[Discussion] What the f.... Is going on in irak????????

minamoto

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
23,996
Reaction score
5,084
i-----------> .

i can not believe my eyes...its been more then 10 years since irak turned into bloody country....every day terrorists attack and kill many innoccent poeple...Civil wars between sunna and Shia!!...

-who is responsible for all this??????????



-compared to usa ,wich is a young baby country,irak was one of the greatest ancient civilizations "Mesopotamia"....and it doesn't really dizerve this fate...
 

nandachikara

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
10,673
Reaction score
101
A clash of faith or religion i guess...
 

Umari Senju

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
12,535
Reaction score
1,192
A clash of faith or religion i guess...

I completely agree with you. And as long as there is a difference in religion this will continue spread leaving not but death and destruction. Sad really....
 

minamoto

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
23,996
Reaction score
5,084
I completely agree with you. And as long as there is a difference in religion this will continue spread leaving not but death and destruction. Sad really....

you speak like illuminaties.....
 

Milojko

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
477
Reaction score
30
American democracy has arrived before 10 years that's the problem in Iraq , libya etc..
 

Sasuke Uchiha Susanoo

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,712
Reaction score
220
The Uchiha was a great clan but Irak is a dumb piece of shit not a clan. Well, we can say that for any country and the politics in it basically, same here.
 

Tartarus

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
409
Iraq/Babylonia/Mesopotamia hasn't been a world power since the Persians wrecked them thousands of years ago.
 

Awkward Linguist

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
24,034
Reaction score
1,958
It's all ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab. Those swines are the reason for this persistent bullshit.​
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
i-----------> .

i can not believe my eyes...its been more then 10 years since irak turned into bloody country....every day terrorists attack and kill many innoccent poeple...Civil wars between sunna and Shia!!...

The old Islamic empires have never really been what one would call "peaceful." The rule of the Ottoman Empire that lasted from roughly the 700s to the 17-1800s was marked by regular periods of conquest and funded through slave trades (typically taken from India and the Slavic regions - hence the term "Slave" in many Germanic languages) and hostage taking.

The Ottoman empire eventually grew too large for its systems of regular conquest and caste societies to continue to fund. It could no longer maintain control of its various satellite regions and ultimately began to lose control of itself before it effectively crumbled and became a satellite of the British empire.

Around this time, the British began establishing systems of government built largely upon the idea of feudal lordships.

This got a little turned on its head when the Nazis began an outreach program to try and get the Islamic regions to fight against the Russians. The ploy had some success, but ultimately only succeeded in establishing the rootwork for Al Qaeda that the U.S. would later begin to exploit in our quest to contest the Russians.

Still - the systems of royal families and other such things were put into place to cement power and authority in allegiance to the western world and to actively suppress many of the tribal organizations within these nations.

In some ways, this is where the illusion of peaceful and prosperous societies came from. Various countries essentially paid these royal families to build modern systems that would keep another caliphate (ottoman empire) from forming.

Which is why groups like ISIS hate the House of Saud, the government of Syria, etc.

The reason why many of these regimes can be relatively brutal in terms of being totalitarian dictatorships is because when allowed to default to citizen rule and democracies - they generally devolve into jihad.

-who is responsible for all this??????????

Depends upon how far back you want to start the history lesson. We can go back to the 630s and point to a man named Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah of the Quraysh tribe of Arabs.

Of course, wars were nothing new to the Arabs as the tribes would often have territorial squabbles and other such things. Much of the start of Islam was written off as just another case of the Arabs clubbing each other over the head.

-compared to usa ,wich is a young baby country,irak was one of the greatest ancient civilizations "Mesopotamia"....and it doesn't really dizerve this fate...

I would argue that it -shouldn't- deserve this fate.

But it does.

There are numerous factors at play, and the U.S. is no innocent party in all of this in the slightest, but at the end of the day - when allowed to govern themselves, this is what Iraq chooses to do.

When someone isn't there to club them over the head for going dirka-jihad on their neighbor, this is what happens.

Saddam had to suppress the dirka-jihad crowd. The U.S. ultimately had to do much the same. The government before Saddam also had to do the same. Arguably, the U.S. didn't understand just how important it was to establish totalitarian authority and tried to apply western concepts of government in a region that flat-out had no concept of such a thing and religious mandates against it - which is why we struggled to maintain control there with an army larger than Saddam's.

In any case - this is what happens when the seats of power in the middle east are removed and the people of those regions are allowed to act according to their free will.

Now, true - not all people there -want- to live that way... but they are a different culture built around the concept of submission in religion. Contrast with many classical western views, particularly in America, where we believe in defending individual rights and liberties. When our soldiers are attacked at a reserve base, the citizens show up with their own firearms to stand guard. That's an almost incomprehensible difference in culture.

One is built around capitulation to the superior authority and submission, the other is built around individual power and accountability.

When groups like ISIS roll into town - the people flee or simply accept new employment within the Islamic State. You'll rarely see them dig their heels in and fight these guys off.

The entire middle east is going to end up falling to ISIS largely because of this culture. The people will simply submit.

Iran will put up some resistance - which is why the Obama administration is handing them nuclear weapons while lying through their teeth that they aren't. They were desperate for the deal because they want to be able to claim to have put an end to ISIS without heavily involving the U.S. military and by working with allies, but it's just as likely that DC will go up in a mushroom cloud from a smuggled in nuclear bomb as it is that Tehran will decide to employ it against ISIS.

The sad thing is that I couldn't see the down side in either case. Seeing Obama go up in a mushroom cloud while talking about how Iran will never get a nuclear weapon would be Karma.

Well - I mean aside from the obvious issue of people who chant "death to america" having a production line of nuclear warheads... but... getting that cat back into the bag is going to be a messy affair.
 

minamoto

Legendary Shinobi 🐸
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
23,996
Reaction score
5,084
The old Islamic empires have never really been what one would call "peaceful." The rule of the Ottoman Empire that lasted from roughly the 700s to the 17-1800s was marked by regular periods of conquest and funded through slave trades (typically taken from India and the Slavic regions - hence the term "Slave" in many Germanic languages) and hostage taking.

The Ottoman empire eventually grew too large for its systems of regular conquest and caste societies to continue to fund. It could no longer maintain control of its various satellite regions and ultimately began to lose control of itself before it effectively crumbled and became a satellite of the British empire.

Around this time, the British began establishing systems of government built largely upon the idea of feudal lordships.

This got a little turned on its head when the Nazis began an outreach program to try and get the Islamic regions to fight against the Russians. The ploy had some success, but ultimately only succeeded in establishing the rootwork for Al Qaeda that the U.S. would later begin to exploit in our quest to contest the Russians.

Still - the systems of royal families and other such things were put into place to cement power and authority in allegiance to the western world and to actively suppress many of the tribal organizations within these nations.

In some ways, this is where the illusion of peaceful and prosperous societies came from. Various countries essentially paid these royal families to build modern systems that would keep another caliphate (ottoman empire) from forming.

Which is why groups like ISIS hate the House of Saud, the government of Syria, etc.

The reason why many of these regimes can be relatively brutal in terms of being totalitarian dictatorships is because when allowed to default to citizen rule and democracies - they generally devolve into jihad.



Depends upon how far back you want to start the history lesson. We can go back to the 630s and point to a man named Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah of the Quraysh tribe of Arabs.

Of course, wars were nothing new to the Arabs as the tribes would often have territorial squabbles and other such things. Much of the start of Islam was written off as just another case of the Arabs clubbing each other over the head.



I would argue that it -shouldn't- deserve this fate.

But it does.

There are numerous factors at play, and the U.S. is no innocent party in all of this in the slightest, but at the end of the day - when allowed to govern themselves, this is what Iraq chooses to do.

When someone isn't there to club them over the head for going dirka-jihad on their neighbor, this is what happens.

Saddam had to suppress the dirka-jihad crowd. The U.S. ultimately had to do much the same. The government before Saddam also had to do the same. Arguably, the U.S. didn't understand just how important it was to establish totalitarian authority and tried to apply western concepts of government in a region that flat-out had no concept of such a thing and religious mandates against it - which is why we struggled to maintain control there with an army larger than Saddam's.

In any case - this is what happens when the seats of power in the middle east are removed and the people of those regions are allowed to act according to their free will.

Now, true - not all people there -want- to live that way... but they are a different culture built around the concept of submission in religion. Contrast with many classical western views, particularly in America, where we believe in defending individual rights and liberties. When our soldiers are attacked at a reserve base, the citizens show up with their own firearms to stand guard. That's an almost incomprehensible difference in culture.

One is built around capitulation to the superior authority and submission, the other is built around individual power and accountability.

When groups like ISIS roll into town - the people flee or simply accept new employment within the Islamic State. You'll rarely see them dig their heels in and fight these guys off.

The entire middle east is going to end up falling to ISIS largely because of this culture. The people will simply submit.

Iran will put up some resistance - which is why the Obama administration is handing them nuclear weapons while lying through their teeth that they aren't. They were desperate for the deal because they want to be able to claim to have put an end to ISIS without heavily involving the U.S. military and by working with allies, but it's just as likely that DC will go up in a mushroom cloud from a smuggled in nuclear bomb as it is that Tehran will decide to employ it against ISIS.

The sad thing is that I couldn't see the down side in either case. Seeing Obama go up in a mushroom cloud while talking about how Iran will never get a nuclear weapon would be Karma.

Well - I mean aside from the obvious issue of people who chant "death to america" having a production line of nuclear warheads... but... getting that cat back into the bag is going to be a messy affair.

usa wil never let poeple live in peace
 

Rιver

Banned
Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
3,025
Reaction score
202
The old Islamic empires have never really been what one would call "peaceful." The rule of the Ottoman Empire that lasted from roughly the 700s to the 17-1800s was marked by regular periods of conquest and funded through slave trades (typically taken from India and the Slavic regions - hence the term "Slave" in many Germanic languages) and hostage taking.

The Ottoman empire eventually grew too large for its systems of regular conquest and caste societies to continue to fund. It could no longer maintain control of its various satellite regions and ultimately began to lose control of itself before it effectively crumbled and became a satellite of the British empire.

Around this time, the British began establishing systems of government built largely upon the idea of feudal lordships.

This got a little turned on its head when the Nazis began an outreach program to try and get the Islamic regions to fight against the Russians. The ploy had some success, but ultimately only succeeded in establishing the rootwork for Al Qaeda that the U.S. would later begin to exploit in our quest to contest the Russians.

Still - the systems of royal families and other such things were put into place to cement power and authority in allegiance to the western world and to actively suppress many of the tribal organizations within these nations.

In some ways, this is where the illusion of peaceful and prosperous societies came from. Various countries essentially paid these royal families to build modern systems that would keep another caliphate (ottoman empire) from forming.

Which is why groups like ISIS hate the House of Saud, the government of Syria, etc.

The reason why many of these regimes can be relatively brutal in terms of being totalitarian dictatorships is because when allowed to default to citizen rule and democracies - they generally devolve into jihad.



Depends upon how far back you want to start the history lesson. We can go back to the 630s and point to a man named Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah of the Quraysh tribe of Arabs.

Of course, wars were nothing new to the Arabs as the tribes would often have territorial squabbles and other such things. Much of the start of Islam was written off as just another case of the Arabs clubbing each other over the head.



I would argue that it -shouldn't- deserve this fate.

But it does.

There are numerous factors at play, and the U.S. is no innocent party in all of this in the slightest, but at the end of the day - when allowed to govern themselves, this is what Iraq chooses to do.

When someone isn't there to club them over the head for going dirka-jihad on their neighbor, this is what happens.

Saddam had to suppress the dirka-jihad crowd. The U.S. ultimately had to do much the same. The government before Saddam also had to do the same. Arguably, the U.S. didn't understand just how important it was to establish totalitarian authority and tried to apply western concepts of government in a region that flat-out had no concept of such a thing and religious mandates against it - which is why we struggled to maintain control there with an army larger than Saddam's.

In any case - this is what happens when the seats of power in the middle east are removed and the people of those regions are allowed to act according to their free will.

Now, true - not all people there -want- to live that way... but they are a different culture built around the concept of submission in religion. Contrast with many classical western views, particularly in America, where we believe in defending individual rights and liberties. When our soldiers are attacked at a reserve base, the citizens show up with their own firearms to stand guard. That's an almost incomprehensible difference in culture.

One is built around capitulation to the superior authority and submission, the other is built around individual power and accountability.

When groups like ISIS roll into town - the people flee or simply accept new employment within the Islamic State. You'll rarely see them dig their heels in and fight these guys off.

The entire middle east is going to end up falling to ISIS largely because of this culture. The people will simply submit.

Iran will put up some resistance - which is why the Obama administration is handing them nuclear weapons while lying through their teeth that they aren't. They were desperate for the deal because they want to be able to claim to have put an end to ISIS without heavily involving the U.S. military and by working with allies, but it's just as likely that DC will go up in a mushroom cloud from a smuggled in nuclear bomb as it is that Tehran will decide to employ it against ISIS.

The sad thing is that I couldn't see the down side in either case. Seeing Obama go up in a mushroom cloud while talking about how Iran will never get a nuclear weapon would be Karma.

Well - I mean aside from the obvious issue of people who chant "death to america" having a production line of nuclear warheads... but... getting that cat back into the bag is going to be a messy affair.

Dude what?

What does Quraysh tribe have anything to do with current Arabs?

And they deserve their fate? Did America deserve 9/11 too?
 

Zee Seh

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
16,470
Reaction score
581
Cuz some people over there can't get enough Allah
 

chopstickchakra

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
12,896
Reaction score
1,012
I completely agree with you. And as long as there is a difference in religion this will continue spread leaving not but death and destruction. Sad really....

What's sad is you implying religion is the only reason for the conflict. People will always find a reason to dislike others, if they don't hate your skin they'll hate your size, if they don't hate your size they'll hate your thoughts, if they don't hate your thoughts they'll hate your voice. People have always been looking for ways to differentiate ourselves from the others.
 

Umari Senju

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
12,535
Reaction score
1,192
What's sad is you implying religion is the only reason for the conflict. People will always find a reason to dislike others, if they don't hate your skin they'll hate your size, if they don't hate your size they'll hate your thoughts, if they don't hate your thoughts they'll hate your voice. People have always been looking for ways to differentiate ourselves from the others.

Well this is true. While it's not the only reason it is the major reason for some of the most bloody and damaging wars in history. But you have a point. It's not just religion or even the religion itself that is the problem, but more how people perceive and interpret them. You are so right. People will always find conflict in something. That much is true.
 
Last edited:

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
usa wil never let poeple live in peace

The error in your thinking is believing there was peace to begin with.

The U.S. just makes the splash bigger when they get involved.

Dude what?

What does Quraysh tribe have anything to do with current Arabs?

You would know [Muhammad] Ibn Abd Allah of the Quraysh tribes as being the much lauded prophet of Islam. A merchant who rose in affluence through marriage to a wealthy widow in ownership of a trading company before she convinced him his visions were the word of God and thus began his prophetic career before becoming a warlord.

The resulting conquest in the name of the prophet expanded to incorporate the territories that would become the Ottoman Empire.

History. You should try it out.

It tends to predict things. For example, the Taliban just captured a new territory in Afghanistan and it is being rumored that the leader of Al Qaeda is about to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State.

It's 650 AD all over again. Except now they aren't limited by the speed of camels, donkeys, etc.

And they deserve their fate? Did America deserve 9/11 too?

An attack like 9/11 was bound to happen.

The Cold War between the U.S. and Russia actually started before the fall of Berlin. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. The U.S. and Russia, while not necessarily at war with each other, were in a race to seize territories of Germany to prevent the other from gaining territory. This became even more frantic after Germany surrendered as virtually all of what would become East Europe fell to the communist regime and swept into the Balkans, through Syria and down into mainland Asia.

The U.S. was desperate to find tools to fight against the communists and were particularly interested in Hitler's efforts to do so.

In the 1920s, a devout muslim by the name of Assam al-Banna began an organization known as The Muslim Brotherhood. He began reading about a young Austrian author by the name of Adolf Hitler, and sent Hitler letters of support throughout his life.

When Hitler came to power, he had the Nazi party reach out to Assam Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Nazi party would end up making great use of Arab Nazis within the SS and in attempts to foster Nazi uprisings in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Of course - the Soviets used a double agent by the name of Kim Philby to try and plant Arab Nazis into various American infrastructure being put in place in the post-war world. It was believed that if the U.S. could be fooled into using Arab Nazis, then the concept of democracy and capitalism could be discredited.

At the same time, the British and French had rounded up many operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood following the end of the war and moved them to Egypt where they were essentially hired to crush Israel (Frankly, the Arabs didn't need much motivation to do this as it was Islamic spiritual leaders who encouraged Hitler to devote so much toward killing the Jews).

After that didn't work - they sold them to what would become the CIA and vouched for their integrity.

The idea, here, was that they would use the Arab Nazis to fight against the Arab Communists.

Egypt eventually had enough of it, and the CIA moved the Muslim Brotherhood operatives to Saudi Arabia.

From here, we get Osama Bin Laden. Some key things happen in 1985. The CIA begins funding operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood (Osama Bin Laden) to aid and train them in starting a revolution against the communist government in Kabul.

And... whoa...

I learned something new. Hmm... Apparently, Pentagon officials imported Al Qaeda into Bosnia to fight against the Bosnian Serbs. I'd been trying to piece together some of what happened, there... now the pieces all fall into place....

Yeah - in that case, the Pentagon did deserve 9/11. Unfortunately, the people who were responsible for that likely didn't work there, anymore.



" During the 1990s, pictures like this were as rare as hen’s teeth in the Western media. Why? Because they graphically demonstrated that the media was lying when it claimed that the Bosnian Government was moderate and multiculturalist and so on.

The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahedeen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahedeen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence. In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon. "


So - yeah, you make deals with the devil and lose your soul.

I've got a PM to write, now.
 

BlacLord™

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
16,201
Reaction score
1,503
Yeah,too smart for those kids.

Well I suppose I'll let you consider a flair for philistinism smart.

Ironically, it takes an avant-garde style intellectual approach to see it like that but unfortunately, he hasn't the capacity for that thanks to his condition. And his posts show his knowledge of concepts that aren't even abstract struggle with accuracy and partiality.

I'd usually commend efforts, but I'll make an exception for him.
 
Top