|
On August 01 2014 07:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 07:45 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 01 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 07:27 EtherealBlade wrote:
Even then, your argument fails because you cannot see how Israel is not interested in "civilizing", since they themselves hold their holy book to literal interpretation which you seem to despise in the case of Islam but dismiss it for zionists. You can repeat that a million times but it will still be false. No, many Israeli's identify with secular forms of Judaism. "hardcore zionism"(there are some "this is our holy land people" around among orthodox zionists, but they're not dictating politics) is a nationalistic movement, not a religious one. What's your view on South Africa of White Australia and the like? I'm genuinely curious. Subduing the natives is ok as long as we invent the rules? I think apartheid regimes are fucking awful. I have also already over the course of some dozen pages tried to explain why I think that Israel does not fit into this category. Will you be sad with the two state solution and israel ending the settlements on occupied land? If I knew beforehand that there would be peace ? Yes, that would be pretty great. But I don't think that. I think Palestine would be armed up and in a few years we'd see a really bloody war. And if I were an Israeli politician and would have the responsibility for that I certainly would not let it happen.
I have a feeling that if the 1967 boarders were offered and an end to and retraction of all settlements in exchange for Palestine recognizing Israel (at least as a country no need to argue further semantics) that it will be taken and if its not taken that's a shame because whether its 10 years from now or 30 that's what the likely peace agreement will be and everyone knows it.
Also I guess they could probably put something in there about having a 20 year demilitarized Palestine where Israel guarantees Palestines territorial sovereignty but that one might be harder to make fly when I am pretty sure there is zero trust between either side about how much the other wants peace.
|
On August 01 2014 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 07:27 EtherealBlade wrote:
Even then, your argument fails because you cannot see how Israel is not interested in "civilizing", since they themselves hold their holy book to literal interpretation which you seem to despise in the case of Islam but dismiss it for zionists. You can repeat that a million times but it will still be false. No, many Israeli's identify with secular forms of Judaism. "hardcore zionism"(there are some "this is our holy land people" around among orthodox zionists, but they're not dictating politics) is a nationalistic movement, not a religious one. Show nested quote +What's your view on South Africa of White Australia and the like? I'm genuinely curious. Subduing the natives is ok as long as we invent the rules? I think apartheid regimes are fucking awful. I have also already over the course of some dozen pages tried to explain why I think that Israel does not fit into this category.
So you think declaring Israel a Jewish state and simulatenously declaring Jerusalem, complete and united the capital of Israel, calling the West Bank "Judea and Samaria", politicians on the governing parties calling for the annihilation of the Palestinians is not hardcore enough, but Hamas, that gained power in response to all these are an ultimate evil.
|
On August 01 2014 07:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 02:37 Sn0_Man wrote:On August 01 2014 02:27 DinoMight wrote:
How is Hamas's rocket fire different from what Israel is doing? It's not, both sides are at war. However, Hamas has been firing rockets for years. And if Israel stopped shooting that wouldn't change what hamas does, whereas if hamas stopped shooting so would Israel. False. The number of rockets fired fell quite considerably, to their lowest levels in years, after the ceasefire agreed on the 21st of November 2012. There are considerable variations on the number of rockets fired depending on the amount of violence Israel is using. See here, point number 3, and the chart they link to. Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 06:44 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:32 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:20 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 05:36 MoonfireSpam wrote:
I think both Israel and Palestine should have their govenments ripped out and rebuilt. Give both sides equal arms.
If they then kill each other again then leave em to it. An international force should demilitarize the Hamas, assure police in gaza, force a two state settlement and protect palestinians from Israel. And what kind of state would that be? A theocratic state or a democratic state? Will the people be left alone or will some international force be present? It's hard to imagine Palestinian state that would be able to survive on it's own with some kind of intact legal system and civil rights. What if it is a theocratic state ? If it live in peace, people can do whatever they want. Because they'd probably get armed by their best friends in the region (Iran *cough*) and I could understand why Israel would never tolerate that. You're right, the best way is to nuke all Palestine because there is no end to this conflict and since there are too many arabs - iran, syria, irak, etc. - and that they are all dangerous extremists who can't never ever accept a jewish state in the holy land, and who just don't want to live in peace, we should bomb them too. It's all the fault of arabs for being savage, undemocratic religious freaks... That's Bush level analysis. It's sadly not far off from reality. Did you seriously just say that the sentence "it's all the fault of arabs for being savvage, undemocratic religious freaks" is "not far off from reality"?
If he had worded it more nicely, I would agree. Although for me, its not so much the terrible things done in the name of their beliefs that scares me, so much as it is the fact that they hold those beliefs at all. And people are actually willing to die for them. Thats some stone age-worship-the-sun-because-its-really-a-god kind of shit. To be totally fair, we have a lot of people like that in america. People who would gladly kill because of their religion. The difference is that we have systems and laws in place to prevent them from getting their way. Christians help draft laws to stop christian extremists. Atheists help draft laws that stop athiests (actually I doubt this because america is too dumb to vote someone into office that is an outspoken atheist but you get the idea) from doing the same. Etc etc. Why does this never seem to happen in the middle east? I've never heard a stpry about the more moderate Muslim population standing up and doing something about extremist violence. Am I totally ignorant of an effort that has occurred? I would seriously like to know if it's ever happened. I would take back everything I just said.
Edit: I should be more specific about laws to prevent violence. I don't mean laws that are specifically created to stop religious violence. Just laws that are to prevent all violence against all people. (Non)religious, women, children, and anyone else.
|
On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote:![[image loading]](http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mby61z2vtu1qzcjwoo1_500.jpg) The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists.
USA really needs to re-approach the sanctions on iran. targeted sanctions on the regime is needed, not the people. this is seriously wrong approach, just the same as putting all the people of islam in one basket stereotype.
i think islam is actually a peaceful religion, if not bad or good as any other religion. i suspect the views were changed somewhere before the turn of the last millennia by ulama using haddith to fit better with their own tribalistic views, oppressing woman, harsh punishment, garments and whatnot.i hope islamic reformation happens soon or later (we're in the middle of it) and bring about true peace amongst islam focusing on human rights, pluralism, equal rights, which quran does support.
|
Apparently there is a temporary truce, according to sueddeutsche.de.
Let's hope that something comes out of this, though my hopes are slim. 
|
On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists.
I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general.
I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point:
The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country.
Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people.
In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization.
For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST.
|
On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST.
Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ?
Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? Do you know he was democratically elected ?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ?
I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain.
|
On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST.
teacher! my guess is decolonization for islamization???
|
On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain.
The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism.
The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.).
To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism.
|
You're right, the best way is to nuke all Palestine because there is no end to this conflict and since there are too many arabs - iran, syria, irak, etc. - and that they are all dangerous extremists who can't never ever accept a jewish state in the holy land, and who just don't want to live in peace, we should bomb them too.
It's all the fault of arabs for being savage, undemocratic religious freaks...
It's sadly not far off from reality.
.. wow.
Guess the ban doesn't even matter, you completely disqualified yourself for this discussion anyway. Mindblowing, i thought i had "harsh" views in general, but you take the cake by magnitudes.
I hope for your sake that this was some kind of dumb slip of tongue, otherwise you literally are on the same level as the dumb shits shouting "judenschweine" on neonazi-demonstrations.
|
On August 01 2014 08:12 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 07:49 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2014 02:37 Sn0_Man wrote:On August 01 2014 02:27 DinoMight wrote:
How is Hamas's rocket fire different from what Israel is doing? It's not, both sides are at war. However, Hamas has been firing rockets for years. And if Israel stopped shooting that wouldn't change what hamas does, whereas if hamas stopped shooting so would Israel. False. The number of rockets fired fell quite considerably, to their lowest levels in years, after the ceasefire agreed on the 21st of November 2012. There are considerable variations on the number of rockets fired depending on the amount of violence Israel is using. See here, point number 3, and the chart they link to. On August 01 2014 06:44 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:32 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:20 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:On August 01 2014 06:12 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 05:36 MoonfireSpam wrote:
I think both Israel and Palestine should have their govenments ripped out and rebuilt. Give both sides equal arms.
If they then kill each other again then leave em to it. An international force should demilitarize the Hamas, assure police in gaza, force a two state settlement and protect palestinians from Israel. And what kind of state would that be? A theocratic state or a democratic state? Will the people be left alone or will some international force be present? It's hard to imagine Palestinian state that would be able to survive on it's own with some kind of intact legal system and civil rights. What if it is a theocratic state ? If it live in peace, people can do whatever they want. Because they'd probably get armed by their best friends in the region (Iran *cough*) and I could understand why Israel would never tolerate that. You're right, the best way is to nuke all Palestine because there is no end to this conflict and since there are too many arabs - iran, syria, irak, etc. - and that they are all dangerous extremists who can't never ever accept a jewish state in the holy land, and who just don't want to live in peace, we should bomb them too. It's all the fault of arabs for being savage, undemocratic religious freaks... That's Bush level analysis. It's sadly not far off from reality. Did you seriously just say that the sentence "it's all the fault of arabs for being savvage, undemocratic religious freaks" is "not far off from reality"? If he had worded it more nicely, I would agree. Although for me, its not so much the terrible things done in the name of their beliefs that scares me, so much as it is the fact that they hold those beliefs at all. And people are actually willing to die for them. Thats some stone age-worship-the-sun-because-its-really-a-god kind of shit. To be totally fair, we have a lot of people like that in america. People who would gladly kill because of their religion. The difference is that we have systems and laws in place to prevent them from getting their way. Christians help draft laws to stop christian extremists. Atheists help draft laws that stop athiests (actually I doubt this because america is too dumb to vote someone into office that is an outspoken atheist but you get the idea) from doing the same. Etc etc. Why does this never seem to happen in the middle east? I've never heard a stpry about the more moderate Muslim population standing up and doing something about extremist violence. Am I totally ignorant of an effort that has occurred? I would seriously like to know if it's ever happened. I would take back everything I just said. Edit: I should be more specific about laws to prevent violence. I don't mean laws that are specifically created to stop religious violence. Just laws that are to prevent all violence against all people. (Non)religious, women, children, and anyone else.
Feels like general opinion of what's right tends to be rerolled every so many years, maybe it just takes time (and fresh minds, hence my "scrub the current leadership and start from scratch" thinking). Maybe in the next generation of kids this war will be a historical footnote like WW2, WW1, and all the other wars before it. Live in hope I guess.
Looking back, it took ages before people realised the Earth went around the Sun, to abolish slavery, establish scientific method etc etc.
|
On August 01 2014 08:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain. The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism. The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.). To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism.
You realize that communism is also 'western meddling' right, comrade? Qutb, one of fathers of Islamism, was responding to Nasser's socialism that was distinctly anti-Western and post-colonial.
|
On August 01 2014 09:54 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 08:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain. The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism. The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.). To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism. You realize that communism is also 'western meddling' right, comrade? Qutb, one of fathers of Islamism, was responding to Nasser's socialism that was distinctly anti-Western and post-colonial.
There's a bit of a difference between a democratically elected socialist leader who wants to preserve the country's resources for the country's citizens, and a western-imposed CIA-installed shah whose main goal is to preserve exploitative trade arrangements with the West in return for power.
|
On August 01 2014 10:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 09:54 Sub40APM wrote:On August 01 2014 08:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain. The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism. The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.). To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism. You realize that communism is also 'western meddling' right, comrade? Qutb, one of fathers of Islamism, was responding to Nasser's socialism that was distinctly anti-Western and post-colonial. There's a bit of a difference between a democratically elected socialist leader who wants to preserve the country's resources for the country's citizens, and a western-imposed CIA-installed shah whose main goal is to preserve exploitative trade arrangements with the West in return for power.
Yea sure, Mossadeq makes a great martyr since he didnt stay in power long enough to do anything. But I am talking about Nasser, a post-colonial, socialist whose polices engendered Islamism in the context of the argument that 'without Western interference through coups Islamism would have never happened" put forward as an argument by the French comrade.
|
On August 01 2014 16:02 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 10:07 IgnE wrote:On August 01 2014 09:54 Sub40APM wrote:On August 01 2014 08:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain. The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism. The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.). To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism. You realize that communism is also 'western meddling' right, comrade? Qutb, one of fathers of Islamism, was responding to Nasser's socialism that was distinctly anti-Western and post-colonial. There's a bit of a difference between a democratically elected socialist leader who wants to preserve the country's resources for the country's citizens, and a western-imposed CIA-installed shah whose main goal is to preserve exploitative trade arrangements with the West in return for power. Yea sure, Mossadeq makes a great martyr since he didnt stay in power long enough to do anything. But I am talking about Nasser, a post-colonial, socialist whose polices engendered Islamism in the context of the argument that 'without Western interference through coups Islamism would have never happened" put forward as an argument by the French comrade.
And I think you are misinterpreting the argument if you think he was advocating for a complete isolation of Iranian (or Egyptian, or any) culture from outside influences. Surely you can see the difference between a democratically elected leader and countryman who was influenced by Western thought and a puppet leader installed by a Western-backed coup . Calling the election of Western-educated repatriates "Western meddling" is a bit of a stretch, and in Nasser's case the man was educated in Egypt and helped install Egyptian democracy from its founding. If anything, Qutb was the one who traveled to the US for his education and developed his ideas in an era with substantial Western intervention in the Middle East. His conflict with Nasser is more properly ascribed to political infighting between rival groups, and he was a hardline Islamist already, when he allied with Nasser to overthrow a Western-backed monarchy that was on the throne. It's not that Islamism would never have happened without Western-orchestrated coups (although who is to say if it ever would have developed without the extensive meddling of the West going back more than a century before Qutb), but it seems plausible that it never would have gripped the region so feverishly were it not for decades of Western meddling in the region that have thwarted the ability of the peoples there to elect their own leaders.
|
On August 01 2014 09:54 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 08:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:37 BigFan wrote:On August 01 2014 08:33 WhiteDog wrote:On August 01 2014 08:25 EngrishTeacher wrote:On August 01 2014 07:18 Ghostcom wrote: The before pictures are from before the West began meddling. Nothing good ever comes from meddling - people don't like it and become extremists. I'm staying the fuck away from general from now on. Since I am actually knowledgeable on Israeli-Arab conflict history, the amount of bigotry and bias in this piss-filled thread is fucking mind-boggling. By extension, other serious topics in which I'm not nearly as versed in are probably just as terrible in general. I read the last few pages and began to type a massive response to shitty posts, but in the end decided that it just isn't worth it, so I'll just debunk this one post to prove my point: The pictures regarding the extent of islamization back in the 60s and now is more or less accurate, however it is NOT the "West's meddling" that resulted in Iran becoming an Islamic Republic. Brief history lesson: Mohammad Reza Shah (Iran's de-facto dictator from 1953 to 1979) was installed by the CIA in Iran in the 1953, and one of his most prominent policies at the time was the attempted secularization of the country. In fact, his father's rule before him had attempted to ban the wearing of Hijabs in public places which was met with huge public backlash, and the Shah was fascinated with the modernization of Iran; this was of course, synonymous with the westernization and secularization of the country. Fast forward 2 decades until the Iranian Revolution, where Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and turned the country into a full-scale Islamic Republic, mainly due to the unique position and privileges the clergy enjoyed during the revolution and the inherent pious nature of the Iranian people. In short, to anyone not familiar with the history of the middle east, I could see how one could be easily be misled and manipulated into believing that the West was responsible for the country's Islamization. For fuck's sake, STOP SPEWING BLATANT FACTUAL INACCURACIES AT THE VERY LEAST. Nothing in your post is in any way going against his post. You see no link at all between the US and other country meddling in middle east with the current rising of islamism ? Do you know who was in place before the Shah ? You think he was an islamic fundamentalist ? I believe his point was that there is a misunderstanding when it comes to this iran meddling concept. From reading the previous post, I got the impression that he meant that it was the US meddling in Iran that got the Shah kicked indirectly leading to islamization while I believe EngrishTeacher is saying that it wasn't the case and gave some background to explain. The picture is misleading indeed, but it does not change the key point we were making on colonialism. The shah was put in place by foreign power, and by doing so it destabilized centuries old institutions, letting huge hole for radical islamism and increasing communist activities : it is the same story for most of the arabic world ! Before the Shah, Iran was an increasingly secular country, going off from monarchy (that's what frightened the british) and highly influenced by socialist policies (unemployment aid, social security, land reform, etc.). To me the picture is showing, more than the impact of colonization, that islam radicalism has taken the place of what was once the role of communism. You realize that communism is also 'western meddling' right, comrade? Qutb, one of fathers of Islamism, was responding to Nasser's socialism that was distinctly anti-Western and post-colonial.
Part of communism is western meddling, part is international (maybe that's my idealism that talk). But yeah there are always a culturally out door ideology and a culturally isolationnism ideology that arise to fight colonialism in its diverse form. When Mosaddegh first resign in 1952 and asked the people of Iran to take a stand against the Shah, islamic group and communist group formed the two hearth of the manifestation that forced the Shah to put Mosaddegh back in power and it is still those two groups that forced the Shah out of power.e French comrade.
They say Hamas violated the truce again, altho it seem it is the Israel who did so by shoting tank shells (killing 8 people in the process).
Heavy exchanges of fire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday morning threatened to shatter a newly agreed 72-hour cease-fire. Gaza health officials said that 27 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 injured.
Palestinian witnesses said by telephone that Israeli tank shells hit as residents returned to inspect homes that they had evacuated in eastern Rafah, and that shells also landed east of Khan Younis and Gaza City.
Israeli military officials did not immediately supply any information about what set off the renewed hostilities, as the conflict entered its 25th day, but Israel blamed Hamas for violating the truce.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=lede-package&WT.nav=lede-package&_r=0
|
1 state solution, equal citizens, secular government. One can wish.
|
Can someone explain to me why people claim that a genocide of Palestinians is happening? Is it just the civilian death toll in Gaza? Why would Hamas end the ceasefire if there was a "genocide" of their people happening (and when it sounds like they're getting dominated by Israel.)
|
On August 01 2014 20:40 TommyP wrote:
Can someone explain to me why people claim that a genocide of Palestinians is happening? Is it just the civilian death toll in Gaza? Why would Hamas end the ceasefire if there was a "genocide" of their people happening (and when it sounds like they're getting dominated by Israel.)
Well, a genocide is a deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. What is currently happening definitely qualifies as a genocide. In fact, so does every war, once it takes place in more densely populated areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
