last Marxists in Syria are a very small, weird militia fighting with Assad against a tidal wave of Sunni jihadism.

The Ba’ath, who were going to secularize and modernize the Arab world, have seen their ideology vanish completely, so that even the guys fighting for so-called Ba’athists like Assad are openly fighting for their sect, not pan-Arab socialism.

The Middle East has been Saudi-ized while we looked on and laughed at those goofy Saudis who didn’t understand progress. No wonder they’re content to play dumb. If we took a serious look at them, they’d be terrifying.

And of all their many skills, the one the Saudis have mastered most thoroughly is disruption. Not the cute tech-geek kind of disruption, but the real, ugly thing-in-itself. They don’t just “turn a blind eye” to young Saudi men going off to do jihad—they cheer them on. It’s a brilliant strategy that kills two very dangerous birds with one plane ticket. By exporting their dangerous young men, the Saudis rid themselves of a potential troublemaker while creating a huge amount of pain for the people who live wherever those men end up.

Saudis have shipped money, sermons, and volunteers to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Russia’s North Caucasus just as they’re doing now in Syria. It’s a package deal—to get the money, you have to accept the Wahhabism and the volunteers. And it works. The Saudi package is usually resented at first, like it was by the Afghans who were outraged to be told they were “bad Muslims” by Saudi volunteers.

But Afghan Islam has been Wahhabized over time. The same thing happened much more dramatically in Chechnya, where Saudi volunteers showed they were serious about war and religion, a nice change from the coopted quasi-Soviet imams the Chechens had known before. Saudis like Ibn al-Khattab, Abu al-Walid, and Muhannad (all noms de guerre) provided the only real jobs a young man could get in Chechnya, and in the process did a great job of miring the Chechens in an endless war that has killed something like 160,000 people while forcing Chechen women into Saudi-style isolation, eventually leaving Chechnya under the control of Ramzan Kadyrov, a second-generation death-squad commander who does most of the Kremlin’s killing for them. This is a typical Saudi aid result: A disaster for the recipients, the Chechens, and their enemies, the Russians, but a huge win for Saudi. Same thing is going on in the rest of Russia’s North Caucasus, especially in Dagestan, where the Boston Marathon bombers’ parents live.

And one aspect of that victory is the elimination of potentially troublesome young males who might have made trouble inside Saudi. Jihad is like the princess in those fairy tales: It draws all the daring young princes to undertake quests no underwriter would insure, and in the process gets them far away from home during their most aggressive years. Better yet from the Sauds’ POV, most of them die. The three biggest Saudi jihadis in Chechnya, Khattab, Walid, and Muhannad, all died violently. Khattab’s death, come to think of it, was genuine fairy-tale material: The Russians finally got him with a poisoned letter, impregnated with a toxin absorbed through the skin. That goddamn Umberto Eco stole the method for his Name of the Rose medieval pedantry-romp murder mystery.

All the aggression of these young Saudi alphas goes abroad—a method that worked very well for the Europeans during the 19th century. You export your risk, your testosterone, and let someone else deal with it. That’s what Syria has become for Saudi Arabia, a dumping ground for dangerous young men who contribute to the destruction of one of the last secular regimes in the Arab world.

When you look at it the way they do in Riyadh, turning Syria into something like Central Europe during the Thirty Years War is textbook foreign policy: stoking a war on some other country’s territory. Britain and America have a fair bit of practice in this way of making war, but in a much quieter way, the Saudis have been using money and religion to set regional rivals on fire. Syria is the latest victim, and it’s now burning up very satisfactorily. It not only distracts aggressive young Saudis, but contributes to the Saud’s main strategic goal: the destruction of Iran. Assad’s Syria was the only Arab state in alliance with Iran, and breaking it apart was a huge win in itself, as they see things in Riyadh. The Saudis, like the Israelis, are perfectly comfortable with jihadi chaos. What they can’t stand is a cohesive enemy state.

Go back a couple of decades and Saudi was facing armed invasion by one of those states, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Khafji, a Saudi town near the Iraq border, was captured by Saddam’s troops in a full-front armor attack in 1991.

Back then, things looked pretty grim for those poor, helpless old Saudis, and not just because their troops couldn’t fight. They were on the whole wrong side of history. Secularism, that was the wave o’ the future, and those pore ol’ Wahhabi just didn’t get it.

But the world was taking the Saudis too lightly, as usual. Twenty-two years after their troops fled Khafji, everything’s comin’ up Saudi. Nobody in the Middle East will even admit to being a secularist. All those clever Ba’athists are dead or on the run. Saddam is lying in his grave. Assad is fighting for his life in a little strip of coastal hill territory. That’s two out of the three regimes the Sauds worried about gone for good.

Iraq and Syria were, and continue to be, strategic victories at low cost—for Saudi Arabia. A very high cost for the people who happen to live in Iraq and Syria, but that really doesn’t bother the guys in Riyadh.


Ah, but blowback’s a bitch, the Daily Beast says:

“The Saudis are in jeopardy of repeating history, says an American intelligence official who declined to be named for the article. ‘There was blowback for the Saudis from jihadists fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s and that could happen again.’”

This is just nonsense. The Saudis who fought in Afghanistan did not cause trouble for their fellow Saudis. They caused a lot of trouble for many other places, and for foreigners inside Saudi Arabia—but not for their fellow Saudis. To really see how little blowback the Saudis experienced after their Afghan mission, you have to look carefully at the dates. If there was going to be blowback for Saudis from their export of jihadis to Afghanistan, it would have to have happened sometime between the Russian invasion (December 24, 1979) and the decade following the Soviets’ withdrawal, completed on February 15, 1989. So, we’re talking about blowback from 1980 to 2000. And there simply wasn’t any—for Saudis. Many people remember the carnage when the Grand Mosque was stormed, but that happened on November 20, 1979, a month before the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan. There was one way in which the storming of the Grand Mosque exemplified Saudi techniques: They managed to convince most of the world that the Iranian Shi’ites were behind it, even though it was actually the work of Juhayman al-Otaybi, descendant of a Wahhabi fighter who rode with Ibn Saud himself.

Between the Russian invasion and the millennium, there were virtually no terrorist attacks targeting Saudis inside KSA. For the whole of the 1980s, I can only find one incident—and that was a sad attempt to blow up some oil tanks in Jubail by Shia Saudis in 1988. Four Shi’ite men had their heads chopped off, and one oil tank burned for a few days. No Sunni Saudis were injured. Not much of a blowback.

The next major attack inside Saudi Arabia didn’t come until 1995, and once again only inflicted harm to outsiders, not Saudis: five US citizens, two Indian citizens, killed in Riyadh. No Saudis injured.

A year later, on June 25, 1996, someone detonated a truck full of explosives at the Khobar Towers, a housing complex full of American soldiers. 19 US personnel were killed, with hundreds more injured. It was a major attack, but note that none of the KIA were Saudi. And what made it even better as an example of the Saudis’ techniques of misdirection is that the Americans immediately decided that it couldn’t have been their Saudi friends and allies who set off the bomb. It had to be those evil Iranians and their Shia proxies, a group supposedly called “Saudi Hizbollah” that never pulled off anything even a fraction as big as the Khobar bombing before or since.

Everybody who was anybody wanted it to be Iran: the Saudis, Israel, and the Defense Department. Even though the evidence pointed more and more toward good ol’ Sunni Saudis of the Al Qaeda variety, official Washington held tight to the evil Persians theory. If you want a quick look at the confusion which ensued, check out this 2003 story from the New York Times, which says Al Qaeda is now suspected for the Khobar attack, then apologizes with a correction saying it was the Iranians after all.

The Saudis must have been thrilled they’d pinned it on the Persians. There’s only one country in the world that works harder than the Saudis at demonizing Iran, and that’s Israel, Saudi’s public enemy and secret lover. Israel and Saudi; it’s like a costume drama, a bodice-ripper, only with a Kevlar bodice and some serious ripping: “One wore a kippah, one a thobe; but the more they spoke of their hatred, the hotter burned their love!”

It wasn’t until 2007 that William Perry, Secretary of Defense at the time of the attack, said publicly that it was Al Qaeda, not Iran, that bombed the Khobar Towers.

So let’s total up the number of Saudi Sunni killed in this “blowback” from the Afghan jihad. I’m no math whiz myself, but I think I can give a pretty exact figure: Zero. None.

In short, there was no blowback for the Saudis. Blowback by Saudis, and by Saudi-funded groups, Hell yeah, but blowback within Saudi Arabia, against Saudis (real Saudis, which means Sunni), nope. Nary a bit.

Some of the tall tales the Saudis told to cover up their own attacks on foreigners were so ridiculous you can’t believe any Western government took them seriously. But they did, because Saudi is a big tipper and the customer is always right, even when he’s telling lies like the ones that got William Sampson, a chemist working in Riyadh, tossed in jail, sodomized and tortured. Sampson was arrested for a series of car bombs that killed Westerners in Riyadh in 2000.

The Saudi Interior Minister, a hardline Wahhabi, claimed that the westerners were killing each other in a turf war over the trade in illegal beer. The basis for that claim was that Sampson and his friends used to meet at private brew clubs to have a few, play darts, whatever British expats do to pass the time until the contract ends.

So they tortured Sampson and six other expats into confessing. Meanwhile the car bombs were still going off, which—if this was your classic Agatha Christie—would prove they weren’t the killers, and they’d be released with apologies all round. They weren’t. Sampson did two and a half years in solitary and died of bitterness in 2012, cursing the Canadian government, which had decided the Saudis were telling the truth and Sampson was lying, to the very end. The Saudis never got around to admitting the bombs were theirs, but by 2003 there was so much jihadist violence going on in the Kingdom that it was fairly obvious it wasn’t a beer feud that killed those expats. But hey, they actually had Western governments believing it. Any alibi works when you’re Saudi Arabia.

The sudden onset of Saudi-on-Saudi ideological violence in 2003 doesn’t track with Afghan vets. It does track very clearly with something else that started in 2003. Raise your hand if you remember a big event that happened in 2003. And just like that major event, Saudi-on-Saudi violence peaked in 2005-2006, then tailed off. And most of the violence during this three-year surge consisted of a very belated crackdown on known Saudi Sunni terrorists by the authorities, who finally acted because their more excitable neighbors, enraged by the US invasion of Iraq, were targeting fellow Saudi Sunni for the first time. It took that huge provocation, right next door, to break down the taboo against Saudi-on-Saudi terror.

It’s not hard to understand why Saudis are so willing to inflict violence on outsiders and so reluctant to target other Saudis. I used to give English lessons to a Saudi police captain, and he gave me little glimpses of their security methods. One day he came late and explained it had been a hard day: “We have a murder case.” I asked if they’d caught the suspect. “No, he has fled. But we will take him.” I asked why he was so confident. “We are keeping his brother. He won’t let his brother rot in prison.”

It’s a beautifully simple system: Your whole clan stands hostage for you. In extreme cases like the one this police captain was discussing, that means one of your relatives is actually grabbed and imprisoned, but it doesn’t usually involve anything that dramatic, just the fear you’ll ruin all your siblings’ and cousins’ marriage prospects.

The next time I saw my cop friend, he was much happier. Just as he’d said, the murderer had turned himself in to save his brother. Everyone in Saudi society—everyone except the expendable foreigner servants and Shi’ites—is locked into huge clan and tribal networks. Those networks control your life from birth to death. Whatever you do reflects on the whole group, and the whole group can be held to account for your actions. But that’s only if you injure a real person—a proper Sunni Saudi citizen.

If you come from a world like that, you would naturally want to do your violence, like your drinking and whoring, across the border. And that’s why the Saudi authorities have every reason to let those dangerous young men fly out of Riyadh to make jihad in Syria.

[Feisbook Control]

(08-10-2014 04:48 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Hwuzhere: let's not forget the general trend of bringing Islam in the discussion whenever there is a topic about culture, foreign policies, or policies towards foreigners.

What does the first I in ISIS stand for?

Quote:

Personally, I am far more interested in relations between men and women, feminism, self confidence etc.

What is your attitude towards non-Muslims gaming, and potentially pumping and dumping, Muslim women? How about if it were a female relative or family friend of yours? Furthermore, what's your position on apostasy?

[mikado]

(08-11-2014 10:36 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 04:48 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Hwuzhere: let's not forget the general trend of bringing Islam in the discussion whenever there is a topic about culture, foreign policies, or policies towards foreigners.

What does the first I in ISIS stand for?

Quote:

Personally, I am far more interested in relations between men and women, feminism, self confidence etc.

What is your attitude towards non-Muslims gaming, and potentially pumping and dumping, Muslim women? How about if it were a female relative or family friend of yours? Furthermore, what's your position on apostasy?

The first quote was more general. In this topic, sure it is important. However remember all the threads that were derailled because some poster linked a behaviour/fact to Islam, whereas it was not even relevant. Others jump in, to bash Islam. And others, to defend it.

About pumping and dumping: I don't give a fuck (in the sense of interfering). If a non-muslim seduced my sister, I would give her my opinion on it, and so be it. I would not cut ties with her because of that.
And I don't worry about my close family, because the education they were given make them far less prone to pumping and dumping. For the female friends , however, nothing surprises me.

As for apostasy: It is forbidden. However I will never kill someone willingly. At the end, God is the only and supreme judge. At least, as long as that person does not try to make my family apostate with him/her. In that case, It could get physical between us. However, I would not try to give trauma, or kill, or something like that.

[Fighting888]

Muslims have the tendency to treat their women as pure, while looking at non-Muslim women as whores. This often takes the form of sexual violence. That accounts for a lot of the dislike of Muslims.

[mikado]

(08-11-2014 11:02 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

Muslims have the tendency to treat their women as pure, while looking at non-Muslim women as whores. This often takes the form of sexual violence. That accounts for a lot of the dislike of Muslims.

This is no different from the average westerner non muslim joe.
Unless he is comfronted daily to the whoreness of his female relatives, he will expect them as pure, or at least quite chaste ( if the guy is blue pill).
It is just that the ones you call Muslims, whereas it's mostly Arabs, are more prone to be violent about it.

Again, the amalgam that Muslim=Arabs, especially Middle East Arabs, strikes.

They will often be equally as violent if they see an Arabian girl get married to a black man, even if he is muslim. Just search on the internet about racism from Arabs, and the many black people killed for something lighter than this(like refusing to give up one's seat in the bus). Of course, not all Arabs are like that.

Who is the culprit here? Islam? Or the home culture of people, who happen to be Muslim?


For me, the problem is quite simple.
When the medias give us a view of Islam, they take people of Arab roots ( as expected).
As with every religion, the "stricto sensu" principles mix with the local culture ( for example there is some folklore going on Christian Celebrations in Senegal, which I am sure do not exist in Europe).
The Arab culture is really polarized towards itself ( and even then, some dissenssions appear). If you take your average Arab, explore his brain and see how does he view muslims from other backgrounds (Africa, Asia, Europe, America, Australia) and if he would give his daughter to a guy from these, he will for example strongly reject Black guys. White guys are likely to get a pass nowadays, if they have enough money, but even with money, a black guy will often be a no-go.

So when you see these guys' behaviour on TV, how can you assume this is 100% how muslims behave, whereas they call "Azziyya" black people in Morocco, and sometimes throw them rocks? - personal anecdote from my sister and her friends ?
When you see Muslim leaders , Senegalese ones,congratulate a christian elected cardinal ( Theodore Sarr) after being nominated by Benedict XVI , if you concluded that all Muslims were like that would it be right?
When you see a country murdering itself towards religious questions like Iran, would you conclude all Muslims are like that?

When you see also Senegalese people talking sometimes with desdain about other black African citizens , treating them like second-zone citizens , or Algerian men refusing to give their daughters to Moroccan men, solely because the two countries hate each other, would you say that Muslims are all like that?

There comes the mistake then: if you confronted Africa, the Chechenes, the Ouighours, the Maghrebians, the Indonesians, and try to figure out the similarities, you would surprisingly find quite a few ones only, I think. Because our local culture influences the way we practice Islam.

However the media only shows you what's going on in the Middle East ( or for example, in France, only look at the people of Algerian blood). Because it is easier to pack everyone in the same bag, and make you hate the religion.

For me, it's the Arabs that Westerners hate , not Islam. Because if you were showed documentaries of Islam in the regions other than Middle East, then you might revise your opinion I think.

PS: I notice that often I will compare to Senegal, when I want to defend the religion. I think it is a good example, because officially 95% are Muslims , 2-3% Christians, and the rest Polytheists or atheits.

However, we don't really recognize ourselves in Arabian countries for example, because of its policies and attitude towards foreigners non white ( we think it's silly to forbid women from driving, and we dont like being basically called and treated as "niggers").As example, one senegalese guy was dead after arguing with a Moroccan in a bus-he did not attack him physically. Investigation conducted? NO. Or I think the Moroccan ended with a slap on the wrist.

This does not prevent us from being really faithful. We celebrate the Aids, we fast, the sense of family is high, and honour killings have disappeared ( can't recall a single case in many years).

The country is westernized by some sides ( ex-French colony). And young girls are slutting it up more and more.
However we all live in peace. There is no religion issue, and we often give other christians a share when we eat the mutton for the Aid el Kebir ( they give us too when it's Easter time).
For me, it's very close to what was taught to us by the Prophet.

[TigerMandingo]

(08-11-2014 11:10 AM)mikado Wrote:  

We celebrate the Aids

Damn. And I thought I was homophobic.

[mikado]

(08-11-2014 12:15 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:10 AM)mikado Wrote:  

We celebrate the Aids

Damn. And I thought I was homophobic.

Lol.

Aid = Islamic feast

Funny, you are not the first to tell me this. I think Moma made the same remark

[Fighting888]

You make some reasonably good points about not conflating Arabs with other Muslims.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Muslims if the religion was more moderate, as you see in Kurdistan or some regions of sub-Saharan Africa. The extreme Wahabbist Islam and other radical branches are just alienating to a lot of us.

I've definitely known some Muslims, mostly Persian, who didn't make Islam an issue. They were definitely cool in my view.

Before the spread of radical Islam throughout the Middle East, it seems like people were cooler.

[RexImperator]

Maybe it's not a new war. It's just one long war:

http://radioopensource.org/andrew-bacevi...ddle-east/

http://magazine.nd.edu/news/49015-lesson...ddle-east/

(Can't seem to copy text from those links but a quick glance gives the basic idea.)

[mikado]

(08-11-2014 05:50 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

You make some reasonably good points about not conflating Arabs with other Muslims.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with Muslims if the religion was more moderate, as you see in Kurdistan or some regions of sub-Saharan Africa. The extreme Wahabbist Islam and other radical branches are just alienating to a lot of us.

I've definitely known some Muslims, mostly Persian, who didn't make Islam an issue. They were definitely cool in my view.

Before the spread of radical Islam throughout the Middle East, it seems like people were cooler.

Well, this is where the person really interested in knowing about Islam must go too to the other sources, located outside of the Middle East. I am sure Indonesians and Persians are quite cool, for example. Even if we don't practice religion exactly the same, I believe we would get along way better than, say, with a rich Saoudian.

I always laugh when one guy here quotes pictures of supposedly great Islam figures who are only known in a few countries, interviews of "specialists" of the Middle East, British guys, and base all their arguments on that.
Like I said, it is equating the Pope's opinions and behaviours with that of all the Christianity.

For me , all three revealed religions share a lot. When you go past the core differences ( divinity of the Christ, advent of Muhammad) they are truly similar.
But to understand this, you must be willing to forget most of what's portrayed in the medias, and seek the truth outside of that( this holds true for almost all topics discussed on this board).

You must be red pill in religion,and willing to go past your prejuges, something not a lot of people on this forum can (among those for whom religion is important. I think many RVFers DGAF)

[kaotic]

Well they just lopped off a journalists head. (WARNING: Video is graphic at the end)

The Islamic State (ISIS) beheads an American in retaliation for US air strikes on IS positions in Northern Iraq.

According to some media reports, the person beheaded is an American photojournalist named James Wright Foley, who went missing in Syria in late 2012. The other person named and threatened at the end of the video is allegedly Steven Joel Sotloff.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=519_14084...1LHIF1J.99

[El Chinito loco]

(08-19-2014 06:09 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Well they just lopped off a journalists head. (WARNING: Video is graphic at the end)

The Islamic State (ISIS) beheads an American in retaliation for US air strikes on IS positions in Northern Iraq.

According to some media reports, the person beheaded is an American photojournalist named James Wright Foley, who went missing in Syria in late 2012. The other person named and threatened at the end of the video is allegedly Steven Joel Sotloff.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=519_14084...1LHIF1J.99

One year you're in an exciting occupation that allows you to travel and visit interesting places. The next year you're in some grainy video getting your head lopped off by a crazed fundamentalist.

Life's a bitch.

[AnonymousBosch]

(08-19-2014 06:09 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Well they just lopped off a journalists head. (WARNING: Video is graphic at the end)

There's already a bunch of women on Twitter making it All About Them, trying to pretend they're caring and sensitive.

Quote:

"May I suggest that if any videos of James Foley's murder appear in your timeline, you block the person that posted them. #Respect #Dignity"

Quote:

I am really struck by this. I have seen SO MANY tweets in just the last 20 minutes decrying sharing the picture of James Foley in death.

Women, burying their heads in the sand, as usual. And, of course, one Meagen Carver, Public Relations Post-Wall Hag, saying 'we' should be doing something about this - meaning she'll sit on her fat arse, drinking the wine that bloats her sagging face, as she continues to devote her twitter feed to status whoring, media party schmoozing and describing how emotionally-reactive she is to the television and movie shows she's constantly watching, whilst men fight and die in the war for her continued comfort.

[joseph80]

(08-11-2014 06:21 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Maybe it's not a new war. It's just one long war:

http://radioopensource.org/andrew-bacevi...ddle-east/

http://magazine.nd.edu/news/49015-lesson...ddle-east/

(Can't seem to copy text from those links but a quick glance gives the basic idea.)

Oil - Oil - Oil. Contrary to your guest, there is a strategy. The purpose of all this is keeping the oil fields functioning and the sea lanes open. That is the first, last and only strategic objective, and it has been achieved spectacularly well. The policy remains unchanged because, in that sense, it's working, thank you. One hopes there could be a better way to protect the oil supply, or that mid-east oil could be made obsolete, but no policy change will come until that happens.