Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) Discussion

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

I have to say that I'm confused: are we talking about Assad and ISIS or the possibility of a democratic process without both?

Gee, good thing that everything is black and white in the Middle East. "Many good people" vs. "few bad people", like it's always been, uh-huh.

well, a bit simplistic, but it's more or less the case, yes, I believe so. I like to think positive. I also think there are more episodes around the world that support my view, starting from Western Europe.

And yeah, Assad's "badness" is not related to his anti-US position in any way. It's not related to Syria's strategic position in region and its friendship with Russia either. Sure.

Actually no, it's not. The fact that there is so much news around him, and the involvement of different players on both sides, are. In part. Assad is an asshole, more or less like the Saudis (he might be worse, but I have to admit some bias; it's a tough competition anyway). That's just to balance things out.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about Assad, I was talking about all the people against a democratic process once you try to establish one. I don't consider Assad important

The thing is, all of this had happened precisely because certain western countries decided to push forward their interests. Precisely because they thought that this is "their major concern".

It was one country, which actually went against some advice from other western countries, and I honestly think this is a bit simplistic vision. I don't think ISIS wouldn't exist if things in Iraq were different.

Anyway, we can play the blame game, but this is the situation now.

Now they reap what they sow and slowly approach to the understanding that Assad is their best bet in order to bring stability to the region, whether they like it or not. Without a strong authoritarian leader or full-scale western intervention Syria will became ISIL territory in a matter of months with with all the ensuing consequences. As the saying goes, of two evils choose the less and I think we both agree that Assad is the lesser evil compared to ISIL both to syrian people and international community.

That's (or maybe was) the Russian position: support Assad because he can fix the problem. I disagree.

I'm not sure Assad is the lesser evil to Syrians, but in any case it's not a good solution. I think there is a better solution, and I don't see why I shouldn't pursuit that one.

Besides, with Assad in place, there is quite a chance that the same thing will happen again. I don't have the feeling Assad fixes the problem, and I don't intend to support him.

Hold on for a second, I wasn't saying that it would be easy or even exactly humane.

There we go. Discussion stops here. I'm not sending these people to die, not to mention a conflict with Turkey. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

An inhumane solution would be the last resort.

And for the record: I'm from Western Europe, I thought that was clear. I grew up in Italy, I live in the Netherlands, I spent a few years in Germany. It's the reason why I consider the problem quite relevant.

And that is not how democracy works. It they woted for an idiot in a democractic elections then it's completely and undeniably their fault. The ability to make decisions always comes with responsibility for them.

I meant to say: they vote for an idiot, so they make their mistakes, but even with that mistake they bear no responsibility for what is happening in Syria. I know they have a very "porous" border, but I can't blame the whole country. Definitely not to the point that I want to unload 1 million refugees in their territory, when they already have 2.

They wouldn't allow it anyway, so that's not a viable option, even if everyone is trying to make it viable.

Maybe it wasn't completely immune but the point is that external intervention never happened.

It did, just without weapons

Follow the money, that's always the best approach. People think wars are fought with weapons. Absolutely incorrect.

But that's quite off topic. Unfortunately, I might say

Well, after more than a 50 years of constant western intervention in the Middle East

where are you taking these 50 years from?

There was the cold war last century. That's maybe the 50 years you are talking about. You shouldn't even think of comparing the two situations.

Funny how you keep blaming the west, by the way. Like everyone else is free of sin.

oxmox · December 20, 2009

50 years ?

Better around 100 years ....

The Brits as the world power before the USA were already heavily involved, dont forget France and other allies like already mentioned.

The major impact did happen after world war 1 with the division of the Ottoman Empire for geopolitical interests, the promise of a jewish state in contrast to

the not fullfilled promises for the arab independance after helping the brits, revolting against the Ottoman Empire ( i.e. Lawrence of Arabia units).

The main reasons for engagements in this area were always gepolitical interests and not just the Cold War.

And this did start already before the beginning of World War 1, around 1900 the Brits tried to gain a foothold into Persia and Iraq to secure new discovered oil wells;

@By the way, the thread was started to post about the Islamic State (discussion & news) and we are going quiete offtopic since a while.

vilas · October 13, 2004

i tend to write too long posts, so in short (after deleting my toooooooo loooooong post):

- yes Semiconductor people on west still do not understand that cultures differ and try to apply their vision of life to other culture - it will never work, people are different , cultures are different, what is good in 1 culture is evil in second , what is proper behaviour in 1 culture, is wrong in second,

- different culture, mentality, values - makes one culture "win" in one area and "loose" in other area, media showing somone "suffering" but media (depending of political/sponsorship issue) do or do not inform (or misinform) why someone is suffering,

media can use camera to show 1 sunk kid, but turn off camera when 12 other kids are beheaded by friends of guy whose kid sunk,

media can show "poor beaten woman by evil husband" but if "good shy guy" would ask her to date, he would hear "you soft fagot sucker, you are not real male, he is real male" - media made people cry over beaten woman (metaphore, example) ;) but if media would show her words - people would curse her "you reap what you sow",

- trying to help everyone around may lead to our own danger, help would be wasted, such things happen, when you give money to someone who lives in poverty and unemployed because he was partying instead of studying - he will use money to spend in club, you will not have money anymore, he will have fun and come for next money,

we cannot help such "metaprhorical examples"

- some people "had a dream" they can mix foxes and chickens in barn - but those animals are unable to coexist, thats why we have fences for ;)

when someone say that fences are wrong - then either he want to kill chickens in barn or he is completly lack knowledge what fox eats, guessing "is person who want to mix together foxes, wolves, sheeps, chickens is sane or evil" doens't solve problem, problem is solved when different species are separated by wall because at the moment we have "philosophers" (politicians, leftists, marxists) sitting and thinking "how it is possible that fox attacked chicken, maybe we will cry a little and wait cause we hope it will not repeat",

chicken and sheep has possibility to survive but without thinking of philosophers (if wolf will die from hunger... if i am selling eggs or wool - it doesn't bother me, if i was thinkg if wolf is hungry - i would have to die myself with chickens and sheeps),

west so far Semiconductor try to tell "there are no different species at all, everyone who claims it is racist nazi idiot", and they of course sit 1000 km away from wolf when they say it, when from time to time fox attack chiken they eventually cry for week,

can we train wolf or fox to change behaviour? if we have time, money, will, not afraid of risk ? i would not risk going to 1000 wolves, with 1 small wolf puppy maybe we can try - but is it fair to change him ? among us there are dealers who do business with wolves and they cause troubles to all farms around,

is it "moral" to let wolf die ? no, can we protect our sheep other way - also no

- dicator or democracy ? hmmm... both options in Middle East or Nothern Africa are wrong if we have people who vote for middle ages - is it good or bad ?

people tend to see democracy as system in which their party won and opposite party lost,

we can give freedom to someone who believes he want to kill us, we can opress such person, but if we do it too much than someone here can say that dictature is justified and abuse us for his own ideas,

i prefere fences and "everyone rights in his own home" than dictating others what to do , cause next day he will come to dictate me,

if i had suicidal neigbor - can i enforce him to live ? no, cause he will hurt me before hurting himself, instead of 1 dead there will be 1 dead and 1 injured,

if we have religious freak neigbor - what can we do ? if he doesn't tell us how to live - let he live his way,

once he goes to our apartment with baseball blat to tell us to pray - we use rifle and stop him forever,

if i will support dicator who will enforce him to stop from his freak ideas in his home - i risk that one day another dictator will be visiting my home because he read a book in which there is written how whole world should beheave,

this is risk, better to build fence so neigbor cannot get in, in shop i can buy from him something or he can buy from me,

there was a epoque called "renesance" in European culture - end of middle ages, starting science, ending inquisition - it was realized partly by kings (dicators) party by some percent of reformation churches opposing bishops,

if we had back than democracy and voting - would they won election or Holy Inqusition ?

from 500 years perspective "it was worthy", so maybe "evil dictator there" is better for us "but of course no dictators here" (but is it just, fair ? or simply better and more safe for us), but when there would be voting 600 years ago - all priests would shout against and convince majority of voters to be against me thinks,

were people dying to defend middle ages against reformation - o yes, a lot of people died for it, however there is one "problem" - of course as you said always "west tells what is good/bad" - i see other problem - "media" - they tell "look what happened" showing one side only, if they say "this is good/bad" what guarantee do we have that we won't be another target because we are bad ;)

example of those animals continue - someone said "we got to kill wolves and foxes aroun", great, i have sheep farm, great, my business is secure , i can resign from security measures, than week later crazy person says "sheeps are abusing carrots and cabbage, we must defend them" and dictator comes to shoot my sheeps,

how can i prevent it ? and 2 weeks later it would came to light that guy who made it confiscated sheeps "because they were abusing carrots" cause few old wolves paid him bribe ;)

what is good and profitable for us, probably isn't for opposite civilisation,

dictators have 2 sides like coin, maybe best solution is "my home, my castle, you live in your house, i live in my, each one live by his rules, if you enter my yard than i defend my yard",

- no wars after fall of communist opressors ? there were wars of course , whole Kaukaz, ex Yugoslavia,

i think in our civilisation we cannot avoid wars - because differences are too big,

also we cannot create unified united world - for simple reason "why your values are applied but not my values as default ?"

the main rule in such war is as old as wars "me, you - ally, they, he - enemy"

allies should help each other, cover me when i reload, i cover you when you reload,

when you start thinking "is it just" i am shot by them, if i start thinking "is it all just" you die shot while reloading,

west is at the moment of thinking "is it just" , why west was in past so strong ? "cause was not morally high and behaved as opposite side" (they had religion motivation, we had nationalism), when we sit thinking "is war just" we die one by one shot by those who do not have such doubts and who do not hesitate,

when you sit in trenches - you have better rifle, you keep enemy at distance, cause his rifle cannot get you from that distance,

and you say "lets stop shooting for minute maybe he will want peace" and he use that time to take better position from which his rifle has effective range, was it wise ?

soldier sitting in on trench thinks "shity job, but i must do it to cover expenses , i hope to survive"

soldier in opposite trench thiks "i must kill him, just i wait for good moment, because priest told i will go to heaven"

can they agree and have peace ? probably first we need to eliminate priest who told him so ;) what do we do ? we say "this priest cannot be banned, it would be racist",

if all would agree "we must eliminate this priest" probably month later soldier in opposite trench would say "o gosh, i better go and spend time other way than fight" , but there is no such agreement cause "it would be racist" to tell that this priest is first target (who knows, maybe those shouting "racism" sell ammunition in such war, for sure both commanders drink together at meeting from time to time when soldiers die because of them) ,

such way we wil never have peace, problem is how to eliminate such priests before this second soldier wil have 5 kids trained to be next soldiers on 1 own soldier,

leaving someone alone works when both sides more or less want to sit in their castle,

leaving someone alone stops working when you have 1 soldier in your castle, he has 5 and they they taught by their bishop that your castle belongs to them too cause it was given by god, than mess begins , if you wait generation there will be 20 soldiers in his castle , so it is unsolvable but thick wall is best option to survive for some time, and in that time we can observe "do they want peace or not" but allies must keep together not "but they said they escaped from evil commander so i opened gate how could i know they will steal our inventory and draw map of towers and guards to attack better ..." at the moment in "our castle" we have many guards who believe that gates should be open "cause not all are evil" , great, but even 20% of other soldiers are enough to kill us while castle sleeps,

why they think like that ?

our soldiers tend to be more morally high - they believe to be such (opposite side also believe in being morally high )

why our soldiers believe in their guilt ? cause someone said we attacked other castle decade ago, of course he not mentioned that it was counter attack when they attacked it 2 decades ago but... who would remember , so our soldiers feel guilt and can open gate when someone will make big eyes like asking cat in Shreck movie, and even if half opposite soldiers dream about peace, we do not know which ones are those and which will backstab , we also do not know if they dream about peace but... but in our castle being theirs ,

so if we are not sure - than avoiding risk is best solution, maybe one day in our castle we gonna have sniper rifle and take down their priest so than maybe they would stop claim all castles being given to them by god of course among us there is one businessmen too who wants to buy their castle for 1 dollar and hire it later to previous owner charging for rent 10 dollars , he is also problem, not that serious like this opposite priest is

maybe wrong is "western" system of education which cuts history into pieces :

"it is our guilt cause 50 years ago mr A beaten mr B so now grandson of mr B is pissed of on us" but why they do not say "but mr A kicked mr B because father of mr B kicked father of mr A"

the same goes with "antisemitism" and with all human history - after really deep digging in history some views are changing , even movies who look deeper are badly viewed "how evil was conquista and genocide against native Americans" than in movie they show how 2 native American tribes torture each other before Columbus arrive,

when someone really hard study history - than "guilt" starts to be more and more blured , not clear, harder for teachers - probably yea

and we are weak - when we learn about own guilt - others learn about "animals"

so can we won with other castle (in this story) ? or it will be many years WW1 trench war ? probably it will cause it seems only some say that "priest" in opposite castle should be target (without it any fight is senseless ), but most sad is "they have something which we need and they have money selling it" - calling from left and right side for alternative energy is argument that probably all agree , than other castle will bankrupt - do we have time for developing ? probably not much, but we must figure something out, peace between cultures is utopia - people are always competee and will be , people cannot live without competition, competition of some groups leading rest to have more and more power,

wars between civilizations (religions) are since beginning of humankind, just tools and possibilities changed (and defeatism + hedonism is now wide) ,

2 civilizations were fighting (our was invaded) in 8th century, 9th, 10th, 11th than crusades.. till 1683 when our civilization stopped Ottoman Empire till 1914 when it crumbled, but nature doesn't allow empty spaces, later our civilisation started digging for oil, changing governments there (coups) , all our inventions like radio, tv - used here by different options, there were taken in hands of those who rule to show only 1 option (religion),

ISIS is just 1 finger of 2 hands that believe that infidels must die or be enslaved and converted,

we will cut one finger, will it change anything ? not much, just double standard hypocrites which own medias will be showing Human Right UN commissar from Saudi Arabia and media will be telling to not offend minority and obey Rammandan here, than new Breivik, than riots, than again riots, than sharia patrol, than another one Breivik till all will explode and bankrupt,

people who say they dream about peace should act on both sides , but i see on other side only declarations and when it comes to life than jihad is first, than sharia is first, than religion goes first, and those who condemn terrorism are minority,

i see no hope for peaceful solution and coexistence

semiconductor · November 3, 2013

I have to say that I'm confused: are we talking about Assad and ISIS or the possibility of a democratic process without both?

I'm talking about Assad, ISIS and the situation at hand. While I agree that theoretically, in some other, better version of our universe Syria could be a democracy, I don't really see a point in thought experiments set in a ideal world of Gummy Bears. Yes, reality is not pretty but it's the only thing we can deal with.

a bit simplistic, but it's more or less the case, yes, I believe so

I believe that more or less pure "Good vs. Evil" confrontation exists in three things: fairy tales, holy books and propaganda materials. If we, however, apply this binary system to the real world, especially the international relations, then everybody would be evil. Simply because every country/nation/group tries to advance their own interests at expense of somebody else.

I don't think ISIS wouldn't exist if things in Iraq were different.
Anyway, we can play the blame game, but this is the situation now.

I'm not playing a blame game. I'm saying that we should learn form the history in order to not to step on the same rake twice.

Isn't ISIS a direct result of chaos and lawlessness caused by the American intervention back in 2003? You kinda can't just roll around in your Honda murdering people if there is a strong government and especially if there is a authoritarian regime, only if country is weak and/or has a useless puppet authority. While some kind of Islamic extermist movement would certainly exist anyway, I'm pertty sure that it wouldn't have been even remotely as powerful, as ISIS now simple due to the fact that it would have faces a much more serious resistance

The problem with your solution is that FSA will not be able to prevent country's further descent into chaos and Islamic extremism. They consist from varous groups with different goals, they have no strong and charizmatic leader, they have no stiong support among general population but they have a very motivated, excellently armed and powerful enemy not just at their dorstep but at their kitchen eagerly ransaking throught their fridge. Mind you, even Iraq with US support utterly failed to stop ISIS from gaining substantional power, what makes you think that bunch of guys without tanks but with dozens of centuries-old feuds among them will somehow manage to stop al-Baghdadi?

I'm not sure Assad is the lesser evil to Syrians, but in any case it's not a good solution. I think there is a better solution, and I don't see why I shouldn't pursuit that one.

Besides, with Assad in place, there is quite a chance that the same thing will happen again. I don't have the feeling Assad fixes the problem, and I don't intend to support him.

Assad wouldn't fix the problem and frankly the problem is too old and too deep to be fixed by one leader. But that's not expected from him - all he should do is bring a relative peace and stability to the country, i.e. something that majority of the locals want. If you think that Assad, an average and somewhat clumsy dictator might be as bad or even worse than a bunch of Islamic extremists that literally proclaimed the destruction of any non-Islamic civilization, abolishment of every law system and pretty much every human right imaginable as their ultimate and sacred goal, then someone somewhere makes a very good propaganda.

There we go. Discussion stops here. I'm not sending these people to die, not to mention a conflict with Turkey. You are welcome to have a different opinion.

An inhumane solution would be the last resort.

There is one thing I can't really understand though: you don't want to send some people to die but you're somehow totally ok with all of those people (an incomparably bigger amount compared even to hundred of refugees) dying somewhere else for some kind of higher good, literally just because you or the guy in charge of your country don't like the guy in charge of theirs. Apparently it's morally unacceptable to sink couple of boats with refugees but it's totally acceptable and even desirable to sentence millions of exactly the same people to decades of bloodshed, violence, slavery, rape and hopelessness. I just don't get it.

Concerning the situation in Europe, then, in my opinion, the problem with refugees is that we're not living in the fairytale, resources of even the richest countries aren't limitless and so there might not be a humane solution at all. Quite often in the history of humankind it was either "us" or "them". European politicians can't have the cake and eat it and eventually they will have to decide who's more important - their own citizens or foreign immigrants. And the longer they put off this question, the smaller amount of options they will have and the harder that decision will be. It's not pretty but nature sure loves that "survival of the fittest" thing and it doesn't seems like it getting tired of it yet, whether we like it or not.

Follow the money, that's always the best approach. People think wars are fought with weapons. Absolutely incorrect.

And that's the point. But if US would have militarily intervened in the USSR or funded some serious anti-USSR group I'm pretty sure it would have existed even today. Well, given that world wouldn't have turned into the nuclear wasteland in the first year of Hot War. Indeed, people think that wars are fought with weapons and it's obvious to everyone on the Middle East that there's a war going on against them. And wars tend to suspend any political progress.

where are you taking these 50 years from?

There was the cold war last century. That's maybe the 50 years you are talking about. You shouldn't even think of comparing the two situations.

Funny how you keep blaming the west, by the way. Like everyone else is free of sin.

As oxmox have said, fifty years is actually an understatement but I don't know Middle Eastern history prior to WWII very well.

I'm not blaming the West, the actions of western governments are completely understandable and were justified by their national interests, I'm just pointing out to the problems that arose because constant western interference into the Middle Eastern affairs. I'm doing that because you propose yet another intervention as a solution that will be somehow beneficial to Syrian people but it had never worked in the past for huge and important Middle Eastern countries and I can't really see a reason why it sould work now.

i see no hope for peaceful solution and coexistence

I hope you're wrong but in the same time I'm afraid you could be right. And with all those foreign military powers taking sides and slowly drowning in region's neverending conflicts... nothing good can come out of it.

vilas · October 13, 2004

i see that "western EU" thinks all is because in 2003 USA did something

i can only again paste this video :

https://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo

year 700, 800, 1020 - was USA existing ?

year 1680 , was USA existing ?

afaik history USA not existed in year 800, year 732, year 1012 (there was no even Crusades than)

also years 1650, 1680 , maybe grand grand grandfathers of George Washington were pissing in "pampers"

USA made a lot of mess in world - but not started that islamic empires (caliphate) had idea to conquer Europe since 1300 years,

year 1900 map of Europe (my country occupied by 3 countries, Finland occupied, Czech occupied and ... what is in place of Bulgaria ? ooops ):

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151/maps_for_quizI/Europe%201900%20Large.PNG

maybe map of invasions in year 1020 ? but it is on YT video

USA just added some fuel to flame - i agree , maybe more than some , maybe whole bottle

colonialism - whole canister

but ... but fire was fueled for over milenium

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

The main reasons for engagements in this area were always gepolitical interests and not just the Cold War.

And this did start already before the beginning of World War 1, around 1900 the Brits tried to gain a foothold into Persia and Iraq to secure new discovered oil wells;

@By the way, the thread was started to post about the Islamic State (discussion & news) and we are going quiete offtopic since a while.

Again, like the others were free of sin.

Please, everybody has been playing games. The Brits just did it better than others.

My first answer was that we were not going off topic too much. Writing another gigantic post I noticed that maybe actually we are. The thing is, I'm not sure in what thread this thing should go. Maybe we should start a thread for long, boring conversations.

I believe that more or less pure "Good vs. Evil" confrontation exists in three things: fairy tales, holy books and propaganda materials. If we, however, apply this binary system to the real world, especially the international relations, then everybody would be evil. Simply because every country/nation/group tries to advance their own interests at expense of somebody else.

I think I explained myself. I was talking about people supporting a more democratic process and people trying to force with violence. Don't take this good and evil thing too literally. I wouldn't know what it means in the first place.

Isn't ISIS a direct result of chaos and lawlessness caused by the American intervention back in 2003? You kinda can't just roll around in your Honda murdering people if there is a strong government and especially if there is a authoritarian regime, only if country is weak and/or has a useless puppet authority. While some kind of Islamic extermist movement would certainly exist anyway, I'm pertty sure that it wouldn't have been even remotely as powerful, as ISIS now simple due to the fact that it would have faces a much more serious resistance

More than that I would say the fact that they left "because they were tired" is to blame.

So we more or less agree. Now the question is: how strong would ISIS be without Iraq? I think it would still be pretty annoying, but we will never have an answer to that question

The problem with your solution is that FSA will not be able to prevent country's further descent into chaos and Islamic extremism. They consist from varous groups with different goals, they have no strong and charizmatic leader, they have no stiong support among general population but they have a very motivated, excellently armed and powerful enemy not just at their dorstep but at their kitchen eagerly ransaking throught their fridge. Mind you, even Iraq with US support utterly failed to stop ISIS from gaining substantional power, what makes you think that bunch of guys without tanks but with dozens of centuries-old feuds among them will somehow manage to stop al-Baghdadi?

The thing is that Iraq was actually without US support. They left Iraq, knowing that they weren't capable of really defending themselves. They only gave them nice Humvees and M1 Abrams, which the Iraqis kindly left in good state for ISIS.

Let me stop here, I guess it's obvious what I think

They obviously need support. Serious support

Assad wouldn't fix the problem and frankly the problem is too old and too deep to be fixed by one leader. But that's not expected from him - all he should do is bring a relative peace and stability to the country, i.e. something that majority of the locals want. If you think that Assad, an average and somewhat clumsy dictator might be as bad or even worse than a bunch of Islamic extremists that literally proclaimed the destruction of any non-Islamic civilization, abolishment of every law system and pretty much every human right imaginable as their ultimate and sacred goal, then someone somewhere makes a very good propaganda.

Please, I'm already writing huge posts, let's see if we can avoid misunderstandings.

I said I don't know if Assad is better than ISIS *for the Syrians*, because he would torture and kill them anyway. For me, as a European, Assad would make far less problems. But that doesn't make it a good solution. Also, the problem would likely occur again in some years. Repression doesn't help.

There is one thing I can't really understand though: you don't want to send some people to die but you're somehow totally ok with all of those people (an incomparably bigger amount compared even to hundred of refugees) dying somewhere else for some kind of higher good, literally just because you or the guy in charge of your country don't like the guy in charge of theirs. Apparently it's morally unacceptable to sink couple of boats with refugees but it's totally acceptable and even desirable to sentence millions of exactly the same people to decades of bloodshed, violence, slavery, rape and hopelessness. I just don't get it.

No, I'm not okay, and even if I sink those boats I don't think the situation will improve. It will just discourage refugees from coming to Europe. And we still have to see by how much. (small note: it's not so important, but it's not *all* these people)

This is not going to happen.

You are painting a very pessimistic picture. I don't see all these decades of violence happening. The Tunisians are doing quite fine. Sure, they will need help, they will have troubles, but they can do it. I think at the end that's the point of disagreement.

It's not pretty but nature sure loves that "survival of the fittest" thing and it doesn't seems like it getting tired of it yet, whether we like it or not.

Could be, but we should make things clear: the refugees are not my enemy. My enemy is in Syria, and damn straight the survival of the fittest kicks in here. I have no problems in showing who the fittest is. But obviously I am a minority here.

As oxmox have said, fifty years is actually an understatement but I don't know Middle Eastern history prior to WWII very well.

I'm not blaming the West, the actions of western governments are completely understandable and were justified by their national interests, I'm just pointing out to the problems that arose because constant western interference into the Middle Eastern affairs. I'm doing that because you propose yet another intervention as a solution that will be somehow beneficial to Syrian people but it had never worked in the past for huge and important Middle Eastern countries and I can't really see a reason why it sould work now.

Okay, since we are widening the time horizon, I have to rephrase: last century there were two world wars and the cold war. Everybody was playing games like that, that's just the way it worked.

I tell you more: I believe we are paying the consequences of those games. Cold war ended, and all the dictatorships that have been kept by either side started faltering. And here we are. So in a way I partly agree with you

Anyway, I believe even the evil western powers now learned a lesson: people have to walk with their own legs, or things won't work. Interventions in the Middle East have never been done like that. Something like Libya, for example, never happened. It was a failure, okay, but it was something different.

The problem to me is more how to teach them to walk with their own legs.

And maybe you are not blaming the West, but you are giving the West the responsibility, which at the end is not so different. Or otherwise said: the West is the only thing you mentioned. I don't find it fair. I don't intend to support those actions, but they happened in a specific context, and similar actions were carried out by different players.

I hope you're wrong but in the same time I'm afraid you could be right. And with all those foreign military powers taking sides and slowly drowning in region's neverending conflicts... nothing good can come out of it.

Nope. Probably nothing bad either, or at least nothing worse. We will just drag this thing on and on and on. In the meanwhile we will have terrorists here, refugees dying there, some more people dying in Syria. What a great perspective.

And let's not forget Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Gambia.... but indeed that's going off topic

sudayev · May 18, 2006

In recent video the Islamic State declares war against the world.

https://ia801507.us.archive.org/35/items/NoRespiteEN/No%20Respite%20%28EN%29.mp4(no gore, political video)

Is your country on the list?

http://i.imgur.com/j2sxXj3.jpg

spooky lynx · August 3, 2004

Is your country on the list?

http://i.imgur.com/j2sxXj3.jpg

Ehh... Qatar? Saudi Arabia? :lol: Ukraine? KOSOVO??? :D :D :D

sudayev · May 18, 2006

According to what they wrote in the professionally edited magazine DABIQ (btw hard to read, fanatic religious babble mixed with nazist-like lunacy) every muslim country that do not follow the rules of wahabbism and salafism are murtadd (apostates) and murtadds only deserve death. Regarding Ukraine, they condemned ISIS and methods they are using. Ukraine stands where other European countries are when it comes to stance against muslim terrorism.

But one thing wonders me...

WHERE IS BULGARIA then???

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

oh look, Poland is on the list. Awesome. And they even managed to put Switzerland and Taiwan.

So guys, how's hiding under the bed going? Having fun? Enjoy it while it lasts, the bogey man is coming.

sudayev · May 18, 2006

And...?

How's your Merkel has she ordered troops to enter Syria yet?

oxmox · December 20, 2009

Again, like the others were free of sin.

Please, everybody has been playing games. The Brits just did it better than others.

It is about a major impact in history, about geopolitics in this area, about dominance and control of ressources, about changes which influence our present time.

No other countries like the Brits had such global dominance or possibilities in this time, France played another smaller role, Germany did suddenly arise like a Phoenix from the Ashes and was a major economical threat for the Brits i.e. Baghdad railway, the show up of the Sovjetunion, later the British Empire was weakened and did fall apart and the US took over the role.

But, Iam not saying that this is the cause of the Islamic State...these are just important parts of the history to better understand our present.

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

And...?

How's your Merkel has she ordered troops to enter Syria yet?

And... nothing. The bogey man is coming, be prepared. Hiding under the bed doesn't help, in case it wasn't clear. That's all.

Nobody has entered Syria, and that doesn't make me happy, but they are at least aware of the problem.

Not sure why you mention Merkel, by the way.

It is about a major impact in history, about geopolitics in this area, about dominance and control of ressources, about changes which influence our present time.

No other countries like the Brits had such global dominance or possibilities in this time.

But, Iam not saying that this is the cause of the Islamic State...these are just important parts of the history to better understand our present.

could be true. At this time. It didn't last long.

spooky lynx · August 3, 2004

Regarding Ukraine, they condemned ISIS and methods they are using.

What? One of Ukrainian ministry of internal affairs key figures (mr. Gerashenko) would not agree with you. Also that jihadist who was arrested in Kuwait and pointed on Ukraine as source of weapons for IS wouldn't do it too.

ProfTournesol · January 29, 2005

Is your country on the list?

http://i.imgur.com/j2sxXj3.jpg

A coalition shouldn't only be a bunch of countries sitting on one's arse and saying 'boo boo IS is bad'. But with SA and Qatar among it, international supporters of Wahabism, it's only a joke.

Moreover, a coalition against what exactly ? There are so many wars fought at the same time in Irak and Syria that it's hard to find a clever way to solve it : Shia vs Sunnis, Arabic states against Iran, Kurds vs IS, IS vs Al Nusra, Assad vs every Rebels, Turks vs Kurds...

sudayev · May 18, 2006

A coalition shouldn't only be a bunch of countries sitting on one's arse and saying 'boo boo IS is bad'. But with SA and Qatar among it, international supporters of Wahabism, it's only a joke.

Moreover, a coalition against what exactly ? There are so many wars fought at the same time in Irak and Syria that it's hard to find a clever way to solve it : Shia vs Sunnis, Arabic states against Iran, Kurds vs IS, IS vs Al Nusra, Assad vs every Rebels, Turks vs Kurds...

Try at least browsing some issues of Dabiq. This is the international coalition of those who support actions of "crusaders" (western countries with leading role USA, Russia, Israel), murdtadd aka apostates from Islam (mainly muslim countries on the list) and kuffr (non believers) from various countries all over the world.

Despite the Saudi regime is quietly supporting the jihad - their king is called King Murtadd. In another number one of the IS warlords described country leaders who condemned Charlie Hebdo attacks as devil dogs resisting the will of Allah. They are high on something and their goal is only to frighten people by propaganda - done mostly by educated in Europe ISIS volunteers. Must admit they learned Adobe After Effects and Premiere well.

This is how Mexicans in the internet reacted to being drawn on the isis coalition list.

http://www.latintimes.com/isis-mexico-memes-twitter-reacts-threat-terrorist-group-355911

#IsisEnMÃ©xico

;)

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

Not completely on topic but related: China is building a base in Djibouti:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/china-military-presence-djibouti-africa.html

Now see if they manage to piss off even China

semiconductor · November 3, 2013

@dontknowhow

I've read your entire post and I think that I have finally understood your position. Indeed, our point of disagreement seems to be the question whether FSA's rule (optimistic scenario) is more desirable than restoration of Assad's regime (not-so-optimistic).

For the record, I'm not a great expert neither in history nor in politics but here's how I see the situation regarding "Who's Gonna Be The Next Syrian Ruler" championship: we have three main contestants: Assad, FSA, ISIS. I've hid a somewhat lengthy armchair analysis of all three sides under this spoiler:

Assad himself: a doctor with ophthalmological degree from Western university who was forced to became a president due to the death his older brother, who was initially considered to be a successor to his father. He's not a great leader and general but he seems to be trying to do his best to remain in power. He has at his disposal a relatively sizable (150,000 in active service and 10 millions fit for military service), war-weary but loyal army armed with somewhat old but reliable Soviet equipment and supported by the Russians who, while not loyal to Assad personally, are the most powerful and well-armed force compared to any other army in the region. He is also supported by the considerable part of Syrian population. His goal is preservation of his rule over Syria.
FSA: initially founded by the couple of defected Syrian military officials and supported by the various opposition parties, it consists of people of various ethnic groups with different goals and different visions of the Syria's future. It's strength is around 50,000 men and they don't have any serious equipment with the exception of US TOW launchers. It's not clear whether they are widely supported by Syria's population because thy don't seem to have a clear goal or strategy apart from demolishment of Assad's regime. Some part of FSA is sympathetic to the ideas of extreme Islam. They're backed by US politically and, to a certain degree, militarily.
ISIS: they were late to the party but now they are the guest everyone keeps talking about. Their strength varies somewhere between 50,000 (according to CIA) and 200,000 men, they are relatively disciplined, highly motivated, well armed, have a top-tier US military equipment at their disposal and have huge territory under their control. Their goal is as simple as Napoleonic: a worldwide caliphate under the rule of most backwards ruler possible and worldwide Sharia Law with all the ensuing consequences. According to them, there is only one god and only one religion and everybody who have different opinions are infidels and should be beheaded/crushed by T55/burned alive. They are not backed by any political power but they claim to be backed by the Allah (S.W.T.) and that guy is believed to be a strong and thoroughgoing politician and a severe but just judge.

So here's the point: in my opinion FSA will not be able to hold power over Syria, especially when there's ISIS messing around. They have no strong leader, no common goal and they don't have clear understanding what to do when Assad's rule becomes history. The second Assad is gone most of the FSA will start to fight eachother for control over country's politics. Even if they somehow manage to form a government, it would serve the interests of certain group(s), it would be weak and helpless in the face of an aggression and it will not be supported by US with something that really counts: soldiers on the ground. ISIS knows that and they will roll into Syria on their white ZSU-carrying Hondas to claim the land that they think rightfully theirs long before the plane with Assad family fles over Russian state border. In fact, they are already there. And so the war and bloodshed will continue.

ISIS, however, will be able to hold power over the entire Syrian territory and might prove themselves as a very tough opponent even for the US and Russian military combined. They are highly motivated, they have plenty of resources, they have many followers, they have plenty of land for maneuvers and they aren't limited neither in tactics of warfare nor in methods of population control. I don't really share your doubts concerning who would be better for Syrians - Assad of ISIS. While Assad certainly not an angel in disguise and not a great leader, he is not a retarded extremely religious nut that wants to murder or enslave literally the entire planet. True, ISIS will certainly stop the war in Syria and eventually reduce the amount of daily deaths but an attempt to appease this group might turn out very badly for everyone.

FSA is weak and full of inner conflicts, ISIS is literally reincarnation of the Middle Ages in the Middle East (pun intended) so there's only Assad left. He's not a great leader, he's not a great politician but he's the best option we have without US sending their troops in a deliberately failed attempt to bring peace. While he's not fond of human rights (or finds them applicable to current Syria), he's not fond of religious extremism and covert struggle between ethnic groups either. I'm pretty sure that before the civil war under his rule people in general were enjoying a peaceful and relatively prosperous life, they were able to learn, to create, to dress as they like, to behave as they like* and were living overall happy life and it's unlikely that their future under Assad will be any different (taking into account the consequences of the war, of course). He's also backed by Russians who will provide military and humanitarian aid in case of things with ISIS going south. Here's the bonus thing: since Russians and Kurds are apparently Best Friends Forever thanks to Turkey, Kurds finally might receive a wide autonomy or even their own little state they so eagerly fighting for.

I'm not being argumentative here, as I said, I'm not an expert in this subject and I could be wrong about certain aspects or the entire thing; I'm just explaining how I perceive the situation in Syria. In conclusion, while I understand your idea of FSA and Syrian opposition achieving the democracy they (initially, at least) fought for, I'd like to note that democracy is not the thing in itself. We value the democracy because it allows us to achieve a certain degree of freedom, peace and prosperity therefore there is really no point in a democratic rule at expense of those things. The problem with Syria in particular and Middle East in general is that democracy in this region will - in my opinion - mean precisely that.

* with obvious limitations of a semi-authoritarian regime.

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

This is really going off topic, and this time I think there is a better thread

I've read your entire post

Wow, I'm impressed. That's why it took you so long to answer. I'm afraid I will have to make your job harder.

I appreciate the analysis, but maybe I should explain myself better. I think I can arrange the things I would like to do in mainly 2 points:

1) let everyone have a voice

There are several groups of people involved, and all of them are Syrians

- Assad can be an asshole, but he's there because he has at least some people supporting him: Alawites. These are Syrians, backed by Russia and Iran

- There are moderate Sunnis rebels (the FSA), who are also Syrians. Backed by Saudi Arabia and some other countries

- There also are Shiites, but I'm not sure if they can go to Assad, as the Alawites are sort of Shiites. Obviously backed by Iran

- And finally the Kurds. They are Syrians too. Not backed by anyone, and actually hated by Turkey, but pretty serious fighters.

Each of them has the resources to make problems to the others. So what you can do is give power to one of them, and let repression rule. Now, aside from the fact that I'm used to western values, and I don't see that as a nice solution, there is a practical reason why this shouldn't be done: it will likely happen again. Maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, but it will happen; because, as you said (I think), that's what people want. So, why don't we see if we can find a solution that is good enough for everybody, not just the FSA or Assad?

Sure, it won't be easy, and that's the reason why someone is suggesting the creation of a new state. But I don't think it's impossible, for the simple reason that if it doesn't work that way it just doesn't work. The Tunisians were smart enough to understand it in 2013, thanks to the famous quartet that won the Nobel this year. The Libyans are getting close, even if the backstabbing of Bernardino Leon is quite a step back. They have to understand that too. It is quite hard, because we are talking here about sectarian and ethnic violence, but I don't think it's impossible.

If nothing works, I think I will go for the suggested solution of changing the geography of the region, and create different countries.

2) help them to develop

Assuming that we find a solution, there will always be someone who is not satisfied. It's also naive to expect that any implementation of the solution will run smoothly, as everyone still goes after his own interests.

So the logical consequence is that there will be violence. We know it, we have seen it even in Europe. But in the moment that there is something that can give people some hope, I think they can come out of it. But they need help. They need training and equipment against terrorism (not like Iraq, where they have been abandoned), they need to know how to run a government without blatantly pissing the others off. They need to know how to run a democracy.

The worst part is that they will need it for a very long time. I already said that wars are not fought with weapons. This is a cultural matter, and as such it will take years to settle.

So, this is what I think. You obviously have a different opinion.

I grew up with western values: democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of press, rule of law, tolerance. I don't pretend them to work perfectly; there have been quite a few problems, from the heavy terrorism in the '70s and '80s to more recent acts of violence. There are also quite a few places where the law is not exactly respected 100%. But in general it seems to work. I believe it can work in this case too.

Looking back, I see many places where other transitions happened. Starting from Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Eastern Europe), but also South America (where they managed to masterfully get out of some serious dictatorships), Asia, Africa.

I already mentioned Tunisia. The Egyptians were so close, and they didn't get it just because they voted for an idiot, and maybe they didn't have the right mechanisms in place. People have to learn. Even Lebanon, which is in a way in an even tougher situation than Syria (not only Sunnis and Shiites, but also Christians, and the fight between Hezbollah and Israel), seems to do better, with some help from the UN. Or so I think; Lebanon is a real mess.

Now the question is: why can't it work here? Because it's the Middle East? They are doomed? They are human, like everybody else. Sure, they have their cultural bias, and that's the reason why I already said this is a cultural matter. But they want what everyone else wants: a job, a family, a life. Give them a serious chance, I'm sure they can make it.

semiconductor · November 3, 2013

Well, we're still discussing Syria's future in the light of ISIS threat so I think that we're more or less within the topic's bounds.

Wow, I'm impressed. That's why it took you so long to answer.

I was implying that while I won't go into paragraph-by-paragraph reply like I did in previous posts, I'm nevertheless not ignoring everything you wrote so put your sarcasm aside please.

I see that you have again missed my main point that FSA will not be able to hold power over Syria and barely mentioned that "everybody has the resources to make problems for eachother". I explicitly adduced the approximate numbers of all three major sides and the FSA is the weakest of them all. It doesn't really matter whether they are "good guys"or not when they're outnumbered and outgeared by ISIS alone; not to mention Assad with literally millions of people in reserve. How doy you think they will be able to retain control over the country when the main reasons they haven't been wiped out in the first years of their existence is American support and Assad's hesitation? Just because US wants to have an another weak puppet government does not mean that this is a good idea to actually create one especially considering the circumstances.

Why don't we find a solution that will be good for everybody? Because such solution does not exist. It never had. As vilas has said, you can't put foxes and chickens in the same barn and expect them to go along nicely. The problem with the Middle East is that everybody there is the chicken and the fox in the same time and therefore some group's victory will mean everybody else's defeat. Democracy will not work in clan-based society in which everybody is in a constant, centuries-long war with everyone. Yes, we have one or two irrelevant countries where democracy seems to work so far but they are minority.

In your post you have said numerous times that one of the reasons you support FSA is because you're used to western values, you have grown with them, you saw that they did many great things to the Western civilization and you don't really understand why these will not work in the Middle East. In the end you've asked a very interestingly phrased question: are they doomed? Here's the funny thing: all not-so-moderate muslims think exactly in the same vein but they just use different nouns.

Consider the following: they're used to Islamic values, they have grown with them, they saw that they did many great things to the Middle Eastern civilization and they don't really understand why these values will not work in the West. Just like we're thinking "How could someone refuse the ideals of freedom and pursuit of happiness?!", they are thinking "How could somebody refuse an afterlife full with joys and hot women in favor of mundane pleasures?!". Just like we're thinking "How could someone prefer bunch of old clerics over the rule of law?!" they're thinking "How could someone spit upon the will of God?!". Just like we're want to rescue them from the poverty and oppression, they want to rescue us from the life of sin and Hell's eternal flames. And they literally think that we're doomed just because we won't accept their system of government.

So just like the major part of European population isn't exactly fond of Sharia Law, the major part of Middle Eastern population isn't exactly in awe from the ideals of democracy. That's why democracy can't work there. And that's something we have to accept because the times of Crusades are long gone and we can't just roll into the mosque on our M1A2 TUSK and demand from locals to abandon their culture and became a democratic atheists overnight. We have to accept that democracy is not a universal concept and it can't really work everywhere for everyone.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Semiconductor

dontknowhow · September 5, 2009

Well, we're still discussing Syria's future in the light of ISIS threat so I think that we're more or less within the topic's bounds.

Considering that there is a Syria thread, I would tend to disagree

I was implying that while I won't go into paragraph-by-paragraph reply like I did in previous posts, I'm nevertheless not ignoring everything you wrote so put your sarcasm aside please.

Sarcasm was for me, not for you. Or actually about the general situation, because I am spending a lot of time writing endless posts.

I fail to see how you can interpret that otherwise, to be honest.

I see that you have again missed my main point that FSA will not be able to hold power over Syria

And I was trying to explain that giving the power to FSA was not my intention. Obviously I failed.

Why don't we find a solution that will be good for everybody? Because such solution does not exist. It never had.

And that's the point of disagreement.

you can't put foxes and chickens in the same barn and expect them to go along nicely. The problem with the Middle East is that everybody there is the chicken and the fox in the same time and therefore some group's victory will mean everybody else's defeat. Democracy will not work in clan-based society in which everybody is in a constant, centuries-long war with everyone.

So how about, say, Colombia? I might even use the same argument on Eastern Europe: 50 years under communism, no way they can do anything.

Hell, you could even say the same about Western Europe in 1945: for thousands of years these guys have been kicking each other's ass, why are we helping them?

Yes, we have one or two irrelevant countries where democracy seems to work so far but they are minority.

Tunisia is irrelevant? Interesting. And Egypt? Ah, but it didn't work there, we were just extremely close. How about Morocco?

We also have one or two countries were we didn't do a good job. And who know, maybe Libya is not actually a desperate case. For the rest we didn't do that much.

How about we seriously try something?

In your post you have said numerous times that one of the reasons you support FSA is because you're used to western values, you have grown with them, you saw that they did many great things to the Western civilization and you don't really understand why these will not work in the Middle East. In the end you've asked a very interestingly phrased question: are they doomed? Here's the funny thing: all not-so-moderate muslims think exactly in the same vein but they just use different nouns.

** I DON'T SUPPORT THE FSA **

Give them some hope, see how things change. These values are working pretty much everywhere around the world, even if sometimes with some extra work. And I really don't think the Middle East is the only doomed place.

I repeat: people are people. Cultural differences, sure, but you can work on those.

Consider the following: they're used to Islamic values, they have grown with them, they saw that they did many great things to the Middle Eastern civilization and they don't really understand why these values will not work in the West.

That depends on the values you use, which are not constant. A lot of people using "Islamic values", whatever that means, are doing just fine in the West

So just like the major part of European population isn't exactly fond of Sharia Law

ah, here we go. Sharia. So at the end this is the point of disagreement.

I'm starting to see the margin for discussion dwindling. Not sure I can keep it up much longer

We have to accept that democracy is not a universal concept and it can't really work everywhere for everyone.

Nope, ain't going to happen. That concept has been doing great so far.

Go ahead and shoot them if you like. Wherever the good old Lord is, and whatever that is, I like to think that he has something for them too.

They are not doomed. No one is.

oxmox · December 20, 2009

Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi (also spelled al-Aqidi) is a commander of and spokesman for the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo.

Video from 2014 (?) -

Commander of the FSA/Aleppo about the Islamic State & Al Nusra:

"The relationship is good, even brotherly."

(0:18min. about IS and 3:50min about Al Nusra)

authenticated by the top academic Syria expert in the U.S., Joshua Landis, of the University of Oklahoma

vilas · October 13, 2004

in English

watch yourself how immams tell that apostates or people who are against islam should be killed

look how immams say "when foot of muslim steps than this country must follow sharia"

they openly say that tollerance should work ONLY towards muslims, only,

muslims believe when they come somewhere - than such country should be following islam , look what immams say and that their duty is to conquer world and kill anyone who is not muslim,

that non-muslims do not have any rights etc.

press said "Belgian organized attacks"
so maybe Paris attack is INTERNAL French problem (if Frenchmen were killing Frenchmen) or France should bomb Belgium (cause they say "Belgian" orgaznied it)?
when the hell west will say "it was islam, it were muslims, Arab migrants or their kids" when ?
look at video from YT posted in other topic - since 700 AD they are trying to invade and conquer Europe,
we fight against them for 1300 years and now ... your mayors, your presidents, your ministers say "to not offend Muslims we have to remove cross" ? "we must disarm you" ?
they have 5 kids, they will outnumber you and in voting democraticall they will imply sharia on you, and than your daughter or grandaughter will be noone,
any freedoms you have will disappear
when west will realize that islam is not compatible with our values , when?
islam is other culture, based on relgion, based on many bans,
we are culture that now believes there is only one life , they believe in life after life, we are culture basing on Christianity - which is opposite to what Quoran says (and despite many ignorants - ISIS, radicals - they are really follow Quoran, they are real muslims cause they follow that book strictly, if you do not belive - ask Anjem Choudary )
those who are called "moderate" like Turkey - in fact do not care about religion , just like us, for them it is "just part of tradition", just like I (atheist) have Christmass Tree , i eat dumplings etc. cause it is tradition of fathers !!!
but real problem is islam ideology of conquer whole world to turn into caliphate ,
you believe in one life - they believe they must conquer you to make you obey what Quoran says ,
we believe in democracy, they belive in theocracy and tyrrany and harsh enforcing religious lies and even such stupid things like that pig or dog are dirty sinful animals,
there is no possibility of coexistance of real quoran based islam muslims with europeans who base on sexual freedoms , democracy, food freedoms, religion freedoms (freedom to not believe in any gods),
and if this flood will not be stopped, if bringing 5 kids will not be stopped, if they won't be deported - say good bye to your safe streets, your security, your social care, your freedoms , future and wealth of your kids - anything
look at Africa - we have 10% population growth since 1970, they have 300% and they moan on poverty, escaping poverty and cry for help ? middle east or Asia ? doubled population when we have 10% more (due to migration to be funny as well),
we focus on THIS life, work, study, they focus on RELIGION
someone will answer :"i know some muslims and they are not hardcore" - i will ask "do they obey all what is written in Quoran?",
when i read someone sayin they share the same values - facepalm - if they share than why they not leave religion ?
religion by definition is other values - they see our culture and values as rotten, filthy, sinful, disgusting , pervert, adultery etc.

now German press curses new Polish government even more than Hungarian, this is really "joke"

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/swiat/niemiecka-gazeta-polska-rzadzona-jest-przez-paranoidalnych-nacjonalistow/r0h6hk

german press caling Poland "ruled by paranoic nationalists" "more dangerous than islamic terrorists" ? wtf

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Fala-uchodzcow-zmieni-Szwecje-nie-do-poznania,wid,18012284,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=116095

even mainstream start telling about Sweden reality

http://ndie.pl/bruksela-msci-sie-na-wegrzech-za-polityke-antyimigracyjna/

Hungary punished by EU commision starting procedure of not allowing Hungary to vote in EU ? what the fuck happens

http://ndie.pl/sojusz-polski-i-wegier-jest-grozniejszy-dla-europy-anizeli-panstwo-islamskie/

Poland and Hungary more dangerous than ISIS - wrote german left wing press ? wth

http://ndie.pl/srodowiska-lewicowe-w-szwecji-uwazaja-ze-ograniczenia-dla-imigrantow-to-zaprzeczenie-postepowym-idealom/

Sweden left says that limiting who can come to EU is against idea of modernity

http://wpolityce.pl/media/273596-polacy-i-wegrzy-gorsi-od-mordercow-z-panstwa-islamskiego-a-jakze-na-wyzyny-antypolskiego-szowinizmu-wspiela-sie-kolejna-niemiecka-gazeta

http://niezalezna.pl/73445-ordynarny-hejt-niemieckich-mediow-polska-i-wegry-gorsze-od-panstwa-islamskiego

grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat - Poland and Hungary worse than islamic terrorists - says german press

http://wpolityce.pl/polityka/273581-bruksela-msci-sie-na-orbanie-za-opor-ws-imigrantow-ke-uruchamia-procedure-majaca-wykluczyc-wegry-z-unii

EU commision starts procedure of withdrawn Hungary from EU

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/sharia-saudi-arabia-sentences-poet-to-death-for-apostasy-and-blasphemy

SaudiA - man sentenced to death for apostasy

vilas · October 13, 2004

of course McCain has similar photo with ISIS leaders in too - i remember about McCain too

buaahaha:

"Leftist logic - terror acts commited by Belgians and French - no info that they were muslims, man get into abortion company (selling parts of humans) - word christian in first headline news" what a double standards

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/uk-muslim-rape-gang-member-says-13-year-old-victim-seduced-him

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/germany-jihadis-recruiting-refugees-in-mosques

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/muslim-former-obama-adviser-white-male-christians-commit-most-terror-attacks

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/sharia-saudi-arabia-sentences-poet-to-death-for-apostasy-and-blasphemy

http://10news.dk/?p=2024

http://10news.dk/?p=2016

http://10news.dk/?p=2027

http://10news.dk/?p=2020

http://10news.dk/?p=2012

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/623186/EXCLUSIVE-English-lessons-for-UK-bound-Syrians-scrapped-as-Home-Office-can-t-find-them

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-marathi-daily-attacked-for-pubishing-blasphemous-cartoon-2150325

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/women/19559-iran-concert-cancelled-over-female-musicians

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/622126/Europe-migrant-crisis-refugees-Sweden-tensions

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20151129/1030930231/macedonia-policemen-migrants-clashes.html

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/finland-public-anti-government-rally-against-importing-muslim-rapist-refugees/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/welcome-to-hamtramck-michigan-where-muslims-make-up-50-of-the-population/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/finland-government-to-look-closer-into-growing-number-of-muslim-rapes/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/serbia-palestinian-ambassador-sells-eu-visas-to-wealthy-muslim-migrants/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/uk-muslim-fantasist-imam-says-europe-plundered-muslim-lands/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/sweden-14000-illegal-muslim-immigrants-disappear-without-trace/

http://www.siotw.org/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=440&cid=6

muslims collecting and signing petition to end freedom of speech and freedom or religious belief in UK , lol

world fertility map, birthrate , population :

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/category/population-replacement/

how it comes to poverty - the bigger poverty the more kids people have without thinking about their future - the more and more poverty (endless circle)

ProfTournesol · January 29, 2005

(Vice News) Did the Islamic State Go Shopping For Weapons in Ukraine?

Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) Discussion

Recommended Posts

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

oxmox 73

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

vilas 477

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

semiconductor 309

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

vilas 477

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sudayev 27

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

spooky lynx 73

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sudayev 27

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sudayev 27

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

oxmox 73

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

spooky lynx 73

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ProfTournesol 956

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sudayev 27

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

semiconductor 309

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dontknowhow 33

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

semiconductor 309

Share this post