ISIS will take over Iraq and Syria and Americans will saturate Saudi, kuwait, UAE markets with Arms and at the same time Shiites in Lebanon and Southern Iraq will be annihilated some will move to live in IR in refugee camps.
The price of oil will go down to 2$ a barrel and everyone in Europe and North America is happy.
Saudis financing and facilitating ISIS, and the Turks, will eventually pay for it once ISIS cell start blowing up western Cafes in Istanbul.
This is a classic two birds with the same stone, Sell weapons to these empty headed muslims at the same time keep the shite idiots in IR on their toes and cut off their links to Syria and Hezbollah.
This will be the picture of the toilet we call middle east in the coming years. Kurds will be annihilated as a side effect of dirty European and US politics.
The price of oil will go down to 2$ a barrel and everyone in Europe and North America is happy.
Saudis financing and facilitating ISIS, and the Turks, will eventually pay for it once ISIS cell start blowing up western Cafes in Istanbul.
This is a classic two birds with the same stone, Sell weapons to these empty headed muslims at the same time keep the shite idiots in IR on their toes and cut off their links to Syria and Hezbollah.
This will be the picture of the toilet we call middle east in the coming years. Kurds will be annihilated as a side effect of dirty European and US politics.
Seems partly accurate to me. ISIS is not gonna takeover whole Iraq but they will rule baghdad in a few years. South Iraq will remain a shiite toilet without a real affiliation to anyone and a country called Iraq is not gonna exist any more. Syria wont disapear completely but it will always be a playground of sunni extremists and will remain a war zone for decades. North Iraq and east Syria will become ISIS country. I just have to add that the shiite part is not gonna end up being the oppressed or neglected side here. During the last 40 years, the americans kept building an extremmist shiite powerhouse called Iran as a force against the sunni majority because in a future battle, its not gonna be benefitable for the west to see one side fuck up the other side too early. Its not like the shiites can start whining again painting themselves as mostaz'af like they are doing for over 1000 years. No, not at all. One day they all will eat eachother up alife, both sides are full of resources importatnt to the west, both sides will fill the pockets of american and european weapon and oil industry, china, india and russia will get their fair share of contracts, both sides will fuck eachother up, oil price -as you said- will go down as a result of high production in order to buy more weapons, both sides will get themselves involved in one of the bloodiest wars of all times and both sides will get exhausted and will need someone to build up their damaged countries and once again they will have to pay thousends of milliards of dollars to outside contractors to come and built their country up. This is the future of that toilet called middle east.
Last edited by a moderator:
kurds are again paying the price for being too willing to trust anyone who offers
them a path to 'independence'.historically they have been played as pawns by
various governments in the region.saddam used them as cannon fodder back
in the 70s and 80s against iran.since the american invasion and occupation of iraq
the kurds have had some room to breath in their iraqi province.but they made the
mistake to get too close to the apartheid regime in isreal and their promises of help
in becoming 'independent' but with very long strings attached.turkey also used the
kurdish province as a way of putting pressure on the central government in iraq and
also as a way to pacify their own kurdish rebels in pkk.trusting either of these regimes
is the biggest mistake the kurds have made since 2003.now turkey is happy to sit and
watch kurds being beaten up by the people they sponsored against syria.for turkey and
isreal the kurds in syria are not their allies as they have rejected to join the fight against
the syrian government.they have put pressure on the usa to force the kurds in syria to
denounce the syrian government and iran as a condition for stopping isis from taking cobani.
in short,the kurds are being victimized again since they trusted turkey and isreal but iran and usa
are not interested in fighting the same fight that turkey and isreal want to fight.
them a path to 'independence'.historically they have been played as pawns by
various governments in the region.saddam used them as cannon fodder back
in the 70s and 80s against iran.since the american invasion and occupation of iraq
the kurds have had some room to breath in their iraqi province.but they made the
mistake to get too close to the apartheid regime in isreal and their promises of help
in becoming 'independent' but with very long strings attached.turkey also used the
kurdish province as a way of putting pressure on the central government in iraq and
also as a way to pacify their own kurdish rebels in pkk.trusting either of these regimes
is the biggest mistake the kurds have made since 2003.now turkey is happy to sit and
watch kurds being beaten up by the people they sponsored against syria.for turkey and
isreal the kurds in syria are not their allies as they have rejected to join the fight against
the syrian government.they have put pressure on the usa to force the kurds in syria to
denounce the syrian government and iran as a condition for stopping isis from taking cobani.
in short,the kurds are being victimized again since they trusted turkey and isreal but iran and usa
are not interested in fighting the same fight that turkey and isreal want to fight.
this is required reading for anyone who wants to have an understanding of the dynamics
going on with isis and the so called fight of what iranian parliament speaker has properly dubbed
the 'coalition of repenters'.
http://attwiw.com/2014/10/08/turkey...-wars-and-kobanis-kurds-are-paying-the-price/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html
Fareed Zakaria
By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer October 9
When television host Bill Maher declares on his weekly show that “the Muslim world . . . has too much in common with ISIS ” and guest Sam Harris says that Islam is “the mother lode of bad ideas,” I understand why people are upset. Maher and Harris, an author, made crude simplifications and exaggerations. And yet, they were also talking about something real.
I know the arguments against speaking of Islam as violent and reactionary. It has a following of 1.6 billion people. Places such as Indonesia and India have hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t fit these caricatures. That’s why Maher and Harris are guilty of gross generalizations. But let’s be honest. Islam has a problem today. The places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim.
Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor at large of Time magazine. View Archive
Facebook
RSS
In 2013, of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim. Of the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim-majority. The Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions that governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are Muslim-majority. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.
There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today. A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, and the protests are not loud enough. How many mass rallies have been held against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in the Arab world today?
The caveat, “Islam today,” is important. The central problem with Maher’s and Harris’s analyses are that they take a reality — extremism in Islam — and describe it in ways that suggest it is inherent in Islam. Maher says Islam is “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.” He’s right about the viciousness but wrong to link it to “Islam” — instead of “some Muslims.”
Harris prides himself on being highly analytical — with a PhD, no less. I learned in graduate school that you can never explain a variable phenomenon with a fixed cause. So, if you are asserting that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant — “the mother lode of bad ideas” — then, since Islam has been around for 14 centuries, we should have seen 14 centuries of this behavior.
Harris should read Zachary Karabell’s book “Peace Be Upon You: Fourteen Centuries of Muslim, Christian and Jewish Conflict and Cooperation.” What he would discover is that there have been wars but also many centuries of peace. Islam has at times been at the cutting edge of modernity, but like today, it has also been the great laggard. As Karabell explained to me, “If you exclude the last 70 years or so, in general the Islamic world was more tolerant of minorities than the Christian world. That’s why there were more than a million Jews living in the Arab world until the early 1950s — nearly 200,000 in Iraq alone.”
If there were periods when the Islamic world was open, modern, tolerant and peaceful, this suggests that the problem is not in the religion’s essence and that things can change once more. So why is Maher making these comments? I understand that as a public intellectual he feels the need to speak what he sees as the unvarnished truth (though his “truth” is simplified and exaggerated). But surely there is another task for public intellectuals as well — to try to change the world for good.
Does he really think that comparing Islam to the Mafia will do this? Harris says that he wants to encourage “nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith seriously” to reform the religion. So, the strategy to reform Islam is to tell 1.6 billion Muslims, most of whom are pious and devout, that their religion is evil and they should stop taking it seriously?
Games - Click Here for More!
That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach — reform coupled with respect — will work with Islam over time.
The stakes are high in this debate. You can try to make news or you can make a difference. I hope Maher starts doing the latter.
Fareed Zakaria
By Fareed Zakaria Opinion writer October 9
When television host Bill Maher declares on his weekly show that “the Muslim world . . . has too much in common with ISIS ” and guest Sam Harris says that Islam is “the mother lode of bad ideas,” I understand why people are upset. Maher and Harris, an author, made crude simplifications and exaggerations. And yet, they were also talking about something real.
I know the arguments against speaking of Islam as violent and reactionary. It has a following of 1.6 billion people. Places such as Indonesia and India have hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t fit these caricatures. That’s why Maher and Harris are guilty of gross generalizations. But let’s be honest. Islam has a problem today. The places that have trouble accommodating themselves to the modern world are disproportionately Muslim.
Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor at large of Time magazine. View Archive
RSS
In 2013, of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks, seven were Muslim. Of the top 10 countries where terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim-majority. The Pew Research Center rates countries on the level of restrictions that governments impose on the free exercise of religion. Of the 24 most restrictive countries, 19 are Muslim-majority. Of the 21 countries that have laws against apostasy, all have Muslim majorities.
There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today. A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, and the protests are not loud enough. How many mass rallies have been held against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in the Arab world today?
The caveat, “Islam today,” is important. The central problem with Maher’s and Harris’s analyses are that they take a reality — extremism in Islam — and describe it in ways that suggest it is inherent in Islam. Maher says Islam is “the only religion that acts like the Mafia, that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.” He’s right about the viciousness but wrong to link it to “Islam” — instead of “some Muslims.”
Harris prides himself on being highly analytical — with a PhD, no less. I learned in graduate school that you can never explain a variable phenomenon with a fixed cause. So, if you are asserting that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant — “the mother lode of bad ideas” — then, since Islam has been around for 14 centuries, we should have seen 14 centuries of this behavior.
Harris should read Zachary Karabell’s book “Peace Be Upon You: Fourteen Centuries of Muslim, Christian and Jewish Conflict and Cooperation.” What he would discover is that there have been wars but also many centuries of peace. Islam has at times been at the cutting edge of modernity, but like today, it has also been the great laggard. As Karabell explained to me, “If you exclude the last 70 years or so, in general the Islamic world was more tolerant of minorities than the Christian world. That’s why there were more than a million Jews living in the Arab world until the early 1950s — nearly 200,000 in Iraq alone.”
If there were periods when the Islamic world was open, modern, tolerant and peaceful, this suggests that the problem is not in the religion’s essence and that things can change once more. So why is Maher making these comments? I understand that as a public intellectual he feels the need to speak what he sees as the unvarnished truth (though his “truth” is simplified and exaggerated). But surely there is another task for public intellectuals as well — to try to change the world for good.
Does he really think that comparing Islam to the Mafia will do this? Harris says that he wants to encourage “nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith seriously” to reform the religion. So, the strategy to reform Islam is to tell 1.6 billion Muslims, most of whom are pious and devout, that their religion is evil and they should stop taking it seriously?
Games - Click Here for More!
That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach — reform coupled with respect — will work with Islam over time.
The stakes are high in this debate. You can try to make news or you can make a difference. I hope Maher starts doing the latter.
Fareed Zakaria is wrong.
That's exactly what needs to happen by the elite of the society who know better and by laws that prohibit Islam-rooted backwardness.
That is EXACTLY how Christianity moved from its centuries-long retarded approach. Smart people of the society got fed up with the bullshit and started calling spades spades despite fearing backlashes (though the backlash rarely included an outright beheading without the presence of a judge in a court). Islam is indeed the mother-lode of all bad ideas when it comes to resolving conflicts.
Zakaria needs to stop being wishy-washy. Islam is indeed fertile ground for mob/cult mentality and without laws prohibiting its toxic teachings from taking practical forms, there will be huge prices to pay.
That's exactly what needs to happen by the elite of the society who know better and by laws that prohibit Islam-rooted backwardness.
That is EXACTLY how Christianity moved from its centuries-long retarded approach. Smart people of the society got fed up with the bullshit and started calling spades spades despite fearing backlashes (though the backlash rarely included an outright beheading without the presence of a judge in a court). Islam is indeed the mother-lode of all bad ideas when it comes to resolving conflicts.
Zakaria needs to stop being wishy-washy. Islam is indeed fertile ground for mob/cult mentality and without laws prohibiting its toxic teachings from taking practical forms, there will be huge prices to pay.
Congrats! seems like we have an Iranian in ISIS who blew himself up. Apparently from Gilan too. Not sure if this website is credible. But other sites have reported as well. Bit of research and found more on this website.
http://www.mohabatnews.com/index.ph...07-20-19-44-56&catid=54:daily-news&Itemid=282
پیوستن پیکارجویان ایرانی به داعش به قصد عملیات انتحاری!
يكشنبه, 20 مهر 1393 فرستادن به ایمیلچاپ
.
ابوابراهیم الایرانی که سایت***های ایرانی می***گویند، نامی مستعار است، "داعش" او را از منطقه تالش در استان گیلان برای اجرای عملیات انتحاری خواسته بود.
به گزارش « محبت نیوز» خبرگزاری دويچه وله آلمان خبر داد، در ۲۰ مه (۳۰ اردیبهشت ۹۳) فردی که خود را ابوابراهیم الایرانی می***نامیده، با خودروی خود وارد ایست بازرسی ارتش عراق در شهر تل***عفر می***شود و خود را منفجر می***کند.
به گزارش رسانه******های محلی، در اثر انفجار ۱۳ نیروی گارد ارتش و فرد غیرنظامی کشته می***شوند. راننده***ی حدود ۳۵ ساله این خودرو یک ایرانی بوده است.
ابوابراهیم الایرانی که سایت***های ایرانی می***گویند، نامی مستعار است، پیش از این سوءقصد به مدت حدود سه ماه در ایران بوده است. "دیلی بیست" مدعی است که "داعش" او را از منطقه تالش در استان گیلان برای اجرای این عملیات خواسته بود.
"دیلی بیست" اشاره می***کند که نه وزیر اطلاعات و نه رسانه***های ایران از افراد دستگیرشده توسط وزارت اطلاعات نامی ***نبرده***اند، و این***که آیا دستگاه اطلاعاتی ایران موفق شده آن شبکه***ای ***را کشف کنند که ابوابراهیم را به عراق فرستاده است؟
این وبگاه می***افزاید: اگر یک سلول افراطی***های ایرانی به این راحتی می******توانند یک جهادگرای انتحاری را برای اجرای عملیات به عراق بفرستند، پس می***توان این پرسش را مطرح کرد که چند نفر دیگر از آن***ها در این کشور فعال***اند؟
این در حالی است که گفته می شود جمهوری اسلامی با حملات انتحاری و چریکی "دولت اسلامی" روبه***رو است. وبگاه آمریکایی "دیلی***بیست" می***نویسد، مقام***های ایران با نگرانی خبرهای مربوط به حملات "دولت اسلامی" به نیروهای ایرانی در داخل و خارج کشور را سانسور می***کنند.
http://www.mohabatnews.com/index.ph...07-20-19-44-56&catid=54:daily-news&Itemid=282
پیوستن پیکارجویان ایرانی به داعش به قصد عملیات انتحاری!
يكشنبه, 20 مهر 1393 فرستادن به ایمیلچاپ
.
ابوابراهیم الایرانی که سایت***های ایرانی می***گویند، نامی مستعار است، "داعش" او را از منطقه تالش در استان گیلان برای اجرای عملیات انتحاری خواسته بود.
به گزارش « محبت نیوز» خبرگزاری دويچه وله آلمان خبر داد، در ۲۰ مه (۳۰ اردیبهشت ۹۳) فردی که خود را ابوابراهیم الایرانی می***نامیده، با خودروی خود وارد ایست بازرسی ارتش عراق در شهر تل***عفر می***شود و خود را منفجر می***کند.
به گزارش رسانه******های محلی، در اثر انفجار ۱۳ نیروی گارد ارتش و فرد غیرنظامی کشته می***شوند. راننده***ی حدود ۳۵ ساله این خودرو یک ایرانی بوده است.
ابوابراهیم الایرانی که سایت***های ایرانی می***گویند، نامی مستعار است، پیش از این سوءقصد به مدت حدود سه ماه در ایران بوده است. "دیلی بیست" مدعی است که "داعش" او را از منطقه تالش در استان گیلان برای اجرای این عملیات خواسته بود.
"دیلی بیست" اشاره می***کند که نه وزیر اطلاعات و نه رسانه***های ایران از افراد دستگیرشده توسط وزارت اطلاعات نامی ***نبرده***اند، و این***که آیا دستگاه اطلاعاتی ایران موفق شده آن شبکه***ای ***را کشف کنند که ابوابراهیم را به عراق فرستاده است؟
این وبگاه می***افزاید: اگر یک سلول افراطی***های ایرانی به این راحتی می******توانند یک جهادگرای انتحاری را برای اجرای عملیات به عراق بفرستند، پس می***توان این پرسش را مطرح کرد که چند نفر دیگر از آن***ها در این کشور فعال***اند؟
این در حالی است که گفته می شود جمهوری اسلامی با حملات انتحاری و چریکی "دولت اسلامی" روبه***رو است. وبگاه آمریکایی "دیلی***بیست" می***نویسد، مقام***های ایران با نگرانی خبرهای مربوط به حملات "دولت اسلامی" به نیروهای ایرانی در داخل و خارج کشور را سانسور می***کنند.
BT,
And how did that exactly workout for the West? Did "fixing" Christianity prevent WWI, WWII, Holocaust, Polish Ghettos, use of chemical weapons, use of atomic bombs, use of more chemical weapons on the Vietnamese, the Communist massacres in Russia and China, dictatorial massacres in S. America, South African apartheid, Yugoslavian massacre of Kosovo, Japanese massacre of the Chinese, Khmer Rouge massacre of the Cambodians, etc, etc, not to mention hundred of thousands of other historical and ongoing overt and covert operations designed just to kill and eliminated human beings and forgetting about all the other economical and social operations designed to degrade, humiliate, and enslave other human beings?
Yes, you're right. All the backwardness we see is rooted in Islam!
And how did that exactly workout for the West? Did "fixing" Christianity prevent WWI, WWII, Holocaust, Polish Ghettos, use of chemical weapons, use of atomic bombs, use of more chemical weapons on the Vietnamese, the Communist massacres in Russia and China, dictatorial massacres in S. America, South African apartheid, Yugoslavian massacre of Kosovo, Japanese massacre of the Chinese, Khmer Rouge massacre of the Cambodians, etc, etc, not to mention hundred of thousands of other historical and ongoing overt and covert operations designed just to kill and eliminated human beings and forgetting about all the other economical and social operations designed to degrade, humiliate, and enslave other human beings?
Yes, you're right. All the backwardness we see is rooted in Islam!
This post shows you are not sincere. You know better. Heard of the straw man argument? Here it is,
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
-----
Nobody said that reformation of the church had to cure cancer, end hunger, usher in peace to be successful. THe goal of the reformation of church was to get religion out of running the state. If it did this just one thing it was successful. This can never happen in Islam because sooner or later it runs smack into the teachings of Islam. Witch burning was not in the Bible so it was easier to get rid of. Now, Hiroshima did get nuked but I am not sure you can blame the pope for it.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
-----
Nobody said that reformation of the church had to cure cancer, end hunger, usher in peace to be successful. THe goal of the reformation of church was to get religion out of running the state. If it did this just one thing it was successful. This can never happen in Islam because sooner or later it runs smack into the teachings of Islam. Witch burning was not in the Bible so it was easier to get rid of. Now, Hiroshima did get nuked but I am not sure you can blame the pope for it.
