Muslims account for 85 percent of casualties in al Qaeda attacks

[ScummyD]

I think I've found where all the moderate Muslims, certain forum members have been looking for, went.
Interesting that al-Qa'ida is more deadly to Muslims than to Americans.
SOURCE: Muslims account for 85 percent of casualties in al Qaeda attacks - Threat Matrix

No surprise here; this has been noted for years. Read [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X]the writings of al Qaeda leaders[/ame] and it couldn't be clearer that moderate Muslims who do not toe the radical line are prime targets for the Islamofascists.

Writing in 2004 Dr. Daniel Pipes notes the following:

To be sure, the occasional attack on a Western target does take place--(list of attacks cited)--but this is a mere fraction of the militant Islamic violence against fellow Muslims. (emphasis added) The killings in Algeria make this point: yes, some eighty foreigners were killed, but their number pales besides the tens of thousands of Muslims who lost their lives in the conflict.

The real battle, this suggests, is taking place among Muslims themselves, between the Islamists and the moderates. Islamists seek not to convince Westerners of the validity of their vision, but their coreligionists, most of whom reject it. Non-Muslims are mostly bystanders to the great ideological battle of the post-Cold War era.

The standoff between moderate Muslims and Islmaists will be long and difficult. The moderates face a daunting challenge, which is to stand up to the intimidation and terrorism of the Islamists."

Pipes [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Militant-Islam-Reaches-America-Daniel/dp/0393052044]Militant Islam Reaches America[/ame]​

Pipes warned of the threat of radical Islam back in 1985:

The United States faces a new adversary, the radical fundamentalist Shi'i Muslim. He first appeared with the rise to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978 and has grown more dangerous in subsequent years. His ideology, tactics, and goals make this enemy dissimilar to any encountered in the past. The scope of the radical fundamentalist's ambition poses novel problems; and the intensity of his onslaught against the United States makes solutions urgent.
. . .
Fundamentalist terrorism represents a new challenge for Americans.

Pipes​

Few if any commentators have proven as prescient.

Another example is the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated by Islamofascists in 1981 for compromising with Israel.

 

[filfilksq]

If these be perverts of Islam and the Islamic governments "condemn" them...why is it that they do not assist in cleaning out the cess pool that is their region? Considering that Al-Queda kills far more Muslims than non-Muslims and that they recruit from throughout the Middle East, I would think that Muslim governments and their militaries would mobilize.

Isn't that what they're doing with the crackdown on sending funds outside the country, on who speaks what in the mosques; publishing public announcements on local tv denouncing terrorism and extremism; setting roadblocks and checkpoints to search for suspected individuals; arresting suspected militants and putting them in jail; etc.? Does this not count, or is it considered insufficient?

 

[MSgt]

Isn't that what they're doing with the crackdown on sending funds outside the country, on who speaks what in the mosques; publishing public announcements on local tv denouncing terrorism and extremism; setting roadblocks and checkpoints to search for suspected individuals; arresting suspected militants and putting them in jail; etc.? Does this not count, or is it considered insufficient?

These are internal matters and they are widely meant to preserve the government at hand. In the West, our law enforcements shut down cult after cult. In the Middle East, countless terror organizations are unmolested. They serve to kill other Muslims and some seek an international enemy to explain away what is mostly a cultural deficiency.

And make no mistake, if these organizations existed in the West we would label them as dangerous "cults" and treat them accordingly. There is no confusion over what a "good" Christian is or what is a "bad" Christian. In the Afghani/Pakistani region, there exists a festering of terror that only needs the West to vacate in order for them to re-establish and slaughter and oppress Muslims. The threat is far more towards Muslims than the West. Yet....where is the Egyptian and Saudi militaries? (Wouldn't want to upset their populations.)

I have a theory. This is a Sunni Arab problem. Instead of focusing so intently on western "evils" and interventions, why doesn't their media focus a little more on the non-Arab Muslim slaughter in Sudan? Instead of identifying the Muslim slaughter in Iraq as Sunni Arab aggression, they ignore it and merely talk about the violence that "Americans caused" (ignoring their implications that Muslims need dictators to behave.) Why is it that the loudest voices heard around the world to save Muslims in Sudan are out of the West? Where are the praises towards the West by Sunni Arab leaders for the life saving efforts of the West in Bosnia? Perhaps they could show their appreciation by showing up to help save other Muslims in Afghanistan. But the truth of this is that in order to receive support from their populations, they have to keep playing the game they started about the West. This "war on terror" is viewed as a Western (American to be more specific) problem to solve even if the vast percentage of victims have and will continue to be their fellow Muslims.

 

[MSgt]

I am not seeking outrage, where did you get this idea from? lol

Post 20......"I have not seen any outrage..."

You did this the last time we discussed matters too. Remember what you write and what your arguments are and we will start having better discussions.

Whom should Middle Eastern governments "assist" in cleaning out the "cess pool" that the region is?

Perhaps they could assist their fellow Muslim. Why is it that the West is the loudest voice for preserving Muslim lives in Sudan? Why is it that Islamic organizations meant to harm fellow Muslims and non-Muslim go unmolested throughout the region? The fact of Al-Queda is that it is beaten to a pulp internationally and has been. The next generation "Tali-Ban" is what continues to recruit and fight in the Afghani/Pakistani region. They serve to harm fellow Muslims and the threat is to them...not us. Who they host is the threat to us. You ask who they should assist in cleaning out their cess pool. Perhaps they should assist those who fight for the lives of Muslims because they never have on their own unless "God" had something to do with it and the enemy was another tribe of Muslims. Iraq? Afghanistan? Kuwait? Bosnia? Peacekeeping missions in Muslim lands? Humanitarian efforts in Muslim lands? These are all Western missions...never Muslim ones.

If they tire of our "interference" then maybe they should deal with their cultural failures before they reach out and affect others.

 

[Degreez]

These are internal matters and they are widely meant to preserve the government at hand. In the West, our law enforcements shut down cult after cult. In the Middle East, countless terror organizations are unmolested. They serve to kill other Muslims and some seek an international enemy to explain away what is mostly a cultural deficiency.

And make no mistake, if these organizations existed in the West we would label them as dangerous "cults" and treat them accordingly. There is no confusion over what a "good" Christian is or what is a "bad" Christian. In the Afghani/Pakistani region, there exists a festering of terror that only needs the West to vacate in order for them to re-establish and slaughter and oppress Muslims. The threat is far more towards Muslims than the West. Yet....where is the Egyptian and Saudi militaries? (Wouldn't want to upset their populations.)

Hmm, I can name multiples Muslim-majority countries in which the country's military is fighting against terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are both fighting Shia rebels. The Pakistan Army is fighting the Taliban. The Indonesian military is fighting Jemaah Islamiyah. Iraq is fighting against Al-Qaeda.

And don't even get me started on what happened in Afghanistan.

 

[MSgt]

Hmm, I can name multiples Muslim-majority countries in which the country's military is fighting against terrorist groups.

As can I. But I can also talk beyond the sugar coating that makes them feel as if they are doing their part.

Saudi Arabia and Yemen are both fighting Shia rebels. The Pakistan Army is fighting the Taliban. The Indonesian military is fighting Jemaah Islamiyah. Iraq is fighting against Al-Qaeda.

And don't even get me started on what happened in Afghanistan.

Think about this...

Saudi and Yemen are fighting "Shia" rebels. Isn't it a bit odd how these governments seem to target out the Shia? The greatest terrorist threat to them and others are Sunni radicals. Since the "suicide bomber" passed from being a temporary Shia phenomena to a Sunni phenomena in the 80s, the Sunni have been the threat to local and international govenrments. Yet, the Shia in Saudi Arabia are among the most oppressed and brutalized in the region by law. And let's not stop there. The greatest threat in Sudan was Sunni radicals and what did Saudi or Yemen or Egypt do about it? The killing fields of Iraq produced Sunni radicals from throughout the region against the Shia and what did any Sunni media write about? Perhaps these Sunni governments could do more than target Shia rebels in this war of "Islamic Rogues."

The Iraqi government is fighting Al-Queda agents here and there. But let's recognize that they are fighting Sunni Arabs....the type Saudi, Yemen, and Egypt don't target.

The Pakistani Army is dealing with the threat before them because of international pressure from the U.S. If this threat stayed on the other side of the border, no Pakistani soldier would lift a finger to do what Westerners are doing in his absence.

 

[Degreez]

As can I. But I can also talk beyond the sugar coating that makes them feel as if they are doing their part.



Think about this...

Saudi and Yemen are fighting "Shia" rebels. Isn't it a bit odd how these governments seem to target out the Shia? The greatest terrorist threat to them and others are Sunni radicals. Since the "suicide bomber" passed from being a temporary Shia phenomena to a Sunni phenomena in the 80s, the Sunni have been the threat to local and international govenrments. Yet, the Shia in Saudi Arabia are among the most oppressed and brutalized in the region by law. And let's not stop there. The greatest threat in Sudan was Sunni radicals and what did Saudi or Yemen or Egypt do about it? The killing fields of Iraq produced Sunni radicals from throughout the region against the Shia and what did any Sunni media write about? Perhaps these Sunni governments could do more than target Shia rebels in this war of "Islamic Rogues."

Not really. The Zaydi Imams ruled over the Yemen territory for over 1,000 years. There's no doubt that the Houthi Rebels wish to re-implement Shia religious rule, as was a similar case from the 1994 Yemen Civil War. And almost everyone knows Wahabi/the House of Saud outright hates Shia Muslims.

And are you seriously asking why another country did nothing to help with a different country's internal affairs? Why doesn't America do anything to help with Mexico's war on drugs?

The Iraqi government is fighting Al-Queda agents here and there. But let's recognize that they are fighting Sunni Arabs....the type Saudi, Yemen, and Egypt don't target.

What does that have to do with anything? Your only contradicting yourself from this assertion:

In the Middle East, countless terror organizations are unmolested.

The Pakistani Army is dealing with the threat before them because of international pressure from the U.S. If this threat stayed on the other side of the border, no Pakistani soldier would lift a finger to do what Westerners are doing in his absence.

Bull**** and you know it. I guess international pressure from the US also made them fight against the Pashtuns on the Afghanistan border in 1961. Was it international pressure from the US that also made the Pakistan Army deal with the Baloch Nationalist uprising? You are talking out of your ass now.


Should we discuss America's role with the Taliban in Kabul?

 

[MSgt]

And are you seriously asking why another country did nothing to help with a different country's internal affairs? Why doesn't America do anything to help with Mexico's war on drugs?

First of all...this idea of "countries" in the Middle East is a new thing in historical terms. Most of these countries are a wreck because Europeans invented them. They are respected only in physical form. Religiousl;y, they are still a nation. Second of all Mexico and the U.S. are separated by far more than a "natural" border.

But, this goes right back to what I stated about them being confused about who they are. Don't they preach about the Islamic nation? Do not the House of Saud prescribe Islam to the masses throughout the region? You're trying to tell me that the House of Saud finds itself necessary to spread Islam in nations throughout the region by building fundamental schools inside other nations, but not necessary in order to deal with the slaughter of Muslims in these nations?

You see, we don't tie Mexico in with the U.S. by some religion. However, when Europe was ripping itself apart, all of Europe mobolized...twice....to deal with its disorder didn't it? The Middle East is a zoo of radical and extremist organizations and virtually all of them are unmolested unless they break the rules and hurt the "wrong" people. When the entire West raises a voice about the slaughter of people in Sudan while the leaders of the Sunni Arab Middle East are silent (because Bashir was a Sunni loyalist), we need to start asking questions. You think the House of Saud wasn't uncomfortable with the notion that a non-Sunni Arab might rule Iraq after Hussein?

So yes...I am asking why Muslim nations stand by while western nations do what they should be doing for themselves.

Bull**** and you know it. I guess international pressure from the US also made them fight against the Pashtuns on the Afghanistan border in 1961. Was it international pressure from the US that also made the Pakistan Army deal with the Baloch Nationalist uprising? You are talking out of your ass now.

All local problems that threatened them...not others. If these "uprisings" threatend tribes on the other side of the border they would have done nothing and the whole Middle East has a history of this. What is "Bull****" is your determination to pretend that they are doing their part for their own damn region. The Pakistani government did nothing until they were threatened and even this took U.S. pressure.

Arabs in the Middle East don't want the West seeing them all as terrorists? Then maybe they should stop raising their children to be terrorists or terrorist supporters. Arabs want the West to believe that Islam is a religion of peace? Then maybe they should be as outspoken towards the slaughter of non-Arab Muslims as the West has been. Maybe they should publicly recognize that it is the Sunni Arab that slaughhters inside Iraq. Maybe they should publicly acknowledge that Al-Queda is a Sunni Arab problem. They want the West to respect their freedoms to self govern? Then maybe they should remove "God" from their education systems so that their children have a chance to compete with the world and make God irrelevent when considering blood shed.

We haven't labeled them. They have labeled themselves.

Should we discuss America's role with the Taliban in Kabul?

If you wish. Either way...Afghanistan is a Muslim's problem to be solved by Muslims. Just like the rest of this region. But without the West, they won't will they? Left to themselves they have proven what they are incapable of. Do you realize that the only two "countries" not to be colonized by Europeans was Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Hardly models of self governorship. After helping them rid themselves of the Soviets, Afghanis went on to prove that only oppression and brutality was a possibility. Maybe we should have stuck around.

Culture is fate.

 

[ScummyD]

Why doesn't America do anything to help with Mexico's war on drugs?

The US does in fact help Mexico in their war on drugs.

10/29/2009

U.S. training bolsters Mexico's war on drugs

Since July, a total of 81 U.S. law enforcement officers have come here on three-week shifts to teach such basic police skills to their Mexican counterparts. The program, part of a $1.4 billion U.S. aid package for Mexico, marks a major escalation in American involvement in the drug war here.

USA Today​

 

[MSgt]

The US does in fact help Mexico in their war on drugs.

10/29/2009

U.S. training bolsters Mexico's war on drugs

Since July, a total of 81 U.S. law enforcement officers have come here on three-week shifts to teach such basic police skills to their Mexican counterparts. The program, part of a $1.4 billion U.S. aid package for Mexico, marks a major escalation in American involvement in the drug war here.

USA Today​

Hmmm. And if they were combatting a few religious organizations that were not only targetting international citizens, but also fellow Mexicans on a regular basis, I'm sure America's military would join in the effort along side the other nations that were engaged.

But we don't see this in the Middle East. They only "deal" with their own local problems and only if they threaten the host government. After all, the entire Wahhabist legacy that so many Sunnis are currently members of, exist because Khomeini's Shia radicals needed a suitable fanatic on the other side. Sunni Arabs created this mess. And Sunni Arabs are responsible from the most western madrassa to the most eastern madrassa.

 

[Degreez]

First of all...this idea of "countries" in the Middle East is a new thing in historical terms. Most of these countries are a wreck because Europeans invented them. They are respected only in physical form. Religiousl;y, they are still a nation. Second of all Mexico and the U.S. are separated by far more than a "natural" border.

Europeans demarcated the borders, but Arabs fought for there own independence. It was the Arabs that fought alongside Allenby and Lawrence to expel Ottoman rule. Europeans did not "invent" them, and I would appreciate it if you kept baseless lies out of your arguments.

But, this goes right back to what I stated about them being confused about who they are. Don't they preach about the Islamic nation? Do not the House of Saud prescribe Islam to the masses throughout the region? You're trying to tell me that the House of Saud finds itself necessary to spread Islam in nations throughout the region by building fundamental schools inside other nations, but not necessary in order to deal with the slaughter of Muslims in these nations?

Are you seriously suggesting that other Muslim nations (ie - Egypt, Syria, Jordan) are "prescribed" the same form of Islam as interpreted by the House of Saud monarchy? You think there are as many adherents to Wahhabism/Salafism in Egypt as in Saudi Arabia? A lot of the citizens of Saudi Arabia aren't even followers of Wahhabi Islam. Do I need to mention the Ikhwan uprising against Ibn Saud?

You see, we don't tie Mexico in with the U.S. by some religion. However, when Europe was ripping itself apart, all of Europe mobolized...twice....to deal with its disorder didn't it?

Europe was ripped apart because of politicians with agendas. One country was screwed by leaders of other countries (Chamberlain, Hitler). Perhaps you need to read up on what is known as the "Western Betrayal".

Western betrayal or Yalta betrayal are terms often used in some Eastern and Central European countries, which refer to the foreign policy of several Western countries between 1919 and 1968, which violated allied pacts and agreements made during the period from the Treaty of Versailles through World War II and to the Cold War.

Why didn't the West mobilize when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Poland? Why didn't they after the invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia? Why did the great old "West" not hold up to its end of the agreements in the Treaty of Versailles?

The Middle East is a zoo of radical and extremist organizations and virtually all of them are unmolested unless they break the rules and hurt the "wrong" people.

Quit with your baseless lies. I've already proved to you that many Muslim nations are at war with many different terrorist organizations. Look how easy it is to take your baseless statement and turn it on you:
America is a safe-haven for the KKK and virtually all its members are unmolested unless they break the rules and hurt the "wrong" people.

When the entire West raises a voice about the slaughter of people in Sudan while the leaders of the Sunni Arab Middle East are silent (because Bashir was a Sunni loyalist), we need to start asking questions. You think the House of Saud wasn't uncomfortable with the notion that a non-Sunni Arab might rule Iraq after Hussein?

Are you kidding me? You act as if the House of Saud actually liked Saddam Hussein. Besides being totally ignorant of pretty relative modern history, does the Gulf War not mean anything to you? Saudi Arabia played the second biggest role in the Coalition of the Gulf War, and that was only because America/Bush Sr. had to secure there/his oil interests in the region and so contributed the largest personnel.

So yes...I am asking why Muslim nations stand by while western nations do what they should be doing for themselves.

Yes, it has become obvious to me. The Pakistan Army is fighting a non-existent extremist threat. The Indonesian government is having absolutely no problems with Jemaah-e-Islamiya. The Iraqi military just happens to be losing personnel drastically because of another non-existent extremist threat. Get real MSgt, you are only fooling yourself.

All local problems that threatened them...not others. If these "uprisings" threatend tribes on the other side of the border they would have done nothing and the whole Middle East has a history of this. What is "Bull****" is your determination to pretend that they are doing their part for their own damn region. The Pakistani government did nothing until they were threatened and even this took U.S. pressure.

Didn't I already prove to you the Pakistan government has been fighting insurgents since the 60's? Well before they had nukes and America even noticed them.

Arabs in the Middle East don't want the West seeing them all as terrorists? Then maybe they should stop raising their children to be terrorists or terrorist supporters. Arabs want the West to believe that Islam is a religion of peace? Then maybe they should be as outspoken towards the slaughter of non-Arab Muslims as the West has been. Maybe they should publicly recognize that it is the Sunni Arab that slaughhters inside Iraq. Maybe they should publicly acknowledge that Al-Queda is a Sunni Arab problem. They want the West to respect their freedoms to self govern? Then maybe they should remove "God" from their education systems so that their children have a chance to compete with the world and make God irrelevent when considering blood shed.

We haven't labeled them. They have labeled themselves.

No, you just labeled them with a bunch of hasty generalizations. Great fallacious arguments! It was only expected.

If you wish. Either way...Afghanistan is a Muslim's problem to be solved by Muslims. Just like the rest of this region. But without the West, they won't will they? Left to themselves they have proven what they are incapable of. Do you realize that the only two "countries" not to be colonized by Europeans was Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Hardly models of self governorship. After helping them rid themselves of the Soviets, Afghanis went on to prove that only oppression and brutality was a possibility. Maybe we should have stuck around.

Culture is fate.

Afghanistan is in the state it is in because of America. The CIA were funding the mujahideen half a year before the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The presence of Soviet troops in the region was the provocation America needed. Now America had to believe its "vital interests" were at stake, and deployed troops to the Persian Gulf.
US State Department memo, 1979:

“The United States’ larger interest would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.”

 

[MSgt]

Europeans did not "invent" them, and I would appreciate it if you kept baseless lies out of your arguments.

Oh you are very much mistaken. The entire Middle East and Africa are products of European kings, kaisers, and czars. Independance later came with the understanding that their borders defined them despite their population make up....courtesy of Europeans. Europeans slashed lines across maps with crayons according to mountain ranges, rivers, and other convenient natural land marks. (Though in some cases these natural separations weren't even considered.) Tribes that had spent centuries at war found themselves thrust together in new countries. Tribes that historically got along found themselves separated in new countries. The unnatural borders that exist today throughout Africa and the Middle East are products of Europen colonialism. Since you accused me of "lying," I find it my responsibility to share some reality here about "New Imperialism"...

Google Image Result for http://www.fresno.k12.ca.us/divdept/sscience/APEuro_Podcast/podafrica1914.jpg

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism]Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

revolution: unnatural borders

File:Ralph Peters solution to Mideast.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

European Imperialism in the 19th Century

Ever wonder why the German people are surrounded by German borders? Or that the French are surrounded by French borders? Did you know that Yugoslavia was the only nation in Europe that did not have its borders redrawn after WWII? The fall out into tribal identity in the 90s was the result. The tribal conflict between Sunni, Shia, Kurds, and Turks is another fall out in the Middle East. And Africa is a mess of tribal conflict that exists despite your idea of how borders make a "country."

Are you seriously suggesting that other Muslim nations (ie - Egypt, Syria, Jordan) are "prescribed" the same form of Islam as interpreted by the House of Saud monarchy? You think there are as many adherents to Wahhabism/Salafism in Egypt as in Saudi Arabia? A lot of the citizens of Saudi Arabia aren't even followers of Wahhabi Islam. Do I need to mention the Ikhwan uprising against Ibn Saud?

You can mention all you like. At the end of everything you mention, the House of Saud's Madrasahs across the region are where Islam's most "faithful" worship their God. And these exist from Cairo to Islamabad. Even without these structures, of which the House oF Saud spend an enormous amount of money constructing, Muslims everywhere face to the heart of the House of Saud to pray to God. They all pray in Arabic, despite the Qu'ran's express literature that God speaks in all tongues. You tell me who is large and in charge of thye Islamic faith. Seems to me that the Sunni Tribe owns Islam and that adherents are unwittingly loyal to a specific tribe over God.

Europe was ripped apart because of politicians with agendas. One country was screwed by leaders of other countries (Chamberlain, Hitler). Perhaps you need to read up on what is known as the "Western Betrayal".

Drop the "I'm smarter than you sophomorics." The "Western Betrayal" is a matter between Europeans. In the end, Western powers united against other European powers to bring order to a disrupted screwed up region and this exactly what I stated.

Why didn't the West mobilize when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Poland?

Didn't take them long to do exactly that. You don't seem to be addressing the point. With Al-Queda and so many other organizations threatening and slaughtering Muslims throughout the region, the Middle East has gone far beyond Germany's invasion of Poland.

Quit with your baseless lies. I've already proved to you that many Muslim nations are at war with many different terrorist organizations.

No... What you have done has "proven" that local governments will do what they must to preserve the local government. They don't seek solutions to what infects the entire Muslim region. If they wish to be viewed as a "unit" under God then they have to accept that they are a "unit" when it comes to Gods people being slaughtered by their own. They do not seek solutions to dealing with the region's terrorist and religious extremist threats that they create unless it affects the local government.

Let's see....Sunni governments going after Shia rebels.....and a Shia government going after Sunni terrorists.....was there more? Sounds like more of the same crap I have already stated about tribal allegiances when it comes to identifying who is and who is not a "rogue" of Islam.

Look how easy it is to take your baseless statement and turn it on you:
America is a safe-haven for the KKK and virtually all its members are unmolested unless they break the rules and hurt the "wrong" people.

If it was easier, you would have done better than this. KKK members who act on their beliefs are subjected to court trials and Judge sentencing. You seem to be desperate enough to skew the reality. And by the way, there are no KKK armies organized and attacking people without molestation. Are you so desperate to relieve the Middle East of their responsibilities that you would drag America through this global leftist BS?

Are you kidding me? You act as if the House of Saud actually liked Saddam Hussein. Besides being totally ignorant of pretty relative modern history, does the Gulf War not mean anything to you? Saudi Arabia played the second biggest role in the Coalition of the Gulf War, and that was only because America/Bush Sr. had to secure there/his oil interests in the region and so contributed the largest personnel.

I wonder why the House of Saud agreed to allwiong Hussein to sit on his throne after the Gulf War. I wonder why the extreme importation of Sunni fighters tried to slaughter the idea of a Shia led government in what is a historically important capital of Sunni Islam. The Saudi government didn't care for Hussein. However, they approved of his tribal heritage. And don't accuse me of ignorance of this region. Beside studying this region proffesionally, I have lived this region.

Yes, it has become obvious to me. The Pakistan Army is fighting a non-existent extremist threat. The Indonesian government is having absolutely no problems with Jemaah-e-Islamiya. The Iraqi military just happens to be losing personnel drastically because of another non-existent extremist threat. Get real MSgt, you are only fooling yourself.

Actually, I stated none of this. What I stated was that the Iraqi government defends against a local terrorist threat. What I stated was that the Pakistanis defend against a local terrorist threat (largely because America has pressured it to do so). The Indonesian government have nothing to do with the Middle East. Since Muslims in the Middle East criticize the West, especially America, for combatting these zealots, this either means that they support the zealots or they are to be held responsible for their zealots. Your posts suggest that you deny them there responsibility, yet deny them to take responsibility. The truth is that this is a Muslim issue to be solved by Muslims...yet it is the West that faces it without their help (unless local governments are forced because of our presence and blank checks). Keep up or stop posting.

Didn't I already prove to you the Pakistan government has been fighting insurgents since the 60's? Well before they had nukes and America even noticed them.

"Insurgents" implies a local problem. You have "proven" exactly what I stated and you keep crying about. You seem to have this dumb ass belief that all of Islam is separated by borders even as they preach about being one community in defense of western interference. They can't have it both ways and neither can Degreez.

Afghanistan is in the state it is in because of America.

You are able to be intelligent about this I presume. Did America prescribe the Tali-Ban's harshness or just support towards another organization that would defy the Soviets? Similar policies existed about Europe after WWII. Funny how the culture of Europe progressed while the Middle Eastern culture dove into oppression and brutality. No matter how you slice it, Muslims do upon Muslims. Like I stated...."Culture is fate."

Funny how the global left preaches about everybody's right to govern themselves, yet thrusts their bad decisions upon others isn't it?

 

[mbig]

First of all...this idea of "countries" in the Middle East is a new thing in historical terms. Most of these countries are a wreck because Europeans invented them.
They are respected only in physical form. Religiousl;y, they are still a nation. Second of all Mexico and the U.S. are separated by far more than a "natural" border.

Europeans demarcated the borders, but Arabs fought for there own independence. It was the Arabs that fought alongside Allenby and Lawrence to expel Ottoman rule. Europeans did not "invent" them, and I would appreciate it if you kept baseless lies out of your arguments.

MSgt is of course 100% Correct and Degreez is 'disagreeing' WithOUT even showing otherwise.

Arab society was and still is Tribal, and many critique them with coherence as 'Tribes with Flags' (Google). And that would only cover the better ones, like the Emirates, which are indeed divided into Sheikdoms.

Many of the others are Inherent failures, like 'Iraq', three provinces of the former ottoman lands that are clearly NOT a people, but 3.
NO ONE was "Fighting for Iraqi Independence".
Yet this Conglomeration was given to a Saudi Prince (Faisal) as spoils.

Similarly, 'Jordan' (another 20th century Invention), 78% of the British Mandate given to a/nother Hashemite (Saudi) Prince as spoils for helping the Brits, There was no "fight for Jordanian Independence". Whatever the Hell 'Jordan' is historically.
What it is now is 'Palestine I'.

And so it goes with Much of the former Ottoman Land.

 

[MSgt]

MSgt is of course 100% Correct and Degreez is 'disagreeing' WithOUT even showing otherwise.

Arab society was and still is Tribal, and many critique them with coherence as 'Tribes with Flags' (Google). And that would only cover the better ones, like the Emirates, which are indeed divided into Sheikdoms.

Many of the others are Inherent failures, like 'Iraq', three provinces of the former ottoman lands that are clearly NOT a people, but 3.
NO ONE was "Fighting for Iraqi Independence".
Yet this Conglomeration was given to a Saudi Prince (Faisal) as spoils.

Similarly, 'Jordan' (another 20th century Invention), 78% of the British Mandate given to a/nother Hashemite (Saudi) Prince as spoils for helping the Brits, There was no "fight for Jordanian Independence". Whatever the Hell 'Jordan' is historically.
What it is now is 'Palestine I'.

And so it goes with Much of the former Ottoman Land.

....and etcetera. Absolutely. The U.S. and the Soviet Union came later and maintained these borders out of "stability" at any cost. And when the Cold War pressure was released in 1989 Somalia dove into hell during the Gulf War. Yugoslavia became the first major example of what was to come as it splintered into ethnc and tribal slaughter. Sudan was largely ignored but it was the "Yugoslavia" of Africa. The rest of these "countries" throughout Africa and the Middle East (and some of Asia) maintain a sense of unity through tribal oppresion and brutality. Iraq merely needed their dictator to fall to dive into hell as Sunni traveled across borders to slaughter the Shia. The rest are boiling. It is a fact that everywhere an American boot has touched the ground since the Berlin Wall came down, we can find a former European colony.

This is our future warfare. This is the reality. China is not the bogeyman. Bad borders are. They will affect neighbors, create refugees, wreck trades, create famine, invoke genocide, and instigate terrorism. Add tha fanatical idea of who God is and you have quite an ingredient for blood shed.

 

[Djoop]

. The rest are boiling. It is a fact that everywhere an American boot has touched the ground since the Berlin Wall came down, we can find a former European colony.

*humming along Randy Newmans "Great nations of Europe"*

It's 14:48, wednesday 30 december 2009. From where I live I can see the burial ground of Baruch de Spinoza. I'm trying to sum the countries who have tried to 'colonize' my country since Spinoza's tractatus (on freedom and tolerance) first appeared in 1670. Two years later we 'sold' New Amsterdam to the british in return for quarantees on Indonesia which, thanks to the US, we were forced to leave in 1963.

I can't take credit for Spinoza's work no more than I can take responsibility for the crimes committed by my forefathers. I refuse to take responsability for other peoples inability to obtain freedom and live peacefully with one another.

 

[Degreez]

Oh you are very much mistaken. The entire Middle East and Africa are products of European kings, kaisers, and czars. Independance later came with the understanding that their borders defined them despite their population make up....courtesy of Europeans. Europeans slashed lines across maps with crayons according to mountain ranges, rivers, and other convenient natural land marks. (Though in some cases these natural separations weren't even considered.) Tribes that had spent centuries at war found themselves thrust together in new countries. Tribes that historically got along found themselves separated in new countries. The unnatural borders that exist today throughout Africa and the Middle East are products of Europen colonialism.

How is that no different what I just said here:

Europeans demarcated the borders, but Arabs fought for there own independence.

Let me guess, the Ottoman Empire was a result of European imperialism too? No. The "unnatural borders" that exist today, are mainly from correspondence from Hussein and McMahon regarding Arab help in expelling Ottoman rule in the region. The only reason they are unnatural is because non-related world powers wanted pieces of the liberated land, and so they created the mandate system. In fact, that is how a lot of tribal warfare started. The British were in agreement with the House of Saud when they consolidated power from the House of Hashim. King Abdul Aziz would not attack British forces in exchange for recognition of the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd (aka KSA). The British were also in agreement with the House of Hashim. By revolting against Ottoman rule, the British would recognize the independence of liberated Arab lands. They had no qualms with being in alliance with two different tribes that would eventually go to war, because both tribes were against the Ottoman Empire.

Since you accused me of "lying," I find it my responsibility to share some reality here about "New Imperialism"...

Google Image Result for http://www.fresno.k12.ca.us/divdept/sscience/APEuro_Podcast/podafrica1914.jpg

Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

revolution: unnatural borders

File:Ralph Peters solution to Mideast.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

European Imperialism in the 19th Century

I know all about European imperialism that led to the colonization of the lands in question. None of this backs up your asserted claim:

They are respected only in physical form. Religiousl;y, they are still a nation.

I'm also curious as to why you included Ralph Peter's crappy "Mideast solution". My 8 year old niece can also draw lines on a map, but I'm not gonna use that as some type of evidence for European imperialism.

You can mention all you like. At the end of everything you mention, the House of Saud's Madrasahs across the region are where Islam's most "faithful" worship their God. And these exist from Cairo to Islamabad. Even without these structures, of which the House oF Saud spend an enormous amount of money constructing, Muslims everywhere face to the heart of the House of Saud to pray to God. They all pray in Arabic, despite the Qu'ran's express literature that God speaks in all tongues. You tell me who is large and in charge of thye Islamic faith. Seems to me that the Sunni Tribe owns Islam and that adherents are unwittingly loyal to a specific tribe over God.

You going to back up this inane accusations and assumptions? 'Most faithful learn from House of Saud madrassas'. You didn't even mention what type of madrassa. In India, the majority of the madrassas (of 30,000) are from the Hanafi mad'dhab. The House of Saud prescribes to Wahhabism/Salafi, which follows none of the four mad'dhabs. 1 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

Muslims face to Mecca to pray to God. They do not do it because the House of Saud is the ruling dynasty in the Arabian peninsula, and it is completely fallacious of you to connect that two as if they were interrelated. In fact, the Sharif of Mecca was almost always a member of the Hashim tribe. 2 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

Again, you connect two different things and try to relate them. More fallacious arguments. Causation does not imply correlation. Praying in Arabic is part of the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. A Muslim would not purposefully choose to not follow the Sunnah and recite in a different language. In the Qur'an it says more than once that it was sent down in the language of the Quraish (Classical Arabic) so that the message would be conveyed. 3 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

Drop the "I'm smarter than you sophomorics." The "Western Betrayal" is a matter between Europeans. In the end, Western powers united against other European powers to bring order to a disrupted screwed up region and this exactly what I stated.

No, it's not at all what you said:

However, when Europe was ripping itself apart, all of Europe mobolized...twice....to deal with its disorder didn't it?

The Western Betrayal is a matter between Central/Eastern European nations and the "West" (you somehow failed to include America in this). In the end, the West did not honor there agreements and let Hitler's tyrannical rule reach new heights.

No... What you have done has "proven" that local governments will do what they must to preserve the local government. They don't seek solutions to what infects the entire Muslim region. If they wish to be viewed as a "unit" under God then they have to accept that they are a "unit" when it comes to Gods people being slaughtered by their own. They do not seek solutions to dealing with the region's terrorist and religious extremist threats that they create unless it affects the local government.

Now you are introducing new false elements into your arguments. The Arab League may be a unit, but the individual nations are far from that. You somehow believe that since they are part of the Arab League, they are bound to assist with all other nation's internal problems. That is just merely wrong. There was never an alliance of all the Middle Eastern nations to handle uprising against each individual ME country.

Let's see....Sunni governments going after Shia rebels.....and a Shia government going after Sunni terrorists.....was there more? Sounds like more of the same crap I have already stated about tribal allegiances when it comes to identifying who is and who is not a "rogue" of Islam.

Yes there was more, and it's obvious you purposefully didn't include it because it would have rendered your argument useless. Jemaah-e-Islamiyah in Indonesia. Sunni terrorist organization attacking a country (Indonesia) that is predominantly full of Sunni Muslims. Oh wait, you also left out Pakistan. :doh Don't hesitate to stop shoveling your crap in a new post.

If it was easier, you would have done better than this. KKK members who act on their beliefs are subjected to court trials and Judge sentencing. You seem to be desperate enough to skew the reality. And by the way, there are no KKK armies organized and attacking people without molestation. Are you so desperate to relieve the Middle East of their responsibilities that you would drag America through this global leftist BS?

Just like terrorists who act on there beliefs are subject to court and imprisonment. You seem desperate to make the Middle East out to be a place where governments do not care about people running around killing others. It's pathetic and cheap, especially when you had to result to several fallacious arguments.

I wonder why the House of Saud agreed to allwiong Hussein to sit on his throne after the Gulf War. I wonder why the extreme importation of Sunni fighters tried to slaughter the idea of a Shia led government in what is a historically important capital of Sunni Islam. The Saudi government didn't care for Hussein. However, they approved of his tribal heritage. And don't accuse me of ignorance of this region. Beside studying this region proffesionally, I have lived this region.

Did I not say that Saudi government didn't care for Hussein? Thanks for agreeing with me. As for "studying this region proffesionally" (spelled professionally BTW), I'm curious as to where you did this studying. Where did you get your degree in Middle East Studies? As for living in the region, big deal. Who hasn't?

Actually, I stated none of this. What I stated was that the Iraqi government defends against a local terrorist threat. What I stated was that the Pakistanis defend against a local terrorist threat (largely because America has pressured it to do so). The Indonesian government have nothing to do with the Middle East. Since Muslims in the Middle East criticize the West, especially America, for combatting these zealots, this either means that they support the zealots or they are to be held responsible for their zealots. Your posts suggest that you deny them there responsibility, yet deny them to take responsibility. The truth is that this is a Muslim issue to be solved by Muslims...yet it is the West that faces it without their help (unless local governments are forced because of our presence and blank checks). Keep up or stop posting.

'Some Muslims in the Middle East criticize the West. This means they support the zealots or they are to be held responsible for their zealots'.
Again with the fallacious arguments. Do you enjoy rendering your own arguments invalid? Quite pathetic you have to resort to informal fallacies to support your confirmation bias. I never once denied that governments in the Middle East should not take responsibility for extremist groups in there country. But look, I can do exactly what you do:

Your posts suggest that you believe all Muslims are lazy, violent, sub-humans who are not worthy of self-rule.

 

[MSgt]

I refuse to take responsability for other peoples inability to obtain freedom and live peacefully with one another.

Refuse away. I do. Culture is fate.

 

[MSgt]

Let me guess, the Ottoman Empire was a result of European imperialism too?

You are having difficulty keeping things in order here. The Ottoman Empire spanned across Europe long before Europeans sought to regain lost territories. Of course, this is called European "Imperialism." Funny how the long time Ottoman control of European lands as far as Spain isn't considered "Islamic Imperialism."

The "unnatural borders" that exist today, are mainly from correspondence from Hussein and McMahon regarding Arab help in expelling Ottoman rule in the region......

Don't look now but there was a whole lot of European reference in your explanation. Here are the three biggies that occurred after enough European border creation across Africa and the Middle East had already occurred...

1) McMahon-Husein correspondance (1915-1916) - In return for entering the wra on the Allied side, Husein was assured that a loarge stretch of Ottoman-Arab territory would be made independant under his leadership at the conclusion of the War. It included that Hijaz and what is now called Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.

2) The Syke-Picot Agreement 1915-1916) - This gave the French control of the Levant coastal area and the right to oversee the interior of Syria. The British were to receive what is now most of Iraq and Jordan. Russia was to be given territories in the Caucusus. Palestine was to become an international zone.

3) The Balfour Declaration (1917) - The British declared their intent to create a Jewsih home in Palestine.


Conclusion? The fate of Palestinians was left ambiguous in the McMahon-Husein correspondance. The British siezed on this opportunity to press their claim that Palestine was not a part of the agreement. The rest of the "Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi" territory was carved up in accordance to European wishes. It was called the Mandate System of 1920. The British had Iraq and the Palestinian territory and what would later be "Trans-Jordan." The French got Syria. Kurds found themselves divided between Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. Husein sucked on it and was given the waste lands of "Saudi Arabia."

It doesn't end. After WWII, 1948 saw the emergence of yet another new country in the region designed by Europeans. Israel was heavily supported by the British and the Russians in the UN. Upon agreement, the U.S. was assured that Israel would be established on certain conditions. Russia immediately broke those conditions by flooding weapons into Israel (Mostly just to make life hard for the British, who they mistakenly thought was their future power competition).

Today, we can all look back on the last hundred and fifty years and see the European stamp all over the place. Before Europe's Frankenstien Monster that is the Middle East, the sudden German threat of Emporer Bismarck's claims in Africa in 1884 was enough to panic the rest of Europe into making their own claims throughout Africa until nothing but the wastelands of the Sahara laid unclaimed. Bad borders are indeed a European creation.

It would be bad enough if they only had to struggle for their independance against local oppressors within their tribes, but the European children of old decided to make this far more bloodier by forcing tribes together within unnatural borders for all time. Now they struggle against tribes.

I know all about European imperialism that led to the colonization of the lands in question. None of this backs up your asserted claim:

It is a Muslim claim. And they are correct.

I'm also curious as to why you included Ralph Peter's crappy "Mideast solution". My 8 year old niece can also draw lines on a map, but I'm not gonna use that as some type of evidence for European imperialism.

I guess yor 8 year old niece may have a better understanding of tribal identity in the Middle East than Uncle Degreez then. The impractical "solution" in the Middle East is to give the tribes back their autonomy. You know....what they had more of before Europeans pulled out the crayolas and began slashing lines across maps.

You going to back up this inane accusations and assumptions? 'Most faithful learn from House of Saud madrassas'. You didn't even mention what type of madrassa. In India, the majority of the madrassas (of 30,000) are from the Hanafi mad'dhab. The House of Saud prescribes to Wahhabism/Salafi, which follows none of the four mad'dhabs. 1 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

Muslims face to Mecca to pray to God. They do not do it because the House of Saud is the ruling dynasty in the Arabian peninsula, and it is completely fallacious of you to connect that two as if they were interrelated. In fact, the Sharif of Mecca was almost always a member of the Hashim tribe. 2 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

Again, you connect two different things and try to relate them. More fallacious arguments. Causation does not imply correlation. Praying in Arabic is part of the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. A Muslim would not purposefully choose to not follow the Sunnah and recite in a different language. In the Qur'an it says more than once that it was sent down in the language of the Quraish (Classical Arabic) so that the message would be conveyed. 3 of 3 baseless lies refuted.

I'll keep all of this together since you find yourself forced to call me a baseless liar. It requires some thinking now...

1) Your first sophomoric error: You misquoted me (because your feelings seem to cloud you). I stated that most "faithful" learn from the House of Saud's madrasas. See how I quoted the word... "faithful?" According to the fanatics of the region, which number in the hundreds of thousands, those who murder in the name of God are "faithful." We call them terrorists. There was a time when a Christian with blood on his sword was considered a good Christian. We like to declare that backwards today. But not towards today's Islam? These extremists do indeed take their fanatic beloeves directly out of Saud Madrassas where Wahabbism is featured. Those that do not attend, learn from those that do. You see, the Sunni make up 80~90% of Islam and the majority populations are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Yet, most of the international terror comes from outside these places. It may have sometihng to do with another fact. According to Ain Al-Yaqeen in 2002, an official Saudi newspaper, Royal expenditures from Saudi Arabi created 1500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2000 Muslim schools in 2002. How many of these were in Islamic countries? None. All were established throughout non-Islamic countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia.


PBS - frontline: saudi time bomb?: analyses: madrassas

2) Your second sophomoric error: Irshid Manji and Vali Nasr have interesting theories. As does Bernard Lewis. If God speaks all languages, why pray in Arabic? If God is everywhere, why pray towards Mecca? The Catholic church also maintained a certain monopoly on God and assured loyalty by keeping the word of God in Latin and instructing the faithful that only through Church officials could one be pardoned of sin. The difference between two is that Christianity had a reformation. Since Islam began with separate paths (Sunni/Shia) it never did. What has occurred over the centuries is an absolute claim by the Sunni that are special above all others because Muhammed was a Sunni Arab. Ever wonder why the Ottoman Turks had such a hard time modernizing Islam against the Sunni? Why the Caliph sat in Istanbul, yet religious prescription came out of the Arab desert? It's because Islam = Sunni tribe. Right after the Sunni lost stewardship of Islam to the Ottomans, they began to turn their backs on all the sciences and inventions that made them once a great civilization. They began to insist that Islam stagnate and even reverse in order to capture that time when Islam was at its greatest glory...Muhammed's time. Therefore, loyalty towards Islam for the vast majority of all Muslims is really a simple showing of loyalty towards the Sunni tribe.

3) Your third sophomoric error: .....and Christianity was Latin for how long? And why only Latin?

Thinking about these things rather than regurgitating prescription could help. Some Muslims are thinking about it.

The Western Betrayal is a matter between Central/Eastern European nations and the "West" (you somehow failed to include America in this). In the end, the West did not honor there agreements and let Hitler's tyrannical rule reach new heights.

Why would I include America? Europe was and is none of our business.

In the end, the west (Europeans) did honor their agreements. That's why the war ended with the rest of Europe winning.

Now you are introducing new false elements into your arguments. The Arab League may be a unit, but the individual nations are far from that. You somehow believe that since they are part of the Arab League, they are bound to assist with all other nation's internal problems. That is just merely wrong. There was never an alliance of all the Middle Eastern nations to handle uprising against each individual ME country.

This is one of thinking things again....

Uprising? Is this all that's going on across the Middle East? The Arab League speaks on behalf of the Middle East and prescribes Islamic instruction throughout its history, but it is allowed the convenience of not accepting some responsibility when their entire region is slaughtering itself and others? Ever heard of the Nation of Islam? Apparantly, every Muslim has, to include their religious and secular leadership. Palestinians have sufferred for decades because of Arabs elsewhere deciding to fight in their name rather than allow the UN to give them something Arabs and Ottomans denied them for centuries. Afghanistan's fanaticism has bled into Pakistan. Sudan's fanaticism has bled into Chad. Iraq's tribal fanaticism came from all over the Arab region. Yemen's made a bit of news lately hasn't it? The entire Middle East is wrecked and getting worse. When do you feel that it would be an appropriate time for responsible Muslims to begin behaving as responsible Muslims? I guess as long as those Saudi Madrassas are creating fanatics and extremists in countries other than theirs, they have done their part? As long as they oppress the rival tribes and arrest them for their "uprisings" all is well?

Yes there was more, and it's obvious you purposefully didn't include it because it would have rendered your argument useless. Jemaah-e-Islamiyah in Indonesia. Sunni terrorist organization attacking a country (Indonesia) that is predominantly full of Sunni Muslims. Oh wait, you also left out Pakistan. :doh

Save it. It was all the same dismissals and it ids pointless adressing ever excuse you make. The largest population of Sunnis are in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Wonder why the Pakistani government stayed clear of dealing with Tali-Ban and Al-Queda issues until it became too much to ignore? Something about the Sunni. But it is funny to watch you contradict yourself about the Sunni. Indonesia doesn't have a Muslim problem. It has a Sunni problem. The same problem that prescribes loyalty to all Muslims.

Don't hesitate to stop shoveling your crap in a new post.

You have made other comments of equal guttery. Perhaps backing off and asking yourself why your feelings are so hurt? Are you...Sunni?

 

[MSgt]

Just like terrorists who act on there beliefs are subject to court and imprisonment. You seem desperate to make the Middle East out to be a place where governments do not care about people running around killing others. It's pathetic and cheap, especially when you had to result to several fallacious arguments.

Why would the Arab League refuse to acknowledge or honor Bashir's arrest warrant by the ICC? Why else does Hezbollah exist without addressal? As long as Al-Queda moved around, local governments washed their hands. The Middle East's governments are the most corrupt on earth. And they cling to tribal identity as much as any Islamic fanatic without a suit. The fact.....FACT....is that as long as these extremists organizations behave and only threaten others, they are untouched.

Your posts suggest that you believe all Muslims are lazy, violent, sub-humans who are not worthy of self-rule.

Well, that's because you are proving to be very simple. Self rule is exactly what Muslims do. Isn't it funny how Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan were two Muslim countries never colonized? Appreciate the result? They celebrate their dictators, look away from oppression as long as the correct tribe is oppressed, and promote religious fanaticism as long as it is directed elsewhere. As for those who were colonized, isn't it interesting how they are far more healthier and progressive on the international world stage than the rest? But like the rest, they look away unless their extremist organizations threaten them.

Culture is fate.

 

[MSgt]

Did I not say that Saudi government didn't care for Hussein? Thanks for agreeing with me.

Well, you are quite welcome. But this is simple. The truth is that they would rather see him on the throne rather than a Shia northern neighbor and this is why they insisted that he remain empowered at the expense of every non-Sunni Muslim in the country. And when the Sunni were seeking the slaughter of Shia Muslims, the rest of the Sunni governments looked away (while blaming Americans). They looked away because the last thing they would ever want to see is a working Muslim government in the Middle East that makes all tribes equal while making them look bad.

As for "studying this region proffesionally" (spelled professionally BTW), I'm curious as to where you did this studying. Where did you get your degree in Middle East Studies? As for living in the region, big deal. Who hasn't?

Still working on it. ...And "living in it" and "living it" are two separate things. Resorting to correcting spelling erors is also a sophomoric tactic. Just discuss. You can do that without the emotional outbursts can't you?

 

[roderic]

You are having difficulty keeping things in order here. The Ottoman Empire spanned across Europe long before Europeans sought to regain lost territories. Of course, this is called European "Imperialism." Funny how the long time Ottoman control of European lands as far as Spain isn't considered "Islamic Imperialism."

Oh, "Europeans" regaining control over Spain is called "European imperialism"? Well, I am always grateful to learn something new from self-declared experts. :lol:
It isn't funny at all that the Ottoman empire is not referred to as "Islamic Imperialism", to those who know the definition and application of the term "imperialism".

Before Europe's Frankenstien Monster that is the Middle East, the sudden German threat of Emporer Bismarck's claims in Africa in 1884 was enough to panic the rest of Europe into making their own claims throughout Africa until nothing but the wastelands of the Sahara laid unclaimed.

"Frankenstien Monster", "Emporer Bismarck"?:shock:
It's always entertaining to read the musings of Americans which are based on emotional bias rather than actual knowledge. :lol:

I'll keep all of this together since you find yourself forced to call me a baseless liar. It requires some thinking now...

Nobody called you a liar, but your misrepresentations have been called out as "baseless lies".

1) Your first sophomoric error: You misquoted me (because your feelings seem to cloud you). I stated that most "faithful" learn from the House of Saud's madrasas. See how I quoted the word... "faithful?" According to the fanatics of the region, which number in the hundreds of thousands, those who murder in the name of God are "faithful." We call them terrorists.
...

Stating that "most faithfuls" are followers of the House of Saud's madrasas, is misleading, and so is to then proceed to call the "faithful" terrorists.
Your emotions are interfering with rational thinking and obscure your comments.

 

[MSgt]

Oh, "Europeans" regaining control over Spain is called "European imperialism"? Well, I am always grateful to learn something new from self-declared experts.:lol:

"Western Imperialism" coincidentally coincides with the period when the Turks began losing ground in Europe and Europe began to grow and re-capture land. Spain is included in this period. This is 101.

It isn't funny at all that the Ottoman empire is not referred to as "Islamic Imperialism", to those who know the definition and application of the term "imperialism".

Well, I know the definition and I find it hilariously ironic and hypocritical.

"Frankenstien Monster", "Emporer Bismarck"?:shock:
It's always entertaining to read the musings of Americans which are based on emotional bias rather than actual knowledge. :lol:

Read more.

Stating that "most faithfuls" are followers of the House of Saud's madrasas, is misleading, and so is to then proceed to call the "faithful" terrorists.
Your emotions are interfering with rational thinking and obscure your comments.

It's only misleading to the ignorant. Ignorant?

The Middle East is full of people unlike other civilizations because of the severe religious prescitpions emphasized on culture and government. Because of the culture and the severe prescriptions on religion mixed with economic ruins and lacks of education, many have found salvation in God in severe mannerisms. To those fanatics, these extremists and terrorists who murder in the name of God are the most "faithful."

Again, it's only misleading to the ignorant and I have no interest in explaining these matters over and over to every new "nu-uh" case that comes along. Perhaps it's your emotions that are fragile. Funny use of sophomoric emoticons though. Emotional?

 

[roderic]

I am not sure how recapturing Spain is "imperialism", I am obviously not familiar with the definition you are using.

Sorry, but I am not familiar with your posting history here, but I was addressing a specific rhetoric 'trick' you employed re. the Islam faithful.

I prefer to use emoticons rather than concocting terms like "Emperor Bismarck" which distract from what you want to say. Just ignore them if they throw you off balance.