Quote Originally Posted by HitWithThe5 View Post
If you still want to discuss religious shit take it to the other thread, I'll kindly tell you how wrong you are.
By all means - my, as I said, is that you have a very strong tendency to gloss over the differences.

I remember Will T Sherman guy over there saying how everyone's "too comfortable, too soft." I live in Allah country buddy, it's far from comfortable. We lost my cousin a month ago in Yemen fighting Ansarullah Houthis. I have two more years before I get mandatory drafted for the fight. Get off your "texan" (whatever that is) high horse and act like a man for once in this forum.
From Strike's perspective, from where he lives and where he grew up the UAE is very soft living. As you said, everybody is rich.

First off I think it’s fair to say that some EU countries have displayed cowardice in their foreign policy and treatment of the middle east. France’s work in Mali is good work but the way all these western countries conduct intervention is totally counterproductive.

Picking a side after intervening directly leads to anti-western jihad. By supporting rebel groups you are eradicating their legitimacy and cause them to lose the hearts and minds of that country's population, at the same time making yourself a target for Islamists. Islamists revere the Umayyad caliphate. The definition of traitor in the Arab-Muslim world is collaboration with foreign forces against your own people.

"From Caesar of Rome to Muawiya,
We've come to know of what has occurred between you and Ali, and we see that you are more fitting for the Caliphate and so if you wish I will send you an army which will retrieve for you the head of Ali."
and so Muawiya replied to him saying,
"From Muawiya to Hercules,
Two brothers disputing so what right do you have to intervene? If you don't keep quiet I will send you an army its forerunners near you while its rearmost near me, to retrieve your head which I would then give to Ali."

You can question the historicity of this letter but this is the frame of reference for Islamists, especially IS. Neutrality should preclude intervention into Muslim lands, or just don't intervene. PFH believes Islam provides "fertile soil" anywhere in the world for Islamism, that's just ludicrous because these are all politically-charged operations, and the only way to convince someone to strap a bomb to himself is to use shaheed martyrdom for inspiration. It's funny when the west asks "why do they hate us?" when Islamists generally don't discriminate, recently blowing up a mosques in Kuwait and KSA and Turkey. Even Muslims are "sub-humans" to Islamists.
OK, well first off the letter is a fake - the Emperor at the time was Constantine IV, Heraclius had been dead several decades by the like Muawiya became Caliph. Heraclius is the Emperor contemptuous with Muhammed himself, the title "Caesar" is also anachronistic.

It makes the point as a piece of propaganda, though.

In any case, what I was arguing was that we should have picked a side years ago - we have actually picked a side in Syria though - the side(s) against Assad and IS.

As far as Western intervention goes, though, I can't tell if you're saying the Islamists will see any Muslims we co-operate with as "tainted" or whether you're saying all other Muslims will see it that way. If it's the latter case then that's just ammunition for people who say the Arab world has slid back into the dark ages, because it's foolish to think like that. The only Powers able to help a Liberal or just moderate revolt in an Arab country are Western Powers, or possibly the Kingdom of Jordan if they were inclined. In the future Tunisia and Egypt may become stable democracies but we won't know that for decades and they have their own problems.

If what you're saying is that the Muslim Arab world won't be helped then you're playing into the hands of the people who just want to build a concrete wall around the Middle East and let the whole thing go to Hell - or even further into Hell.