Iraq - Page 4 - Social Anxiety Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-20-2014, 07:05 AM
Ban
 
Going crazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The other side of sanity
Gender: Male
Age: 25
Posts: 1,735
My Mood: Goofy
Lol well the US is at war( in a economic way as well) with a bunch of third world countries and the truth is this militant group doesnt pose a real threat to the US, not even north korea does. The weapon technology the empire has is too advance compare to any other in the world, if the US military continues to get involve in those countries they will only create more enemies here and abroad because of their brutality and atrocities they're known to commit.


Self education makes great men
- Bruce Lee
Going crazy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-21-2014, 03:59 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: In my Home xD
Gender: Female
Age: 27
Posts: 1,085
Theres no doubt that Us can destroy.
I guess what im trying to put forth is the US might be a little fearful of this group, Isil.
Maybe everyone is, they did, massacre their own people & post it online. How gruesome is that.

Anyway I hope they are given the inability to incline.

Most up to date news, All Christian's were given ultimatums in Mosul, Leave, convert or pay. For their own sake, Leaving the city would be the best option there in my opinion.

"We all have time to spend or waste and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed it is gone forever" B.Lee
Ladysoul is offline  
post #63 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-21-2014, 06:05 AM
Dragonic Archon
 
Zyriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crimson Lair
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelebek View Post
Theres no doubt that Us can destroy.
I guess what im trying to put forth is the US might be a little fearful of this group, Isil.
Maybe everyone is, they did, massacre their own people & post it online. How gruesome is that.

Anyway I hope they are given the inability to incline.

Most up to date news, All Christian's were given ultimatums in Mosul, Leave, convert or pay. For their own sake, Leaving the city would be the best option there in my opinion.
I doubt the US is fearful of them. They are overall insignificant to the larger scale of things, and in a sense, useful to western powers. That is what I mean by "proxy war" a war between two factions with differing ideologies that can be exploited indirectly. The group ISIL, indeed is a terrorist organization by international standards, however it has become more than that, now it is a rogue state. A state that believes in militant Sunni fundamentalism, the term "Wahhabism" if I am correct in that. Now such a group had to be funded somewhere in their origins. They need ammo, fighters, provisions, etc. for war, it's not free. Often times people within the states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. fund militant Sunni groups. Now where do those people get money? They provide the US and western world with oil lol, so in a sense the US is indirectly funding their own enemies through laundered money.

The group ISIL also consider themselves a "Caliphate", the last being the Ottoman Empire, and want to restore Islamic rule to the whole region and restore the borders of the original one. Groups such as Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nursa have even regarded ISIL as "radical extremists" this coming from other terrorist organizations lol. So that shows, the instability between factions originally focused on similar goals, as well as the complex social dynamics of the region.

To put it simply, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", so indirectly is useful to the situation from a proxy perspective. The US condemns the group, but has supported FSA (Free Syrian Army) splinter groups who other countries, Syria, China, Iraq, Russia, etc have condemned as terrorists lol. It's honestly all a matter of perspective and whose side one is on. However, the ones who do suffer as you have seen are the people. So with the group ISIL taking over the region, that proves useful on a global strategic perspective for western powers, as it hinders the mobility and advancement of Syria, Iran, Hezzobollah and to a greater extent, Russia in their strategic movements and assets.

Lets observe Russia, to look at things from a wider perspective. Russia is moving in on Ukraine and most probably overall wants to take over the whole Black Sea region (as it is the access point out of the Black Sea for Russia's western Navy). Whoever controls the Suez Canal, controls the oil trade, and to a greater extent, the global economy. So that is why Russia is so invested into Iran, Ukraine (Naval Port at Sevestapol), Syria (because if Assad falls, the next target will be Iran).

Here is what superior firepower does, in terms of devastation:
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2014...hway-of-death/

That is called the highway of death,

"The Highway of Death refers to a six-lane highway between Kuwait and Iraq, officially known as Highway 80. It runs from Kuwait City to the border town of Safwan in Iraq and then on to the Iraqi city of Basra. The road had been used by Iraqi armed divisions for the 1990 Invasion of Kuwait."

"The death toll from the attack remains unknown and controversial. British journalist Robert Fisk claimed to have "lost count of the Iraqi corpses crammed into the smouldering wreckage or slumped face down in the sand" at the main site and to see hundreds of corpses strewn up the road all the way to the Iraqi border. American journalist Bob Drogin reported seeing "scores" of dead soldiers "in and around the vehicles, mangled and bloated in the drifting desert sands." Some independent estimates go as high as 10,000 or more casualties (even "tens of thousands"), but this is a highly unlikely number."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Effects of bombs (Graphic, don't click if you have a weak stomach):
http://message.snopes.com/photos/gru...cs/gulfwar.jpg

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...uck-truck3.jpg

Baghdad on fire during bombing:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YSRUp6aAnH...9March2003.jpg

Now remember those were trained militaries who had seen combat against Iran and had tanks, anti-aircraft vehicles, support and command structure in a standardized army. ISIL on the other hand are guerrilla fighters with scraps of weaponry, mostly small arms or whatever they have confiscated from abandoned military bases or bought from black market arms deals. If/when they run into a war with a modern equipped/support military, they will most likely be massacred. Again the problem is cost, political relations, and overall strategy. The US spends insane amounts on military and the overall goal is to impede Russia's interests in the region, which means Iran and Syria.

Here is a paper from the Brookings Institution, one of the foreign policy think tanks for the Pentagon, called "The Path to Persia" published in 2009:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...n_strategy.pdf

"Goal" - (Page 113 under "Inspiring an Insurgency - Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups")

"Supporting an insurgency could have two different potential goals, with one effectively a fallback position of the other. Like supporting a popular revolution, one goal of supporting an insurgency would be to try to overthrow the Iranian regime altogether, in the expectation that doing so would alleviate America's problems with Iran."

"However, even if U.S. support for an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still place Tehran under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the regime from making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might decide that this second objective is more compelling rationale for supporting an insurgency than to the (much less likely) goal of actually overthrowing the regime."

"Overview of the Policy" - (Page 114)

"The core concept of lying at the heart of this option would be for the United states to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did with other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and other organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders. The United States would help the groups identify a base in a neighboring country, secure the host nation's support for the groups, and help them develop an infrastructure to support operations in Iran."

"Finding a Proxy" - (Page 116)

"The first - and potentially most problematic - requirement to implement this option is to identify a potentially insurgent group that is willing and able to play this role with American assistance. The best candidate for such a role would be a broad-based opposition group with cohesiveness, some history of armed resistance and a clear-leadership, and widespread popular support. Unfortunately, none of the candidates can claim to meet those criteria. Consequently, the United States would have to opt either for ethnic groups that possess the cohesiveness, leadership, and popular support from a segment of Iranian society, or for the MEK - which arguably has the leadership and cohesiveness but has little popular support at present."

"Part IV Deterring Tehran - Containment" - (Page 129)

"The success of Containment during this period was uneven. Iran today seems a more powerful and disruptive force in the international relations of the Middle East than it has been since the days of the revolution. Given that Containment sought to achieve the opposite, these results alone suggest that Containment failed. But as always with Iran, there is more to it than that. First Iran's apparent strength across the region is more a product of American mistakes than its own actual puissance or cleverness. The United States eliminated Iran's two most threatening neighbors - Saddam Husayn in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan - and left power vacuums that allowed Iranians to assert considerable influence where they previously had little. Similarly, American missteps in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, as well as in dealing with Palestinians, have diminished the power of freedom of action of the United States (and its allies) and handed Iran apparent victories at little cost."


Love or hate me as you will, but live now and in your final breath. In time we shall meet again.
Zyriel is offline  
 
post #64 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-22-2014, 07:43 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: In my Home xD
Gender: Female
Age: 27
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
cn't we jus nuke dem and s*** jajajaja you know, strap sum nuks onto sum camelz and giddyup dem into bagdad. Problem sovled. ur welcome
Jajajaja only if it was that simply
I remember in year 9 I handed in an essay spelling my words like that ^
throughout the whole thing. You know my mama got a call "your daughter spends too much time on mirc"

"We all have time to spend or waste and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed it is gone forever" B.Lee
Ladysoul is offline  
post #65 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-22-2014, 08:08 AM
SAS Member
 
millenniumman75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Age: 42
Posts: 149,956
My Mood: Angelic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
cn't we jus nuke dem and s*** jajajaja you know, strap sum nuks onto sum camelz and giddyup dem into bagdad. Problem sovled. ur welcome

millenniumman75
You are a success story waiting to happen!
Live and let live VACUUMS more than a Hoover....
Live and HELP live is better!

TROLL ALERT STATUS:
CHAT -> BERT

FORUMS -> ERNIE
(troll activity on the increase)

WATCH WHAT YOU TYPE!
millenniumman75 is offline  
post #66 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-22-2014, 08:13 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: In my Home xD
Gender: Female
Age: 27
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
If/when they run into a war with a modern equipped/support military, they will most likely be massacred. Again the problem is cost, political relations, and overall strategy. The US spends insane amounts on military and the overall goal is to impede Russia's interests in the region, which means Iran and Syria.

My My very compelling all of it, How do you know all that
Its superb you have supplied us with all that knowledge.

I never had heard of the "highway of death".

"We all have time to spend or waste and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed it is gone forever" B.Lee
Ladysoul is offline  
post #67 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-22-2014, 09:08 AM Thread Starter
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: In my Home xD
Gender: Female
Age: 27
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
ur teach lacks open mind she ned rid on da camel wit nuks she so narrow mindez she do excell job guidin dem to bagdad jajajajaj problem sloved. ur welcom
That's by far the coolest thing iv read on here. Kudos you are highly intelligibly. Cerberus awesome

"We all have time to spend or waste and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed it is gone forever" B.Lee
Ladysoul is offline  
post #68 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-31-2014, 06:11 PM
Dragonic Archon
 
Zyriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crimson Lair
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Here's two interesting articles:

http://ftp.gulf-daily-news.com/sourc...pdf/page01.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isil-le...th-cia/5391601

However, remember it is information from the other side of the fence. At least the one from Fars News, which is an Iranian news outlet, which serves as propaganda for Iran, much like Western News outlets are propaganda for western powers. It does allow you to see differing views and perspectives and attain different information. Whether that information is "true" is all a matter of perspective, since every side wants to promote their agenda.

The ISIL leader was released from a US detainee camp in 2009 though lol (horrid choice ~_~) Ironic though because those people usually have "handlers" if they're released lol like parole:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-new-york.html

Here's some more on him lol:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ira...ghdadi-n132311

One thing I have noticed, is with those more, not sure what to call them, "conservative-fundamentalist" terrorist groups like "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Nursa", "Boko Haram", and such, notice their names. They're either focused on very religious themed names lol, support of "their" people, "sin of the west" etc, very self-righteous lol. ISIL on the other hand, just goes on the scene and establishes itself as a "Caliphate" it's name "Islamic State" which overall is very generalized, encompassing territory in the name, and originally the regions it controlled or sought to, "Iraq and Levant" (Modern countries of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Southern Turkey). It has large ambitions, which is broader "movement" to attract a larger focus group of militants rather than specialized "sects" as in other ones.

What I am curious to see, is how Israel will react to them if they come into contact, since the borders are getting closer. That will be the defining moment to see what the true intentions and allegiances are. Since Israel is at war with Hamas, and has bad relations with Hezzobollah, Iran, and Syria.

Love or hate me as you will, but live now and in your final breath. In time we shall meet again.
Zyriel is offline  
post #69 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-31-2014, 09:00 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
Haven't seen this thread before, but it look very interesting. Didn't read all the discussion though.

In the responses that I did read however, I didn't see anything about the outreach IS (as they're no longer ISIS) has in Western countries. Many IS fighters are Americans and Europeans. Even if there's collective action against them (which isn't likely), survivors will be seeking revenge from both the inside and outside of Western countries. And there still be the rest of the fundamentalist groups to contend with. I don't know how this could end but the way I see this short-term: fundamentalist groups fight and (try to) eliminate each other with respective allies' blessings. More people join, sadly more people die. And I need to get some sleep before I can think properly again and contribute something of value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post


One thing I have noticed, is with those more, not sure what to call them, "conservative-fundamentalist" terrorist groups like "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Nursa", "Boko Haram", and such, notice their names. They're either focused on very religious themed names lol, support of "their" people, "sin of the west" etc, very self-righteous lol. ISIL on the other hand, just goes on the scene and establishes itself as a "Caliphate" it's name "Islamic State" which overall is very generalized, encompassing territory in the name, and originally the regions it controlled or sought to, "Iraq and Levant" (Modern countries of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Southern Turkey). It has large ambitions, which is broader "movement" to attract a larger focus group of militants rather than specialized "sects" as in other ones.


Just minor corrections, since you seem to lean towards perfectionism in the info you're providing: Al-Qaeda really means "foundation" which is not particularly religious, at least not in Arabic. "Boko Haram" actually means Western education is haram, or sinful.

As for the Caliphate thing, in addition to what you said, in "traditional" Islam there's a lot of controversy around the right of the muslim "ruler" to be obeyed. Declaring al-Baghdadi a Caliph gives him more legitimacy -- in their version of Islam -- than a mere leader of a group like al-Qaeda and he then is to be obeyed by all. While a muslim who didn't join (the original) al-Qaeda isn't considered disobedient, a person who refuses to agree to the rule of a Caliph is a dissident and is punished severely. It could be punishable by death. This is putting it very simply but my brain power is draining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post

What I am curious to see, is how Israel will react to them if they come into contact, since the borders are getting closer. That will be the defining moment to see what the true intentions and allegiances are. Since Israel is at war with Hamas, has bad relations with Hezzobollah, Iran, and Syria.
They will not come into contact. If they do, they'll be friends just like the KSA&co Israel friends with Israel.

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
post #70 of 181 (permalink) Old 07-31-2014, 11:06 PM
Dragonic Archon
 
Zyriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crimson Lair
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
Just minor corrections, since you seem to lean towards perfectionism in the info you're providing: Al-Qaeda really means "foundation" which is not particularly religious, at least not in Arabic. "Boko Haram" actually means Western education is haram, or sinful.


Ahh interesting, I know nothing of the language, thank you for the corrections provided, quite educational!^^ Foundation can be seen as the "Core", "Root", "Seed" even, so metaphorically the center of resistance. True, it's not particularly religious, for those who don't understand Arabic though, it sounds more, "ethnic" or "exotic" which in many times causes fear amongst foreign populations. ISIL is just an acronym lol, and had to be changed because ISIS just makes subconscious associations to the ancient Egyptian Goddess, which I doubt Pagans or Muslims would want that lol being a close proximity to that region. Now it being just "Islamic State" makes it sound almost legitimate ~_~ a title more than a name though lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
As for the Caliphate thing, in addition to what you said, in "traditional" Islam there's a lot of controversy around the right of the muslim "ruler" to be obeyed. Declaring al-Baghdadi a Caliph gives him more legitimacy -- in their version of Islam -- than a mere leader of a group like al-Qaeda and he then is to be obeyed by all. While a muslim who didn't join (the original) al-Qaeda isn't considered disobedient, a person who refuses to agree to the rule of a Caliph is a dissident and is punished severely. It could be punishable by death. This is putting it very simply but my brain power is draining.

They will not come into contact. If they do, they'll be friends just like the KSA&co Israel friends with Israel.
That is something I found odd, isn't a "Caliph" only declared by being a descendant of Mohammad? As the title means "successor" or a "representative of God"? Or is it an elected title? A lot of Islamic rulers throughout history didn't even adopt the title, using Sultan or Shah if Persian.

Yeah I kinda guessed they'd just avoid each other at least on the public arena lol. Even though their borders would touch, which makes no sense, since Israel is probably the greatest threat to Islam overall in the region lol. We will have to wait and see, ISIL still has to get through the Damascus stronghold in Syria first, and deal with Lebanon. I doubt Iran will just sit by and watch.

With Israel putting so much pressure on Hamas recently too, it's like they're trying to provoke Iran into conflict.


Love or hate me as you will, but live now and in your final breath. In time we shall meet again.
Zyriel is offline  
post #71 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-01-2014, 07:40 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth, Sol System
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
What I am curious to see, is how Israel will react to them if they come into contact, since the borders are getting closer. That will be the defining moment to see what the true intentions and allegiances are. Since Israel is at war with Hamas, has bad relations with Hezzobollah, Iran, and Syria.
The Jewish state vs. the Islamic state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
That is something I found odd, isn't a "Caliph" only declared by being a descendant of Mohammad?


This is the Shiite view. Most Muslims are Sunnis, including IS and Al-Qaeda, and they don't agree with that.

Quote:
A lot of Islamic rulers throughout history didn't even adopt the title, using Sultan or Shah if Persian.


A Caliph purports to rule all Muslims everywhere, while a Sultan only leads a particular Kingdom, not all Muslims in the universe. "Shah" means "emperor" or "King of Kings" of Iran / Persia and any associated empire. Being Muslim is not required to be a Shah; there have been Shahs since before Islam existed. There have been Shahs who were Zoroastrian.
Morpheus is offline  
post #72 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-01-2014, 01:49 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post

Ahh interesting, I know nothing of the language, thank you for the corrections provided, quite educational!^^ Foundation can be seen as the "Core", "Root", "Seed" even, so metaphorically the center of resistance. True, it's not particularly religious, for those who don't understand Arabic though, it sounds more, "ethnic" or "exotic" which in many times causes fear amongst foreign populations. ISIL is just an acronym lol, and had to be changed because ISIS just makes subconscious associations to the ancient Egyptian Goddess, which I doubt Pagans or Muslims would want that lol being a close proximity to that region. Now it being just "Islamic State" makes it sound almost legitimate ~_~ a title more than a name though lol.
It's just regular Arabic. If this sounds exotic, pretty much anything in Arabic would. As for ISIS, it was changed because the group is not going for the countries you mentioned anymore. It's supposed to look like a global fight now. In Arabic the group's acronym is Da'ish (which sounds very "masculine" but doesn't really mean anything). ISIS is the English acronym, which doesn't mean anything in Arabic, because the Arabic pronunciation of the goddess' name is Eezees so it really doesn't connect much in Arabic to people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
That is something I found odd, isn't a "Caliph" only declared by being a descendant of Mohammad? As the title means "successor" or a "representative of God"? Or is it an elected title? A lot of Islamic rulers throughout history didn't even adopt the title, using Sultan or Shah if Persian.


Like Morpheus said, this belief exists only in Shi'a sects. Only one of the Caliphs in Islamic history was a descendant of the Prophet. There's a long story to this but Caliph means representative and successor, but not really of God. The first Caliph ever, Abu-Bakr, was called the Caliph of the Prophet; the Shi'i/Sunni divide didn't exist at the time. The second Caliph refused to be called "Caliph of the Prophet's Caliph" because it's endless. He was called instead Amir al-Mu'mineen or the Amir/Prince of the believers. It also signaled that the Caliphate/"Islamic state" (which was only established after the Prophet's death) wasn't anymore about religion but also political and administrative. People still used the title interchangeably though with other rules for legitimacy issues (I think).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
Yeah I kinda guessed they'd just avoid each other at least on the public arena lol. Even though their borders would touch, which makes no sense, since Israel is probably the greatest threat to Islam overall in the region lol. We will have to wait and see, ISIL still has to get through the Damascus stronghold in Syria first, and deal with Lebanon. I doubt Iran will just sit by and watch.
Well, I think ISIS&co are the greatest threat to Islam right now. Their Wahhabi ideology revolves around fighting Muslim "non-believers": moderates, Shi'a, Alawite, etc and less fundamentalist groups (just like their funders in the KSA may I say). They're less concerned with other religions. Of course they've committed hideous crimes against Christians but their discourse is mostly about "purifying" Islam. I think this is also seen as an opportunity by some countries to "cleanse" their states of fundamentalists by allowing them to go fight in Syrian and Iraq. But then, they never read -- certainly not history -- to know that this is the most idiotic plan they can come up with.

Iran and Hezbolla are not watching but they're just better at doing things silently.



Sorry for the long post


.

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
post #73 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-02-2014, 05:20 PM
Dragonic Archon
 
Zyriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crimson Lair
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus View Post
This is the Shiite view. Most Muslims are Sunnis, including IS and Al-Qaeda, and they don't agree with that.


Wasn't there a Shia Caliph from the Fatamid Caliphate, prior to Salahadin and the Ayyubids during the crusades?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus View Post
A Caliph purports to rule all Muslims everywhere, while a Sultan only leads a particular Kingdom, not all Muslims in the universe. "Shah" means "emperor" or "King of Kings" of Iran / Persia and any associated empire. Being Muslim is not required to be a Shah; there have been Shahs since before Islam existed. There have been Shahs who were Zoroastrian.
Ahh thank you for the clarifications xD So if a Sunni Caliph comes into power, all Shia are supposed to follow him and vice-versa? I doubt the Sunni's would follow a Shia one lol. And Muslims in the universe, if an intelligent alien race does exist in our galaxy or the universe somewhere, and they have a different religion, how would Muslims feel about that? Or what if they were Muslim and had a Caliph, would Muslims on earth have to submit to him?

Wouldn't ISIL's territory be a "Kingdom" it's only two states, well part of Iraq and part of Syria. Can't really call itself an "Islamic Empire of the Universe" if it doesn't encompass the whole Muslim world lol. Plus they have to deal with the Shia sections, the Jewish State, and the other Islamic Kingdoms in the Gulf states that I doubt will submit lol.

Ahh, I remember reading about the Khwarezmianshah and the Mongol Invasions. So the term Shah goes back to the Parthian days of Persia, interesting! Do you know if Zoroastrianism still exists?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
It's just regular Arabic. If this sounds exotic, pretty much anything in Arabic would. As for ISIS, it was changed because the group is not going for the countries you mentioned anymore. It's supposed to look like a global fight now. In Arabic the group's acronym is Da'ish (which sounds very "masculine" but doesn't really mean anything). ISIS is the English acronym, which doesn't mean anything in Arabic, because the Arabic pronunciation of the goddess' name is Eezees so it really doesn't connect much in Arabic to people.
Yeah that is what I mean about it sounding "exotic" people in the western world are pretty ignorant of the whole region. To most Egypt, is the same as Saudi Arabia, same as Iran, etc. Then they watch movies like the Mummy or others dealing with Ancient Egypt and often times think Egypt is still like that which stereotypes the whole region, cultures, etc. In that sense, would demonize the Goddess Isis in their eyes subconsciously. Your understanding of the language, and culture gives you a different and keener insight into the conflict compared to most people without that knowledge. Here is a video of how many people in at least the U.S. think lol:

http://www.youtube.com/v/DJ3RrqBqk14

Exaggerated to effect, but in general gives the overall mentality of people lol and their lack of concern for anything that doesn't involve day to day affairs and most common topics such as sports, celebrities, weather, traffic, and the attraction of the opposite sex lol.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
Like Morpheus said, this belief exists only in Shi'a sects. Only one of the Caliphs in Islamic history was a descendant of the Prophet. There's a long story to this but Caliph means representative and successor, but not really of God. The first Caliph ever, Abu-Bakr, was called the Caliph of the Prophet; the Shi'i/Sunni divide didn't exist at the time. The second Caliph refused to be called "Caliph of the Prophet's Caliph" because it's endless. He was called instead Amir al-Mu'mineen or the Amir/Prince of the believers. It also signaled that the Caliphate/"Islamic state" (which was only established after the Prophet's death) wasn't anymore about religion but also political and administrative. People still used the title interchangeably though with other rules for legitimacy issues (I think).
Ahh very informative, thank you both for that input! So Amir means prince? What about Emir? Or is that just a different spelling in English for the same term?

That is one thing I always wondered or rather found of interest. The Islamic dynasties in the Middle Ages were often civilized and cultured compared to many of their contemporaries in Western countries lol especially during the Crusades and later Inquisition eras. A lot of customs, and ideas had been preserved from ancient Greece and Rome. Mathematics, and sciences were practiced and often times tolerance was shown to other religions in many Sultanates. Then flash forward to modern Jihadi mentality, and you get barbarism, religious intolerance, and overall ignorance to a achieve a goal in the same way the Crusades were conducted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
Well, I think ISIS&co are the greatest threat to Islam right now. Their Wahhabi ideology revolves around fighting Muslim "non-believers": moderates, Shi'a, Alawite, etc and less fundamentalist groups (just like their funders in the KSA may I say). They're less concerned with other religions. Of course they've committed hideous crimes against Christians but their discourse is mostly about "purifying" Islam. I think this is also seen as an opportunity by some countries to "cleanse" their states of fundamentalists by allowing them to go fight in Syrian and Iraq. But then, they never read -- certainly not history -- to know that this is the most idiotic plan they can come up with.

Iran and Hezbolla are not watching but they're just better at doing things silently.



Sorry for the long post
Yeah I think they're a threat to Islam too in general lol, often times "Muslim" or "Arab" is seen and used as synonymous with "terrorism" in the media and everyday use by people in Western countries. Many people don't look at history, they just look at what is now, and not wonder how it got like that, or how to prevent things from happening. Modern mentality looks for a "quick fix" to solutions for easy payouts, not thinking of the long term consequences. For example the U.S. training and supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union led to the formation of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the USSR was pushed out. The problems in Chechnya and Yugoslavia as well, where Muslims were fighting Soviet forces. All those generations of orphans and children who grew up in war-torn states, ended up being the terrorists of today. Before that the CIA coup of the Iranian democracy which put the Shah in power, then the overthrow of him by the Ayatollah the Revolutionary Guard led directly to the Iran-Iraq war.

Then the first Gulf War against Iraq, led to more refugees, poverty, and insurgency. Plus with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the downfall of Saddam let to the whole country being destabilized. 30 years+ in the whole region leads to poverty, instability, frustration, and survival instincts taking over throughout generations of people who had their families/friends killed and seek revenge which just spills over into other countries. Then you have the problem with Israel after WW2 lol just taking Palestine by force, and forcing those people into security zones, pretty much internment camps.

Yeah Iran's Quds operates covertly. Hezzbollah made some significant offensive pushes against the FSA and ISIL in the last six months to a year. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Israel's Mossad had undercover agents that infiltrated various groups either.

Don't worry about it, a long post is good! Gives good information^^

Love or hate me as you will, but live now and in your final breath. In time we shall meet again.
Zyriel is offline  
post #74 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-02-2014, 05:28 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,603
The other day I saw an ISIS combat video and it ended up with them lining up dozens of of prisones and one by one they took them near the river, shot them in the head and pushed them into the waters. No wonder even some other Islamist extremist groups consider them too brutal.

I also came across this interesting documentary about the Iraq invasion, the complete and utter ignorance and incompetence of the US government and military in dealing with it's aftermath is quite impressive.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

It's borderline comical how much death and suffering has been caused directly and indirectly simply by the sheer corruption, stupidity and arrogance of a few.


Crimson Lotus is offline  
post #75 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-03-2014, 07:33 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post

Wasn't there a Shia Caliph from the Fatamid Caliphate, prior to Salahadin and the Ayyubids during the crusades?
True. The Fatimid Dynasty/Caliphate is the one. They're called that due to their claim that they are descendants of Prophet Mohammad through his daughter Fatima. This is disputed but still a largely accepted claim. In typical mainstream Sunni bias, they're blamed for the decline of the Islamic Empire. I guess they share it but there was corruption long before them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
Ahh thank you for the clarifications xD So if a Sunni Caliph comes into power, all Shia are supposed to follow him and vice-versa? I doubt the Sunni's would follow a Shia one lol. And Muslims in the universe, if an intelligent alien race does exist in our galaxy or the universe somewhere, and they have a different religion, how would Muslims feel about that? Or what if they were Muslim and had a Caliph, would Muslims on earth have to submit to him?
With the Fatimids, it was really a power-struggle just like now. Wars and internal divisions and fight against the Abbasid Caliphate and then being overturned by the Ayybids. This was partially due to the faith they embraced and represented. So really neither Shia Muslims nor Sunni Muslims are keen on the idea of being ruled by a Caliphate from the other sect (or so history tells us). But in the real world away from scholars and hypotheticals, muslims find the idea outlandish.

The thing with Caliphate and submitting is that in mainstream Sunni Islam at least, a Caliph is not really a Caliph until he's had the consent of a certain class of Muslims who have binding authority. They're called ahl al hal w al aqd. They kind of represent the interests of the rest of Muslims. If he gets consent from them, according to certain jurisprudence schools, the rest must obey him. This proposition is highly political and controversial in both conventional and "revisionism" Islam if you will.

lol, As for your galactic question, I'm sure if it arises in real life, "scholars" will come up with responses and new interpretations. However, the Quran does mention "the worlds" very clearly but doesn't draw a distinction between them. But then, it doesn't mention anything about a Caliphate or an Islamic state. That's pretty much interpretations. I could go on forever about this so I'm gonna shut up now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
Ahh very informative, thank you both for that input! So Amir means prince? What about Emir? Or is that just a different spelling in English for the same term?


Yes, I never got how it turned into Emir in English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
Yeah Iran's Quds operates covertly. Hezzbollah made some significant offensive pushes against the FSA and ISIL in the last six months to a year. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Israel's Mossad had undercover agents that infiltrated various groups either.
Definitely. And kudos for having an admirable grasp of the region's history and situation.

On a more relevant note, there are new clashes between the Lebanese army and ISIS&co near the Syrian border since Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/wo...anon.html?_r=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0G20EN20140802
ًOn the other hand, the Future Movement in Lebanon (a Sunni political movement part of the Saudi-American-Lebanese alliance there) is not happy with Hezbolla's coordination with the army and wants to disarm Hezbollah. The Future movement is largely accused of supporting Sunni fundamentalists to complicate Hezbollah's situation and overthrow al-Asad. And then they accuse Hezbollah of threatening Sunni security in the region, WHILE it's supporting Hamas and fighting ISIS. The politics of alliance building in the region is diabolical.

Now we should make a thread for Libya.

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
post #76 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-03-2014, 08:16 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
It's like a scramble for Iraq. Kurds are trying to expand their territory while ISIS is capturing towns and control resources. http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...defeat-kurdish

Refugees have been trying to escape to the only safe neighboring country (Jordan), which are already flooded with refugees. Some have been able to enter but not many. Now France has offered asylum to Christian refugees and the UK is being urged to do the same. Since the invasion of Iraq, the numbers of Christians in Iraq have decreased by more than 50% according to some resources (due to death and displacement). Emptying Iraq (and perhaps the region after that) of its original Christians owners will have serious consequences on the demographics of the ME but also cultural and political ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Lotus View Post
It's borderline comical how much death and suffering has been caused directly and indirectly simply by the sheer corruption, stupidity and arrogance of a few.
I don't think we know the half of it yet. Today I found this:
"Leaked Pentagon files obtained by the Guardian contain details of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the US-led invasion, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ody-count-iraq

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
post #77 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-06-2014, 09:25 AM
Dragonic Archon
 
Zyriel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crimson Lair
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Lotus View Post
The other day I saw an ISIS combat video and it ended up with them lining up dozens of of prisones and one by one they took them near the river, shot them in the head and pushed them into the waters. No wonder even some other Islamist extremist groups consider them too brutal.

I also came across this interesting documentary about the Iraq invasion, the complete and utter ignorance and incompetence of the US government and military in dealing with it's aftermath is quite impressive.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

It's borderline comical how much death and suffering has been caused directly and indirectly simply by the sheer corruption, stupidity and arrogance of a few.
It's horribly brutal on all sides. Many of the other militant extremist groups slaughter people in a less, humane fashion @_@ There have many been massacres and human rights violations from almost every group involved.

Here's an article that shows the most murderous regimes in modern history:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...mes-world.html

The sad truth, is WW1 was supposed to be the end of all wars. Then the League of Nations formed, failed, and WW2 which didn't really do much, just led to the Cold War. First world countries expanded and economies flourished as mass media turned a blind eye to the world. Yet in that time many proxy wars between nations, mainly the NATO countries vs USSR, and covert wars that used terror tactics on both sides for psychological manipulation. Even to this day, still taking place, since the U.N. is controlled by countries with independent interests of each other, and can't seem to work together.

Democracy Now is a great show. I haven't watched that documentary yet, but thank you for linking it. The incompetence of the U.S. dealing with the situation, could possibly be somewhat due to the overall agenda of creating a "Hornet's Nest".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
With the Fatimids, it was really a power-struggle just like now. Wars and internal divisions and fight against the Abbasid Caliphate and then being overturned by the Ayybids. This was partially due to the faith they embraced and represented. So really neither Shia Muslims nor Sunni Muslims are keen on the idea of being ruled by a Caliphate from the other sect (or so history tells us). But in the real world away from scholars and hypotheticals, muslims find the idea outlandish.
Ahh thank you for a more in depth explanation of the Sunni-Shia turmoil. I forgot about the Abbasid Dynasty in the mix, and Nur Al-din (Think that was his name) from the Seljuk Turks too, Salahadin's mentor lol. That area is always has had so many different factions. Hmm then you have Hassan Ibn Al-Sabbah and the Hashashin too lol. I'm curious what do the Sunni's think of them, since they were Nizari Ismaili Shia lol. Ohhh and the Sufi's where do they fit in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
The thing with Caliphate and submitting is that in mainstream Sunni Islam at least, a Caliph is not really a Caliph until he's had the consent of a certain class of Muslims who have binding authority. They're called ahl al hal w al aqd. They kind of represent the interests of the rest of Muslims. If he gets consent from them, according to certain jurisprudence schools, the rest must obey him. This proposition is highly political and controversial in both conventional and "revisionism" Islam if you will.
In all honestly that sounds a bit like the Vatican conclave, on how the Pope gets chosen by the Cardinals o_O! I didn't realize there was a class system. Did Mohammad leave any will or way to decide a Caliph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
lol, As for your galactic question, I'm sure if it arises in real life, "scholars" will come up with responses and new interpretations. However, the Quran does mention "the worlds" very clearly but doesn't draw a distinction between them. But then, it doesn't mention anything about a Caliphate or an Islamic state. That's pretty much interpretations. I could go on forever about this so I'm gonna shut up now.
That is very interesting, I had no idea about that lol. In the Quran, how are "the worlds" described?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
Definitely. And kudos for having an admirable grasp of the region's history and situation.
Thank you!^^ I have learned a bit of ancient history up to the present to see how and why things are the way they are. Your input has been quite helpful as well, to flesh out a larger picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
On a more relevant note, there are new clashes between the Lebanese army and ISIS&co near the Syrian border since Saturday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/wo...anon.html?_r=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0G20EN20140802

ًOn the other hand, the Future Movement in Lebanon (a Sunni political movement part of the Saudi-American-Lebanese alliance there) is not happy with Hezbolla's coordination with the army and wants to disarm Hezbollah. The Future movement is largely accused of supporting Sunni fundamentalists to complicate Hezbollah's situation and overthrow al-Asad. And then they accuse Hezbollah of threatening Sunni security in the region, WHILE it's supporting Hamas and fighting ISIS. The politics of alliance building in the region is diabolical.
I wonder if ISIL will end up fighting against Al-Qaeda, Al-Nursa, and the rest of those other extremist groups since they're a "state" now they're gonna have to worry about terrorism too lol.

It is pure chaos. Honestly it has been somewhat orchestrated for awhile, setting up the right pieces on the board. I was watching this earlier called "Chaos Incorporated" that gives an idea of what has been unfolding, at least between the lines:


http://www.youtube.com/v/WUeRXmNymck

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellophane View Post
Now we should make a thread for Libya.
Someone should! I don't know much about Libya after the fall of Gaddafi, I know that country is in chaos too though. It's ironic how all the Pan Arab Socialist states have gotten targeted, and all the leaders deposed of in a systematic fashion during the "Arab Spring".

Love or hate me as you will, but live now and in your final breath. In time we shall meet again.
Zyriel is offline  
post #78 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-07-2014, 05:15 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post

Ahh thank you for a more in depth explanation of the Sunni-Shia turmoil. I forgot about the Abbasid Dynasty in the mix, and Nur Al-din (Think that was his name) from the Seljuk Turks too, Salahadin's mentor lol. That area is always has had so many different factions. Hmm then you have Hassan Ibn Al-Sabbah and the Hashashin too lol. I'm curious what do the Sunni's think of them, since they were Nizari Ismaili Shia lol. Ohhh and the Sufi's where do they fit in?
Given that the "Hashashin" were mainly Shi'i separatists who wanted to overthrow the Fatamid Caliph and establish their own state didn't help them with either the Ismaili caliphate or the other Sunni players. They did a lot of assassinations and proselytizing, which didn't sit well with anyone. Narratives claim that they tried to assassinate Salah Addin (who was claimed to be a Sufi along with a very large part of his army by the way) too. As a matter of fact, Hashashin literally means hashish users in Arabic. It's not clear why they were called that because they weren't really accused of being so, but it remains derogatory.

Sufism is very complicated and it has many schools, and so different schools are viewed differently by mainstream Sunni Islam. They're criticized for different beliefs and practices, the most famous of which is shrine-visiting and seeking the blessings of "saints" to grow closer to God. This is why you have so many attacks on mosques and shrines by extremist Sunni militants in some countries, like Pakistan and Mali. They're persecuted in many places, especially by salafists and wahhabis. Although their literature is very popular amongst laypeople from all over the world.

On a related note to Iraq, in an extremely ironic twist of fate (or politics really), sufis were involved with ISIS for a brief while in Iraq under the leadership of Izzat Addouri (Saddam Hussein's vice president previously). The Naqshbandi/Sufi army (basically constituted of rebels from different tribes and ex-Saddam army officers) allied themselves with ISIS to fight government forces, didn't like the savagery of ISIS and how they treated Christians and Shi'a, and so turned against them. Although there are a lot of conflicting news about this right now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
In all honestly that sounds a bit like the Vatican conclave, on how the Pope gets chosen by the Cardinals o_O! I didn't realize there was a class system. Did Mohammad leave any will or way to decide a Caliph?
I wouldn't really call it a class system as it only consists of this particular group of people and then the rest of people. It was their job to consult with the rest of the people they're supposed to represent however.

There are a number of contested hadiths about the Mohammad's caliph, of course sunni scholars contest all the ones proposed by Shi'i scholars and vica versa. The collection and compilation of hadiths was done long after the death of Mohammad and it was subject to the political context, but most scholars agree that Mohammad never named anyone explicitly, instead he left his legacy on how he'd taken his decisions before to guide the caliphs. Of course the interpretation of that legacy is a major issue.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post

That is very interesting, I had no idea about that lol. In the Quran, how are "the worlds" described?



http://www.islamic.org.uk/I4wm/opening.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyriel View Post
Someone should! I don't know much about Libya after the fall of Gaddafi, I know that country is in chaos too though. It's ironic how all the Pan Arab Socialist states have gotten targeted, and all the leaders deposed of in a systematic fashion during the "Arab Spring".
True, while Tunisia and Egypt are very much stable now, at least relatively, Libya, Syria, and Iraq are steeped in conflict and bloodshed that won't end soon and that is fueled by outside funds. Other than this being a proxy war, pan-arab regimes have used this ideology to suppress minorities and religious freedoms, which has created the extremism playing a major role in the current conflict in the three countries.

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
post #79 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-08-2014, 01:57 PM
ATribeCalledFresh
 
FreshPrince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly, PA by way of Ca$hville, TN
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 539
Great thread. Keep it coming. I'm learning so much about an important issue that I probably wouldn't know too much about otherwise.

“Love all, trust few, wrong none” - William Shakespeare
FreshPrince is offline  
post #80 of 181 (permalink) Old 08-08-2014, 07:54 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 176
Good article:

Quote:
According to Toby Dodge, the scholar of Iraq at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), what’s driving IS, or at least making its phenomenal success possible, is not pre-modern religious zeal so much as a pre-modern absence of state power. The state structures of both Iraq and Syria have all but collapsed. The result is a power vacuum of a kind that would have been recognised in the lawless Europe of seven or eight centuries ago – and which IS has exploited with the ruthless discipline of those long ago baronial warlords who turned themselves into European princes.
The rest is as good

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...holy-mess-iraq

"I hope the exit is joyful -- and I hope never to return -- Frida."
Cellophane is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Dangerous is Iraq? FairleighCalm Voting Booth 17 12-15-2007 03:36 PM
The War in Iraq coyasso Society & Culture 35 12-11-2007 06:42 PM
Iraq UltraShy Society & Culture 2 05-11-2007 09:57 AM
Best strategy for Iraq Maslow Society & Culture 11 10-08-2006 11:40 AM
Victory In Iraq? sangha Society & Culture 14 10-06-2006 10:32 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome