Yet another Religious atrocity

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

xmiles wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Islam is not a race though. 

It is in the mind of xenophobic masses who the media target though. They consistently show they cannot differentiate between races and cultures which is why you get thread titles like "Yet another Islamic Atrocity" and newspaper headlines to match. Much easier to lump them together under Islam so they can all feel unwelcome and fail to integrate as demanded.

So what do you think a thread about acts of appalling violence committed by people in the name of a specific religion which happens to be Islam should be called?

The "Atrocities committed by a very small minority of devoutly religious citizens of the world, who due to a suspected intellectual disability, have nearly destroyed the entire middle east. This is due to them misinterpreting the 'guidelines' in their chosen religion and nothing whatsoever to do with place of birth, sexual orientation or skin color." Thread.

They've not misinterpreted it considering they take it literally to it's word.

and how can you misinterpret the word of God? Why wouldn't he just say what he means?

bwfc1874 wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Atrocities committed by a very small minority of devoutly religious citizens of the world, who due to a suspected intellectual disability, have nearly destroyed the entire middle east. 

That's pretty much our (as in the West & Russia's) fault to be fair.

If they would have played by our rules to begin with it would have been OK. 

However, they didn't and once we had got rid of all the insane shitheads, we gave them their country back instead of helping them keep the insane shitheads at bay for a few more years. 

Although, in hindsight, if we would just have kept the status quo to begin with and not gone after Saddam/Osama/Gaddafi in the first place, maybe we wouldn't have this problem now. 

Its a 2-sided coin...

Absolutely ridiculous. The world didn't start in 2003 you know.

I know. 

The way we have managed these areas since the war though hasn't helped with the rise of extremism...

Many of the people rejoiced since 'the west' 'freed' them... They took the fact we had flattened their country and killed thousands as a sign of change, things have top get worse before they are better type of thing... 

But then we just upped sticks and left, leaving a ruined infrastructure and worse living standards for the people than when we first went in there to 'free' them. 

A lot of these people, not for religious reasons but due to the lower standard of living they have now became pissed off, we also left a lot of ex-commanders from the the Saddam era hanging around who were also pissed off... along with millions of quids worth of state-of-the-art military hardware. 

The rise of ISIS is 50% our own fault. At the time, due to my job, I agreed that going in to Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing to do, I still do, I just feel it could have been handled better. we did half a job.

Only 50%...?

Try one hundred.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:I know. 

The way we have managed these areas since the war though hasn't helped with the rise of extremism...

Many of the people rejoiced since 'the west' 'freed' them... They took the fact we had flattened their country and killed thousands as a sign of change, things have top get worse before they are better type of thing... 

But then we just upped sticks and left, leaving a ruined infrastructure and worse living standards for the people than when we first went in there to 'free' them. 

A lot of these people, not for religious reasons but due to the lower standard of living they have now became pissed off, we also left a lot of ex-commanders from the the Saddam era hanging around who were also pissed off... along with millions of quids worth of state-of-the-art military hardware. 

The rise of ISIS is 50% our own fault. At the time, due to my job, I agreed that going in to Iraq and Afghanistan was the right thing to do, I still do, I just feel it could have been handled better. we did half a job.

You miss my point really, our interference in the region goes back centuries not just since 2003. So whilst some of your comments are right it's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Why was going into Afghanistan and Iraq necessary? We have this arrogant view in the West that our brand of democracy and 'freedom' is what everybody wants and that we can give it to them by liberating them from evil leaders and ploughing money into the countries. We've failed numerous times and at some point you have to realise that the world isn't as simple as that, watch Bitter Lake for instance.
It shows how the British Army were played by the local warlords in Helmand Province, we thought it was a case of the Taliban versus everyone else but there are multiple factions at play and all we did was cause a civil war which we ended up being players in.

We make things worse every time we get involved.

Hmmm, not sure much of that is factual.

Over simplifying greatly the story of the middle east in the last 100 years or so goes something like this.

Basically Turkey (the Otterman Empire) ruled from Turkey down to Saudi and across through Iraq to Iran.

It's religion was Islamic and its followers - Muslims are basically in two groups - the Sunni's and the Shia's  (think along the same lines as Cathlics and Protestants being different but both belonging to the Christian faith at the same time).

Colonial powers, Britain and France had interests in the area (they had interests all over the globe at the time) and for instance had a massive foothold in Egypt - and the building of the Suez Canal and control of world trade via the meditaranian.

Anyway when the first world war kicked off, we used it as a springboard to kick the Turks out of Saudi, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc and basically redraw the boundaries to give England and France power there and stuff the arabs who had been promised self rule.

Part of the reason we wanted a big influence there was because of the growing importance of oil in the world - and we had none!

We set up puppet governments and got our oil for peanuts.  We had Iran, France had Iraq.  The Americans came along shortly after and stitched up Saudi Arabia.

Anyway after the second world war the penny finally dropped on the arabs that they were being played and in the end nationalised the oil fields and refinerys in their lands and showed us the door.

They still sold us their oil though - but this time for a fortune.  This flood of astronomical wealth to the Arab county's basically changed the worlds history as backward countrys had now become world super powers in terms of wealth and we the west, bowed down to them and facilitated their games.

Anyway back to religion, Saudi is a Sunni dominated country whilst Iran and Syria were Shia led.

As America was in bed with Saudi, we the west were brought up to think the Sunnis were the good guys and the Shira the bad ones.  Iran was and still is deemed a very bad country, whilst Saudi, who had the most hard line religious leaders (Al queda and IS have both sprung from it for instance) was seem as a county above reproach.  It most certainly is not.

Basically most of the arab county's and other islamic places like Libya, Egypt, Tunisia for example are run with one group of the Sunnis or Shias, whilst the opposite group is trying to overthrow then and take power.

Syria and Iraq are Shira and Sunni countrys in particular Saudi have been sending vast fortunes of money and arms to the Sunni's there to overthrow the respective governments.  Iran on the other hand as been sending aid, arms and the use of their armed forces to prop up their fellow Shiras.

The area to the north east of Syria and west of Iraq is mainly populated by Sunnis and that is why IS as found it easy to develop a foothold in those country's and distable the Shria governments.

The west have been played by the Saudis - because we depend on their oil.

We turned a blind eye to their Wahhabi form of religion which basically wants to turn the worlds clock back a thousand years and live like they did back in the dark ages.

Even Osama thought this was wrong.

So that's the mess we are in - the need for oil and our failure to do the right thing by everyone as meant this extremist religious view of Saudi as been allowed to be exported around the region and grow in the festering areas of conflict between Sunnis and Shias.

The only answer is to quickly move away from the reliance of oil and let them get on with fighting amongst themselves without any involvement from us the west (or Russia).

Easier said than done though.

Good post. There really is no simple solution to the problem of the middle east. Successive western governments have tried for years to broker deals which have all ultimately failed.

Sluffy wrote:Hmmm, not sure much of that is factual.

Over simplifying greatly the story of the middle east in the last 100 years or so goes something like this.

Basically Turkey (the Otterman Empire) ruled from Turkey down to Saudi and across through Iraq to Iran.

It's religion was Islamic and its followers - Muslims are basically in two groups - the Sunni's and the Shia's  (think along the same lines as Cathlics and Protestants being different but both belonging to the Christian faith at the same time).

Colonial powers, Britain and France had interests in the area (they had interests all over the globe at the time) and for instance had a massive foothold in Egypt - and the building of the Suez Canal and control of world trade via the meditaranian.

Anyway when the first world war kicked off, we used it as a springboard to kick the Turks out of Saudi, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc and basically redraw the boundaries to give England and France power there and stuff the arabs who had been promised self rule.

Part of the reason we wanted a big influence there was because of the growing importance of oil in the world - and we had none!

We set up puppet governments and got our oil for peanuts.  We had Iran, France had Iraq.  The Americans came along shortly after and stitched up Saudi Arabia.

Anyway after the second world war the penny finally dropped on the arabs that they were being played and in the end nationalised the oil fields and refinerys in their lands and showed us the door.

They still sold us their oil though - but this time for a fortune.  This flood of astronomical wealth to the Arab county's basically changed the worlds history as backward countrys had now become world super powers in terms of wealth and we the west, bowed down to them and facilitated their games.

Anyway back to religion, Saudi is a Sunni dominated country whilst Iran and Syria were Shia led.

As America was in bed with Saudi, we the west were brought up to think the Sunnis were the good guys and the Shira the bad ones.  Iran was and still is deemed a very bad country, whilst Saudi, who had the most hard line religious leaders (Al queda and IS have both sprung from it for instance) was seem as a county above reproach.  It most certainly is not.

Basically most of the arab county's and other islamic places like Libya, Egypt, Tunisia for example are run with one group of the Sunnis or Shias, whilst the opposite group is trying to overthrow then and take power.

Syria and Iraq are Shira and Sunni countrys in particular Saudi have been sending vast fortunes of money and arms to the Sunni's there to overthrow the respective governments.  Iran on the other hand as been sending aid, arms and the use of their armed forces to prop up their fellow Shiras.

The area to the north east of Syria and west of Iraq is mainly populated by Sunnis and that is why IS as found it easy to develop a foothold in those country's and distable the Shria governments.

The west have been played by the Saudis - because we depend on their oil.

We turned a blind eye to their Wahhabi form of religion which basically wants to turn the worlds clock back a thousand years and live like they did back in the dark ages.

Even Osama thought this was wrong.

So that's the mess we are in - the need for oil and our failure to do the right thing by everyone as meant this extremist religious view of Saudi as been allowed to be exported around the region and grow in the festering areas of conflict between Sunnis and Shias.

The only answer is to quickly move away from the reliance of oil and let them get on with fighting amongst themselves without any involvement from us the west (or Russia).

Easier said than done though.

Good post, but which parts of mine aren't factual?

bwfc1874 wrote:Good post, but which parts of mine aren't factual?

I was responding to Rebel's post.

(Sorry if you thought otherwise but I've never been the quickest of typists!)

Good post Sluffy... 

I spent a bit of time in Saudi Arabia a few years ago... 

I've never before met people who are so stuck up their own arses its ridiculous. They look down their noses at us, but were happy to let us run around after them and provide them with arms. 

They only 'put up with us' due to the fact we buy oil of them, and the feeling is mutual - the entire middle-east is a mess if the truth be told. Especially the richer nations - superpower money, but ruled like its the 1400's... Horrible place. Its like Dubai, Its illegal to drink, you can actually face serious punishment and even death for it as the prophet stated that drinking is an abomination against the great god... Now ive not read the Koran, but I can assume that however disgusting the consumption, there must be a passage that states this does not apply to "non-muslim westerners who come to work and make us richer"... 

Double standards.

A lot of racists on this thread. It's no wonder people can't get along.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Good post Sluffy... 

I spent a bit of time in Saudi Arabia a few years ago... 

I've never before met people who are so stuck up their own arses its ridiculous. They look down their noses at us, but were happy to let us run around after them and provide them with arms. 

They only 'put up with us' due to the fact we buy oil of them, and the feeling is mutual - the entire middle-east is a mess if the truth be told. Especially the richer nations - superpower money, but ruled like its the 1400's... Horrible place. Its like Dubai, Its illegal to drink, you can actually face serious punishment and even death for it as the prophet stated that drinking is an abomination against the great god... Now ive not read the Koran, but I can assume that however disgusting the consumption, there must be a passage that states this does not apply to "non-muslim westerners who come to work and make us richer"... 

Double standards.

Like every nation, there are good 'uns and bad 'uns - the Saudis are no different although their society has been turned upside down in the last three generations and social and political unrest is the result. I lived in the Middle East for 4 years including a 2 year spell in Saudi - and didn't spend it as an isolated Brit living in a company compound clinging to the prevalent racist ex-pat culture that for the most part doesn't even try to learn conversational Arabic to actually find out what the people are like. I found them to be a mixed bunch but most of them struggled with their identity.
In Qatar, there were two nomadic tribes. The Brits appointed the larger tribe as what is now the Royal Family (the Al-Thani's) leaving them to control the smaller tribe. Every person in the larger tribe was made a prince or princess and showered with oil wealth. Every person in the smaller tribe was given nothing - until the eventual threat of civil war necessitated the introduction of a form of welfare state to equalise things.
When you are being bought off by the West and have more money than sense and a whole world of new things to explore it was inevitable that they wouldn't want to work - not when there are British Airways hostesses to shag and vast quantities of cocaine available. Alcoholism, drug abuse and mental illness were rife in Qatar and two entire generations were lost due to "absence of purpose". Difficult to sympathise with disorientated rich kids but I can understand why social and political unrest are rife, even in the richer Arab States. The "haves" are rudderless and the "have nots" are jealous.
In the 40s and 50s we didn't care what we did to the social structure of oil producers as long as we secured the oil rights. We were the "kingmakers" all across the Islamic world and to some extent we are now reaping what our forebears sowed. And when we sold the Palestinians out to create the State of Israel (having initially backed the Palestinians) we made it clear which side our bread was buttered so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the link between social and political unrest and blaming the West.

Good morning. 

Liberal blogger hacked to death on the streets by "Islamic" students.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Good morning. 

Liberal blogger hacked to death on the streets by "Islamic" students.

I wouldn't worry, they were part of the 0.000001% of Muslim nutters.

wanderlust wrote: And when we sold the Palestinians out to create the State of Israel (having initially backed the Palestinians) we made it clear which side our bread was buttered so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the link between social and political unrest and blaming the West.

The state of Israel was born out of the Balfour Declaration (1917) at the time when Palestine was part of the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire, who we were fighting at the time during WW1.

The declaration was incorporated into the Sevres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire (1920) and the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate for Palestine came from the League of Nations (1922) which basically gave a home land for jews to be based in Palestine.

I'm not sure where you have got the idea that we initially back the Palestines as it simply is not true in fact.

That is true Sluffy, Palestine was under British control from the Sykes-Picot agreement with France. We imposed limitations to Jewish immigration in the region as the Zionists moved in. We tried to keep these limitations which were consistently broken and even led to Zionist attacks and bombs on British soldiers. After WW2 we pulled out and stopped trying to fight.

Copper Dragon wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Good morning. 

Liberal blogger hacked to death on the streets by "Islamic" students.

I wouldn't worry, they were part of the 0.000001% of Muslim nutters.

But they are always Muslims. Perhaps there is something wrong with this particular religion that it spawns quite so many homicidal maniacs.

xmiles wrote:

Copper Dragon wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Good morning. 

Liberal blogger hacked to death on the streets by "Islamic" students.

I wouldn't worry, they were part of the 0.000001% of Muslim nutters.

But they are always Muslims. Perhaps there is something wrong with this particular religion that it spawns quite so many homicidal maniacs.

Racist coment... 




I trust the Mods will step in? 

I bet the racists on here wouldn't dare to say anything to a Muslim's face.

Keyboard warriors.