You're either a shill or a terrorist

[AE Bravo]

There's been a drastic change in how people see things in the ME. One of the main ideas of Arab politics has been the illegitimacy of Israel, the outpost of the west. Now, Israel's role is being downplayed and all I see in the news is what is described every single day as "the enemy." They won't even say its name, and a whole bunch of Arabic language articles are being promoted discussing the importance of the Arab-Israeli peace process in order to confront Iran. While Americans are increasingly pandering to their capitalist elite oil business partners to avoid nationalization movements and keep their hands on the market, Iran is becoming increasingly isolated in the entire region. Even if the US limits its oil dependence on SA, it still has a vested interest for the basing politics alone. Saudis are making big moves so far, and the king claims that the "oil addiction will end in 2020."

I think Iran is a threat to stability in some sense, but what do you all think this means for the current Islamofascist trend? Are the aligning interests with Israel galvanizing these movements and the terrorist attacks abroad? Is it a step in the right direction?

[Sarmatian]

Instead of a Baddy A now there's a Baddy B.

Israel is there to stay, Iran will wield considerable influence. Arab should get used to it and try to maximize their advantage instead of bitching and moaning.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A more diplomatic way to put it would be to say that neither Iran nor Isreal are all that much of a threat to the "Arab World" in the grand scheme of things, both are ancient peoples with a more coherent idea of what their national identity is than surrounding Arab nations and a historicised need to regain lost territory" but both are also nominally democratic and not really all that interested in a costly war.

On the other hand, IS poses a genuine threat to Arab identiy by polarising different group, alienating non-Muslims and destroying all historical monuments and markers THEY deem "Un-Islamic".

[Fragony]

Almost every time I tnink something it turns out be much more complicated, I really don't understand the middle-east

[AE Bravo]

Instead of a Baddy A now there's a Baddy B.

Israel is there to stay, Iran will wield considerable influence. Arab should get used to it and try to maximize their advantage instead of bitching and moaning.
The problem is that it's no longer bitching and moaning, its aggressive/destructive foreign policy. I don't see how it helps to brush aside the bs all three countries get away with.

A more diplomatic way to put it would be to say that neither Iran nor Isreal are all that much of a threat to the "Arab World" in the grand scheme of things
You're probably right about Israel but Iraqis, Kuwait, and Bahrain would disagree about Iran. It's also an existential threat to Saudi Arabia obviously.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're probably right about Israel but Iraqis, Kuwait, and Bahrain would disagree about Iran. It's also an existential threat to Saudi Arabia obviously.

An Existential threat?

No, certainly not. Iran and Saudi are rivals, but Iran has neither the means nor the inclination to be an "Existential Threat" Likewise, I do not believe they are a threat to Bahrain because Bahrain has both British and American cover, and we're more likely to help them than the Saudis in a pinch - for strategic and historical reasons.

Iran might try to grab parts of Iraq but only if Iraq actually disintegrates and in fact it doesn't look like it will.

Suspciaion of Iran seems to me to be rooted in the fact that their are neither Arab nor Sunni, but then this comes back to your definition of "Arab" where in fact it could be argued that a Shia-governed Iraq is naturally more likely to align with Iran in any case, both being neither Sunni nor Arab.

[Pannonian]

The problem is that it's no longer bitching and moaning, its aggressive/destructive foreign policy. I don't see how it helps to brush aside the bs all three countries get away with.

You're probably right about Israel but Iraqis, Kuwait, and Bahrain would disagree about Iran. It's also an existential threat to Saudi Arabia obviously.

An existential threat is what the Saudi-funded IS presents itself as to the non-Muslim world. Eg. the bit about how it's a duty for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims unless specifically told otherwise.

[Pannonian]

An Existential threat?

No, certainly not. Iran and Saudi are rivals, but Iran has neither the means nor the inclination to be an "Existential Threat" Likewise, I do not believe they are a threat to Bahrain because Bahrain has both British and American cover, and we're more likely to help them than the Saudis in a pinch - for strategic and historical reasons.

Iran might try to grab parts of Iraq but only if Iraq actually disintegrates and in fact it doesn't look like it will.

Suspciaion of Iran seems to me to be rooted in the fact that their are neither Arab nor Sunni, but then this comes back to your definition of "Arab" where in fact it could be argued that a Shia-governed Iraq is naturally more likely to align with Iran in any case, both being neither Sunni nor Arab.

Also, Sunnis, who hugely outnumber Shias, want to exterminate anyone who isn't sufficiently pure, even where they pose no threat whatsoever. Admittedly, only the extremists are actively doing so, but they have a hell of a lot of support from so-called non-extremists. To me, Shia Islam is political, but we can deal with politics. It's Sunni Islam that's an existential threat to the world, in that they're willing to exterminate whole peoples just for existing.

[Fragony]

Also, Sunnis, who hugely outnumber Shias, want to exterminate anyone who isn't sufficiently pure, even where they pose no threat whatsoever. Admittedly, only the extremists are actively doing so, but they have a hell of a lot of support from so-called non-extremists. To me, Shia Islam is political, but we can deal with politics. It's Sunni Islam that's an existential threat to the world, in that they're willing to exterminate whole peoples just for existing.

It's a schism, sunni believe the bloodline dies with the death of Ali, that's what shia/itte reject. They will never stop fighting eachother and both are a threat.

edit, it's the other way around

[Pannonian]

It's a schism, sunni believe the bloodline dies with the death of Ali, that's what shia/itte reject. They will never stop fighting eachother and both are a threat.

edit, it's the other way around

The Shia states don't include the west in their war of extermination though, if indeed they are fighting a war of extermination. The Sunni-backed IS, OTOH, has explicitly embarked on a war of extermination that doesn't just involve their Muslim opposite numbers. At least one community of Christians, including women and children (whom virtually all civilised countries regard as sacrosanct), has been wiped out. As such, Sunnis have no basis for accusing others of being an existential threat to them. The Sunni IS has proven to be an existential threat to the world.

[Fragony]

The Shia states don't include the west in their war of extermination though, if indeed they are fighting a war of extermination. The Sunni-backed IS, OTOH, has explicitly embarked on a war of extermination that doesn't just involve their Muslim opposite numbers. At least one community of Christians, including women and children (whom virtually all civilised countries regard as sacrosanct), has been wiped out. As such, Sunnis have no basis for accusing others of being an existential threat to them. The Sunni IS has proven to be an existential threat to the world.


As far as I know it's a centuries old conflict that doesn involves christians or jews, but the end of a recognision of a bloodline. There were 4 descendants of Mohammed of which Ali was the last, shiah means basicly party of Ali, other khalifs aren't recognised. Where is Hax when I need him he knows a lot more about it's about.

[AE Bravo]

An Existential threat?

No, certainly not. Iran and Saudi are rivals, but Iran has neither the means nor the inclination to be an "Existential Threat" Likewise, I do not believe they are a threat to Bahrain because Bahrain has both British and American cover, and we're more likely to help them than the Saudis in a pinch - for strategic and historical reasons.

Iran might try to grab parts of Iraq but only if Iraq actually disintegrates and in fact it doesn't look like it will.

Suspciaion of Iran seems to me to be rooted in the fact that their are neither Arab nor Sunni, but then this comes back to your definition of "Arab" where in fact it could be argued that a Shia-governed Iraq is naturally more likely to align with Iran in any case, both being neither Sunni nor Arab.
Both Saudi and Iranian establishments view each other the same way. For Saudis, Iran is an existential threat and its society rests on this fundamental national/religious impulse. This is the basis of their regime, so yes it’s an existential threat.. It’s a loose term but I think it’s safe to say that it’s accurate when it comes to the relationship between the (Islamic) monarchy and the Islamic revolutionary regime. Kingship is an unIslamic concept, and Iran points this out all the time.

These nationalistic impulses go both ways. Iran's designs over Iraq have sectarian connotations because of Karbala, and imperialism looking at the economic and bureaucratic realities of Iraq nowadays.

What you're saying is that, correct me if I'm wrong, Arabs are driven by prejudice while Iran is geopolitically driven and little else. Either way bringing in ethnicity or sectarianism is problematic for an honest assessment of these opportunistic regimes, these are just plays on their religious right populations and feeds the initial revolution's fervor or the monarchy's marriage with hardliners.

Also, Sunnis, who hugely outnumber Shias, want to exterminate anyone who isn't sufficiently pure, even where they pose no threat whatsoever. Admittedly, only the extremists are actively doing so, but they have a hell of a lot of support from so-called non-extremists. To me, Shia Islam is political, but we can deal with politics. It's Sunni Islam that's an existential threat to the world, in that they're willing to exterminate whole peoples just for existing.
They have a hell of a lot of support from secular western regimes too. The west has also proved to be an existential threat to the world since their politicans started shaving and put on dresses and wigs.

Your statement highlights this tendency, because your view is that if you're Muslim you can't possibly be civilized or coexist.

[Pannonian]

As far as I know it's a centuries old conflict that doesn involves christians or jews, but the end of a recognision of a bloodline. There were 4 descendants of Mohammed of which Ali was the last, shiah means basicly party of Ali, other khalifs aren't recognised. Where is Hax when I need him he knows a lot more about it's about.

If it's just about the feud between different factions of Muslims, why did the IS state that it's a Muslim duty to kill westerners? Why did the IS wipe out an entire community of Yazidis, women and children included? And since it's the Sunni IS who are doing this, why on earth is Showtime accusing Iran of being an existential threat to his country? I've not heard of Iran attempting to wipe out ethnic groups. Suppress them yes, wipe out no. In short, his accusation stinks of hypocrisy.

[AE Bravo]

Have you not read my posts? Saudi Arabia is not my country and I have accused it as well as Iran of being existential threats to each other.

You think because I'm Sunni I have no right to have an opinion simply because Daesh exists. You are so quick to turn everything into an antiIslam rant when I'm trying to have an honest conversation about why these authoritarian regimes do what they do.

This is all Islamophobes have, character assassinations and generalizations.

[Pannonian]

Have you not read my posts? Saudi Arabia is not my country and I have accused it as well as Iran of being existential threats to each other.

You think because I'm Sunni I have no right to have an opinion simply because Daesh exists.

I've not seen anyone on the Shia side being an existential threat to anyone. Especially as Sunnis outnumber Shia by 5 to 1 or thereabouts. If one side is vastly stronger than the other, and it is also behind all the genocidal activity, the other side cannot credibly be accused of being an existential threat to the other.

[AE Bravo]

So your opinion is that everything that's going on in the ME is because of the Shia-Sunni divide? Okay, I understand your view now please go about your business as I'm not interested in a discussion where you're pitting me against a minority I have no problem with.

[Fragony]

If it's just about the feud between different factions of Muslims, why did the IS state that it's a Muslim duty to kill westerners? Why did the IS wipe out an entire community of Yazidis, women and children included? And since it's the Sunni IS who are doing this, why on earth is Showtime accusing Iran of being an existential threat to his country? I've not heard of Iran attempting to wipe out ethnic groups. Suppress them yes, wipe out no. In short, his accusation stinks of hypocrisy.

An uncomfertable truth? That islam is not peace? Been saying that here for years why ask me now now that you realise it. You rediculed me as well if you don't me saying it, and now you are more radical than I have ever been

[Brenus]

It could be that it is not about (well, not only) 2 version of Islam, but as well the old war between Arabs and Persians plus a bit of local powers fighting each others for the control of the region?
Repressions against minorities in common in all dictatorships...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Both Saudi and Iranian establishments view each other the same way. For Saudis, Iran is an existential threat and its society rests on this fundamental national/religious impulse. This is the basis of their regime, so yes it’s an existential threat.. It’s a loose term but I think it’s safe to say that it’s accurate when it comes to the relationship between the (Islamic) monarchy and the Islamic revolutionary regime. Kingship is an unIslamic concept, and Iran points this out all the time.

These nationalistic impulses go both ways. Iran's designs over Iraq have sectarian connotations because of Karbala, and imperialism looking at the economic and bureaucratic realities of Iraq nowadays.

What you're saying is that, correct me if I'm wrong, Arabs are driven by prejudice while Iran is geopolitically driven and little else. Either way bringing in ethnicity or sectarianism is problematic for an honest assessment of these opportunistic regimes, these are just plays on their religious right populations and feeds the initial revolution's fervor or the monarchy's marriage with hardliners.

No, I don't think Arabs are necessarily driven by prejudice - but I think it's telling if Arabs are more concerned about Iran than the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a genuine existential threat - they wish to wipe out ALL other governments and they aim to wipe out all traces of pre-Islamic history. This isn't just rhetoric, they're actively trying to achieve this and the Arab world has struggled to oppose them without Western or Russian support.

By contrast Iran has a rhetoric of wanting to overthrow the House of Saud, and indeed the State of Isreal whilst Saud returns the compliment. Despite this the two states have open diplomatic channels and, to my knowledge, have no current belligerent operations against each other.

It's also worht remembering that Saudi Arabia and Iran are presenting themselves as the leaders of the two major branches of Islam and this is the major reason for their antagonistic rhetoric - both states find the other useful as a domestic punching bag.

Now, in addition to to being Shia Iran is also Persian and not Arab - unlike the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and the Levantines the Persians have not adopted Arab culture or Arab language aside from a few elements like headscarves. So the Iranians are, in a sense, rather like the Israelis - different culture, different language, different (but related) history.

A final thought for you - modern Israel is roughly 25% of the size of "The Kingdom of David" and if Israel continues to veer to the left, and continues to soak up immigrants and have an expanding population then it's conceivable they will attempt to seize the Trans-Jordan, the Sinai and Lebanon in a few decades. Currently there's only a very small group of people in Israel who would support that, but I believe there is a larger yearning in the country for what they see as a "restoration" of their ancient land. Iran does not have this sort of impetus.

In my analysis your posts suggest Arabs have a blind spot where they tend to focus on the other, Jew, Shia, Persian, Israeli, rather than the Cuckoo in the Nest - the Caliphate. I would have thought all Arab energy would be devoted to crushing IS before looking for new enemies.

[AE Bravo]

The Caliphate is a genuine existential threat
Of course. They are against the very idea of an Arab nation-state.

Tunisians, some Palestinian parties, and Yemen’s Houthis are Arabs that support Iran. They also have no ties to any Sunni insurgencies. I don’t know why you don’t recognize some of these groups’ Arab identities.

Despite this the two states have open diplomatic channels and, to my knowledge, have no current belligerent operations against each other.
No, they are actively undermining each other. What open diplomatic channels are you referring to? Iranians are banned from pilgrimage and no Saudi is allowed to travel to Iran.

It's also worht remembering that Saudi Arabia and Iran are presenting themselves as the leaders of the two major branches of Islam and this is the major reason for their antagonistic rhetoric - both states find the other useful as a domestic punching bag.
Yeah, I said that.

A final thought for you - modern Israel is roughly 25% of the size of "The Kingdom of David" and if Israel continues to veer to the left, and continues to soak up immigrants and have an expanding population then it's conceivable they will attempt to seize the Trans-Jordan, the Sinai and Lebanon in a few decades. Currently there's only a very small group of people in Israel who would support that, but I believe there is a larger yearning in the country for what they see as a "restoration" of their ancient land. Iran does not have this sort of impetus.
This is not realistic, and will not be good for Israel. Both Iran and Turkey will never allow this, Egypt will be loaded with cash by that time, and if Assad sticks around it’s going to be a wrap. I don’t think Israel would risk this, especially after the diplomatic progress with Saudis after their Red Sea purchases. As much as Israel wanted Iran, they're getting the Saudis and they'll probably take what they can get.

In my analysis your posts suggest Arabs have a blind spot where they tend to focus on the other, Jew, Shia, Persian, Israeli, rather than the Cuckoo in the Nest - the Caliphate. I would have thought all Arab energy would be devoted to crushing IS before looking for new enemies.
Again, if by Arabs you mean Saudi Arabia, they really don’t have much to benefit from confronting Daesh, sadly. Their western patrons dislike Assad for daring to take an independent direction while threatening the security of Israel, and so Al Saud as essentially vassals of the west act imprudently like them.

[Pannonian]

Again, if by Arabs you mean Saudi Arabia, they really don’t have much to benefit from confronting Daesh, sadly. Their western patrons dislike Assad for daring to take an independent direction while threatening the security of Israel, and so Al Saud as essentially vassals of the west act imprudently like them.

Sometimes you have to cut out the canker even if you don't materially gain from it. Britain bankrupted itself in the fight against Nazi Germany, volunteering ever greater efforts in the fight, despite Germany actively trying to arrange a truce and division of spoils. I don't think anyone in Britain has an ounce of regret about this sacrifice. The price was worth paying many times over, to remove the evil that we did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course. They are against the very idea of an Arab nation-state.

At least we agree on something.


Tunisians, some Palestinian parties, and Yemen’s Houthis are Arabs that support Iran. They also have no ties to any Sunni insurgencies. I don’t know why you don’t recognize some of these groups’ Arab identities.

It depends on your definition of "Arab", Yemen is an Arab state but Palestinians and Tunisians are arguably "Arabised" rather than Arabs.


No, they are actively undermining each other. What open diplomatic channels are you referring to? Iranians are banned from pilgrimage and no Saudi is allowed to travel to Iran.

They antagonise, but to pretend they don't talk to each other is naive.


This is not realistic, and will not be good for Israel. Both Iran and Turkey will never allow this, Egypt will be loaded with cash by that time, and if Assad sticks around it’s going to be a wrap. I don’t think Israel would risk this, especially after the diplomatic progress with Saudis after their Red Sea purchases. As much as Israel wanted Iran, they're getting the Saudis and they'll probably take what they can get.

Creating Israel was not realistic - but the Zionists (the original ones) did it.


Again, if by Arabs you mean Saudi Arabia, they really don’t have much to benefit from confronting Daesh, sadly. Their western patrons dislike Assad for daring to take an independent direction while threatening the security of Israel, and so Al Saud as essentially vassals of the west act imprudently like them.

Westerners dislike Assad for killing his own people - it offends out delicate sensibilities and if the Saudis think IS isn't worth confronting then they're idiots.

[Pannonian]

Westerners dislike Assad for killing his own people - it offends out delicate sensibilities and if the Saudis think IS isn't worth confronting then they're idiots.

Or it says something about their worldview. Oh well, it's their country, they can do whatever they like with their foreign policy. However, the UK is our country, and I think we should stamp down on the import of Salafist preachers. Just because Saudi and their allies have their foreign policy doesn't mean we have to accept it in our backyard.

[Husar]

Sometimes you have to cut out the canker even if you don't materially gain from it. Britain bankrupted itself in the fight against Nazi Germany, volunteering ever greater efforts in the fight, despite Germany actively trying to arrange a truce and division of spoils. I don't think anyone in Britain has an ounce of regret about this sacrifice. The price was worth paying many times over, to remove the evil that we did.

Yes, the entire WW2 history of the nation of altruism was flawless, from appeasement and the great defense of Poland to firebombing civilians at night it was one true humanitarian effort while Britain never had a single nazi sympathizer or nationalist.

[Pannonian]

Yes, the entire WW2 history of the nation of altruism was flawless, from appeasement and the great defense of Poland to firebombing civilians at night it was one true humanitarian effort while Britain never had a single nazi sympathizer or nationalist.

You've got that right there. Britain wasn't without its share of Nazi sympathisers. Germany raised a Waffen SS unit consisting of British POWs who were willing to fight for the Nazis, called the British Free Corps. At peak strength, it numbered 27, equivalent to an extremely understrength platoon. And that was counting Dominion members. I suppose they could have fielded a couple of football teams to entertain fellow Nazis. Too few to form two rugby teams though.

It's probably not fair to just count active combatants though. We should also count all those who were contributing to Germany's war effort by spying on Britain for Germany. I'll leave it to you to add the count.

As a comparison, how many Irish citizens defied their government's explicit policy to serve in Britain's armed forces and merchant navy? 40k - 60k wasn't it?

[Fragony]

Nazi-sympathisers everywhere, especially in the nobility and royal families

[Gilrandir]

Where is Hax when I need him he knows a lot more about it's about.

Try wikipedia instead. It may sometimes help.




the Persians have not adopted Arab culture or Arab language aside from a few elements like headscarves.

... and the script.


Yes, the entire WW2 history of the nation of altruism was flawless, from appeasement and the great defense of Poland to firebombing civilians at night it was one true humanitarian effort while Britain never had a single nazi sympathizer or nationalist.

18086


You've got that right there. Britain wasn't without its share of Nazi sympathisers. Germany raised a Waffen SS unit consisting of British POWs who were willing to fight for the Nazis, called the British Free Corps. At peak strength, it numbered 27, equivalent to an extremely understrength platoon. And that was counting Dominion members. I suppose they could have fielded a couple of football teams to entertain fellow Nazis. Too few to form two rugby teams though.


It is too naive to believe the reason of it is a special integrity or moral high ground of the British. The high number of other "native" detachments within German armies is explained by the fact that they were recruited IN THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES. Had Britain been occupied, I'm sure we would have discussed a British counterpart of Charlemagne or Galychyna.

[Pannonian]

It is too naive to believe the reason of it is a special integrity or moral high ground of the British. The high number of other "native" detachments within German armies is explained by the fact that they were recruited IN THE OCCUPIED COUNTRIES. Had Britain been occupied, I'm sure we would have discussed a British counterpart of Charlemagne or Galychyna.

Going back to the original point, which is that Showtime said that Saudi had no incentive to confront IS, Britain had no special incentive to confront Nazi Germany to the extent that we did either. Yet we did. That we did, gives us the moral position to despise those Muslim countries who profess to be opposed to IS, yet do nothing about it. So we weren't occupied by Germany. Neither are Saudi, UAE, and the rest of that lot occupied by IS. When we acted in the region, we were criticised for acting as a colonial power (perhaps not in those words, but by the usual anti-colonials in alliance with their religious fundie friends). So now we shouldn't intervene, but should leave it to the regional powers to deal with the problem themselves. And how they deal with it or don't deal with it is a mark of what they are. We proved we weren't Nazis or anything like them by virtue of the fact that we fought against them. Let's see what Saudi and their friends do about IS.

[Gilrandir]

Going back to the original point, which is that Showtime said that Saudi had no incentive to confront IS, Britain had no special incentive to confront Nazi Germany to the extent that we did either. Yet we did. That we did, gives us the moral position to despise those Muslim countries who profess to be opposed to IS, yet do nothing about it.


Britain did fight Germany. After it had fed to Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria. So we will see if Muslim countries will wake up as Britian did. And judging by their declaration of anti-ISIS coalition they are rubbing their eyes already.



So we weren't occupied by Germany. Neither are Saudi, UAE, and the rest of that lot occupied by IS.

So they don't have ISIS collaborationists.



We proved we weren't Nazis or anything like them by virtue of the fact that we fought against them.

Fighting nazis doesn't absolve anyone from other sins. The USSR fought nazis, but it doesn't whitewash all that Stalin did inside the country.


Generally speaking, it is not fair to equate Germany and ISIS. The latter is not a country thus it lacks potency Hitler enjoyed to wage a war (several wars at a time indeed).

[AE Bravo]

It depends on your definition of "Arab", Yemen is an Arab state but Palestinians and Tunisians are arguably "Arabised" rather than Arabs.
You're free to define it however way you want with your history background, but it's not mainstream. Arab is a social construct and if people identify themselves this way, so be it.

Creating Israel was not realistic - but the Zionists (the original ones) did it.
What's your point? You must be trolling. Israel isn't stupid.

Westerners dislike Assad for killing his own people - it offends out delicate sensibilities and if the Saudis think IS isn't worth confronting then they're idiots.
No, they dislike him for being probably the last Arab nationalist who hates Israel and is buddy-buddy with Iran and Hezbollah. What does it tell you that Democratic Tunisia is against the opposition in Syria? It's not about killing his own people. From the Islamic pipeline to his middle finger to the west.

The mere fact that these western countries are allied with Saudi Arabia is enough to sit their asses down about human rights and the like. Pannonian's country's real estate owes it to Saudi holding companies right now.

[Pannonian]

Britain did fight Germany. After it had fed to Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria. So we will see if Muslim countries will wake up as Britian did. And judging by their declaration of anti-ISIS coalition they are rubbing their eyes already.


So they don't have ISIS collaborationists.



Fighting nazis doesn't absolve anyone from other sins. The USSR fought nazis, but it doesn't whitewash all that Stalin did inside the country.


Generally speaking, it is not fair to equate Germany and ISIS. The latter is not a country thus it lacks potency Hitler enjoyed to wage a war (several wars at a time indeed).

One difference is that everyone, and everyone, now knows IS is a monster and an offence to humanity. Will the Muslim countries do anything about it? They have, after all, complained about the west sticking its nose in their affairs, so it's not our problem, as per their wishes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're free to define it however way you want with your history background, but it's not mainstream. Arab is a social construct and if people identify themselves this way, so be it.

I understand your point but you misunderstand mine. Assyrians are, historically, no more "Arabs" than Persians, but unlike Persians they bought into the identity so now you see Syrians and Iraqis as Arabs and Persians as "other". Most Iraqis are Shia, most Iranians are Shia - what the difference? It's just a matter of perspective.


What's your point? You must be trolling. Israel isn't stupid.

No - the Israelis are not stupid - they achieved this in six days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

As I said, it's naive to believe nobody in Israel thinks they can repeat the trick when the Arabs are weak and disorganised again. That day may come sooner than later if the Arab Nations continue to ignore IS.


No, they dislike him for being probably the last Arab nationalist who hates Israel and is buddy-buddy with Iran and Hezbollah. What does it tell you that Democratic Tunisia is against the opposition in Syria? It's not about killing his own people. From the Islamic pipeline to his middle finger to the west.

No, it's really the oppression and the killing of civilians. If we had geopolitical reasons for jumping on Assad we would have done it years ago. Democracies work differently to Dictatorships. Western Nations were compelled to act by the consistent abuses against their geopolitical interests. The same is true in Libya, it would have been better to leave Gaddafi in power but it wasn't tenable because of our domestic climate.


The mere fact that these western countries are allied with Saudi Arabia is enough to sit their asses down about human rights and the like. Pannonian's country's real estate owes it to Saudi holding companies right now.

Saudi Arabia makes an effort to commit their atrocities quietly, and not offend our sensibilities.

[Pannonian]

No, it's really the oppression and the killing of civilians. If we had geopolitical reasons for jumping on Assad we would have done it years ago. Democracies work differently to Dictatorships. Western Nations were compelled to act by the consistent abuses against their geopolitical interests. The same is true in Libya, it would have been better to leave Gaddafi in power but it wasn't tenable because of our domestic climate.


We should change our political climate. A lot of the world is not as agog for liberal democracy as we think they should be, and removing dictators only results in giving the ideologically cohesive Islamists their opportunity. It was clear after Iraq, and it was inexcusable stupidity to repeat it in Libya and Syria and expect different results. Anyone who argues for supporting freedom and democracy in Muslim countries needs their head checked.



Saudi Arabia makes an effort to commit their atrocities quietly, and not offend our sensibilities.

We should do our best to wean ourselves off the Saudi teat. They've been promoting opposition to our liberal democracies among our populations, while we try to excuse them. We should look to minimise our involvement with states that promote Salafism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't disagree - but my point was that, despite what our enemies believe Western believe, our policies are driven the the sensibilities of our population.

Now, me, I'd just as soon march East under the auspices of a new Augustus and reclaim all the lost Provinces but I'm an insane Romanophile who craves the HAND OF ROME to rule over him.

[Greyblades]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/093/297/6e3.jpg

[AE Bravo]

I understand your point but you misunderstand mine. Assyrians are, historically, no more "Arabs" than Persians, but unlike Persians they bought into the identity so now you see Syrians and Iraqis as Arabs and Persians as "other". Most Iraqis are Shia, most Iranians are Shia - what the difference? It's just a matter of perspective.
Right. The initial point was you saying that this can be summed up as an Arab-Persian rivalry, and I felt the need to point out that it isn’t. First, because there are Arabs spread across the region that are sympathetic to Iran. Second, that this is a conflict based on the fact that Iran presents a legitimate threat to the regimes.

So it is not rooted in the fact that they are neither Sunni nor Arab.

As I said, it's naive to believe nobody in Israel thinks they can repeat the trick when the Arabs are weak and disorganised again. That day may come sooner than later if the Arab Nations continue to ignore IS.
This is not very realistic what you're saying. It's all hypothetical and grounded on what exactly? Lets pretend this makes sense.

1. Saudi-Egypt-Israel relations have nowhere to go but improve. It’s highly unlikely things will go back to the way they were.
2. Pan-Arabism is dead. Also, the Six-Day War was a result of Abdel Nasser’s attitude towards the west might I add. Think about that when you talk about Syria, because Nasser wasn’t known for killing civilians, that was a crime committed by the victors.
3. Like I said, Israel is surrounded by rogue religious movements. Turkey, Iran, Syrian Republicans, and the most powerful Islamic movement in the world - Hezbollah. It’s not happening.

No, it's really the oppression and the killing of civilians. If we had geopolitical reasons for jumping on Assad we would have done it years ago. Democracies work differently to Dictatorships. Western Nations were compelled to act by the consistent abuses against their geopolitical interests. The same is true in Libya, it would have been better to leave Gaddafi in power but it wasn't tenable because of our domestic climate.
You couldn’t have done this a long time ago, but that’s neither here nor there. Surely if they cared about your opinion your government wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The British public strongly opposed it, more than any other country in the world including the Muslim ones I think. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that both the American and British public are growing tired of their states' disastrous foreign affairs.

[Pannonian]

You couldn’t have done this a long time ago, but that’s neither here nor there. Surely if they cared about your opinion your government wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The British public strongly opposed it, more than any other country in the world including the Muslim ones I think. In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that both the American and British public are growing tired of their states' disastrous foreign affairs.

And here's an example of what I was talking about. We're wrong for acting, so we should just stop caring about the middle east and leave that hell hole to their own devices. There is oil there which we desire, but we can trade for that, and everything else about it is oppositional to our values. If the middle easterners, and by virtue of their past conquests that includes all the areas that the Muslims have conquered and assimilated in the past, want to follow their barbaric inclinations, that's their choice and not our responsibility. Liberal democracy is not for us to impose on them.

[Gilrandir]

Generally speaking, it is not fair to equate Germany and ISIS. The latter is not a country thus it lacks potency Hitler enjoyed to wage a war (several wars at a time indeed).

A curious observation by CuriousGnu.com:
http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/05/reddit-curious-gnu-nazi-hitler-comments/

[Pannonian]

A curious observation by CuriousGnu.com:
http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/05/reddit-curious-gnu-nazi-hitler-comments/

Not an inapposite mention though, given that Showtime is wont to blame the west for acting, whilst claiming that it's not in Saudi's interest to oppose IS. Particularly apt regarding IS as they're overtly pursuing genocide as a goal. Within the western experience, if we don't use the Nazis as a comparison, what other similar experiences are there within western knowledge that is an adequate comparison with IS? The whole point of the Nazis, after all, that they're fundamentally alien to most of the western experience. If we don't use the Nazis as a comparison, then the closest we can find is in medieval or pre-modern Europe. 30 Years War stuff. Even the Napoleonic wars observed certain decencies that these regimes disregard.

Eg. the example of the mother who urged her son to leave IS. Her son ratted her out to the authorities. Who then ordered the death sentence for his mother, to be carried out immediately in the street by him. Within Europe in the last 200 years plus, I can't think of any other regime that glories in this kind of sadism, other than the obvious which we're not supposed to mention.

[Fragony]

Looks like that partticular story is a fluke, not saying it isn't true but it probably is.

[Gilrandir]

The whole point of the Nazis, after all, that they're fundamentally alien to most of the western experience.

Yet they were a western phenomenon.