Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, the "New Crusade" lead by the satanists in the US oligarchy. I do feel spritually sullied from being part of that system directly. The Navy was the most morally filthy places I've ever worked. Modern sailors are pretty trashy people. The powers that be are succeeding in destroying the morality of mankind, and priming their souls for Iblis to consume.

Soldiers, and sailors in particular, have always had a reputation for crassness and crudeness. It's a high stress job isolated from everyday society in which the institution itself primes the people within for the possibility of death. I can't blame them for their coping mechanisms nor do I think it's much changed from the sailors of ages past considering historical records and perceptions.

[Aillyria]

Yes, the "New Crusade" lead by the satanists in the US oligarchy. I do feel spritually sullied from being part of that system directly. The Navy was the most morally filthy places I've ever worked. Modern sailors are pretty trashy people. The powers that be are succeeding in destroying the morality of mankind, and priming their souls for Iblis to consume.

Soldiers, and sailors in particular, have always had a reputation for crassness and crudeness. It's a high stress job isolated from everyday society in which the institution itself primes the people within for the possibility of death. I can't blame them for their coping mechanisms nor do I think it's much changed from the sailors of ages past considering historical records and perceptions.

Yes....the coping thing, that is part of it, but it's worse than that.

When you have husbands and wives on deployment cheating on their spouses back home who are praying for their safe return. We hsve a term in the Navy "boat-hoe", it refers to women on the ship who sleep around with men in the command, it's beyond common...along with the filthy men who endulge with them. Then you have people like me who turn to alcoholism....which I'm still affected by, because there's so much fuckshit it becomes seemingly impossible to bare without numbing yourself.

It's a combination of traditional military stress AND general moral degradation in the nations culture, perfect storm.

[Alsheb]

I am going to probably fan the flames here by saying this, but US veterans will actually get far less understanding from me than anyone else.

They chose to join an imperialist mass murdering machine and killed God knows how many people in whatever Third World country their masters sent them to oppress.

It might sound harsh, but their fate upon coming home might be imminent justice.

US hasn't invaded and oppressed any third world countries in about 25-30 years or so.

Unless you think they decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to oppress them, because in that case I recommend you read a history book.

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded for geostrategic and economical reasons, yes. That counts as oppression.

[Alsheb]

Yes, but the new crusades narrative is very much more coherent and easy to swallow then the parallel you made. Which is why it needs a better narrative to combat it.

There is one: America is part of a global hegemonic system interested primarily in maintaining stability to maximize security and profits. But that's not as fun as "New Crusades", so people look elsewhere.

So your point is that the New Crusade narratieve is wrong and takes away attention from the real economical and geopolitical imperialist reasons for US warfare? If so, I must agree that you're right.

[Alsheb]

I am going to probably fan the flames here by saying this, but US veterans will actually get far less understanding from me than anyone else.

They chose to join an imperialist mass murdering machine and killed God knows how many people in whatever Third World country their masters sent them to oppress.

It might sound harsh, but their fate upon coming home might be imminent justice.

I will say this, as someone who just recently left the US military. I can agree with your opinion to an extent. The funny thing was that coming into the military I was a nationalist, and I am now not. Being part of the government's plots, you see their methods and their scheming. The miltary is dirty, you feel dirty being in it if you have a conscience, you learn to love your fellow sailor, but not the organization or the government that's pulling the puppet strings.

I thank the Navy for my experiences though, for without them I wouldn't be muslim today. All my time in the Gulf being immersed in muslim culture and people, I felt at home, spiritually speaking for the first time in my life.

I am also glad that I could help rid God's (swt) Earth of hundreds upon hundreds of Daesh kafir over the years I served, that is the one thing I don't regret.

Highly intriguing to hear your perspective on this. I must say I respect your struggle with what you're been through, which alhamdullilah brought you closer to Allah.

[Aillyria]

There is one: America is part of a global hegemonic system interested primarily in maintaining stability to maximize security and profits. But that's not as fun as "New Crusades", so people look elsewhere.

So your point is that the New Crusade narratieve is wrong and takes away attention from the real economical and geopolitical imperialist reasons for US warfare? If so, I must agree that you're right.

I couldn't agree with that more. The US has truly demonic intentions behind the majority, if not all, of its actions both foreign and domestic.

[Alsheb]

So your point is that the New Crusade narratieve is wrong and takes away attention from the real economical and geopolitical imperialist reasons for US warfare? If so, I must agree that you're right.

I couldn't agree with that more. The US has truly demonic intentions behind the majority, if not all, of its actions both foreign and domestic.

True. Calling it a Crusade creates the wrong impression that the Christians are to blame for the US warmongering. Which isn't the case. It is the "religion" of money and power that is to blame.

[New haven america]

US hasn't invaded and oppressed any third world countries in about 25-30 years or so.

Unless you think they decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to oppress them, because in that case I recommend you read a history book.

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded for geostrategic and economical reasons, yes. That counts as oppression.

Uh, no.

Oppression: prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment or control. I love to break it to you, the Taliban and Baathists were the oppressors. Unless you think things like ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons, religious policemen, etc... are a good thing?

[Alsheb]

Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded for geostrategic and economical reasons, yes. That counts as oppression.

Uh, no.

Oppression: prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment or control. I love to break it to you, the Taliban and Baathists were the oppressors. Unless you think things like ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons, religious policemen, etc... are a good thing?

And you really think the US went in out of the goodness of their hearts, because they pitied the poor population?

[New haven america]

Uh, no.

Oppression: prolonged, cruel, or unjust treatment or control. I love to break it to you, the Taliban and Baathists were the oppressors. Unless you think things like ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons, religious policemen, etc... are a good thing?

And you really think the US went in out of the goodness of their hearts, because they pitied the poor population?

Assumptions are the root of all evil, don't use them. Also, answer questions when you're asked.

As an example of the above: No, I don't, however, the US is currently much more benevolent (Even with "Him" in office) than either the Taliban or Baathists (Also, reminder that the Northern Alliance asked us to go into Afghanistan for years before 2001/2002). Now, answer my question.

[Bakery Hill]

And you really think the US went in out of the goodness of their hearts, because they pitied the poor population?

Assumptions are the root of all evil, don't use them. Also, answer questions when you're asked.

As an example of the above: No, I don't, however, the US is currently much more benevolent (Even with "Him" in office) than either the Taliban or Baathists (Also, reminder that the Northern Alliance asked us to go into Afghanistan for years before 2001/2002). Now, answer my question.

I can't wait til I get invaded by the the United Peaceful State of Stars and Rainbows.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Not to mention the abundance of Muslims killed hy Americans and their allies in the Third World since 2001. What many non-Muslims fail to see is that a Muslim's perspective does not generally stop at the national border.

When I say Islam is under attack, I don't just mean the rise of islamophobia in Belgium or even in Europe. I also mean the utter mass murders in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Kashmir and Myanmar.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not religious wars and were not pursued with an eye to killing Muslims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan."- George W. Bush

[Alsheb]

And you really think the US went in out of the goodness of their hearts, because they pitied the poor population?

Assumptions are the root of all evil, don't use them. Also, answer questions when you're asked.

As an example of the above: No, I don't, however, the US is currently much more benevolent (Even with "Him" in office) than either the Taliban or Baathists (Also, reminder that the Northern Alliance asked us to go into Afghanistan for years before 2001/2002). Now, answer my question.

Benevolent? More people have died as a direct consequence of the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq than either the Taliban or Saddam could ever have dreamed of. We're talking over a million dead Iraqis here in just a decade time...

Also, I find it highly convenient how you forget that both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were both in power in the first place as a direct result of US interference.

The Taliban were a direct offshoot of the "Mujahideen" that the US supported with billions of dollars worth of state of the art weaponry in order to destroy the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and torture Muhammad Najibullah to death. Afghanistan was lost in 1994, directly due to US interventionism.

Saddam Hussein himself was a US pawn who played a key role in the coup d'etat against Abdul Karim Qassem and the left-wing Iraqi government, and was a key US ally throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He was a dog of the US who was only put down because he got off the leash starting in 1991.

So don't you even dare to start bringing up those two US-loving regimes as an excuse for the invasions and mass murdering rampage the US went on post 2001.

[New haven america]

Assumptions are the root of all evil, don't use them. Also, answer questions when you're asked.

As an example of the above: No, I don't, however, the US is currently much more benevolent (Even with "Him" in office) than either the Taliban or Baathists (Also, reminder that the Northern Alliance asked us to go into Afghanistan for years before 2001/2002). Now, answer my question.

Benevolent? More people have died as a direct consequence of the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq than either the Taliban or Saddam could ever have dreamed of. We're talking over a million dead Iraqis here in just a decade time...

Also, I find it highly convenient how you forget that both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were both in power in the first place as a direct result of US interference.

The Taliban were a direct offshoot of the "Mujahideen" that the US supported with billions of dollars worth of state of the art weaponry in order to destroy the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and torture Muhammad Najibullah to death. Afghanistan was lost in 1994, directly due to US interventionism.

Saddam Hussein himself was a US pawn who played a key role in the coup d'etat against Abdul Karim Qassem and the left-wing Iraqi government, and was a key US ally throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He was a dog of the US who was only put down because he got off the leash starting in 1991.

So don't you even dare to start bringing up those two US-loving regimes as an excuse for the invasions and mass murdering rampage the US went on post 2001.

>More avoidance of the question

[Bakery Hill]

Benevolent? More people have died as a direct consequence of the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq than either the Taliban or Saddam could ever have dreamed of. We're talking over a million dead Iraqis here in just a decade time...

Also, I find it highly convenient how you forget that both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were both in power in the first place as a direct result of US interference.

The Taliban were a direct offshoot of the "Mujahideen" that the US supported with billions of dollars worth of state of the art weaponry in order to destroy the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and torture Muhammad Najibullah to death. Afghanistan was lost in 1994, directly due to US interventionism.

Saddam Hussein himself was a US pawn who played a key role in the coup d'etat against Abdul Karim Qassem and the left-wing Iraqi government, and was a key US ally throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He was a dog of the US who was only put down because he got off the leash starting in 1991.

So don't you even dare to start bringing up those two US-loving regimes as an excuse for the invasions and mass murdering rampage the US went on post 2001.

>More avoidance of the question

I imagine he just sees how pointless your dichotomy. Why sanction one over another fifteen years later on an internet forum, when they're really evils that are so intimately intertwined?

[Improved werpland]

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

Yes? You deposed a strong regime, replaced it with a weak one, and then promptly started pulling out. It's called a power vacuum. Same thing happened in Germany after WWI.

[Alsheb]

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

You're blaming Assad now for the Salafists you guys let into Iraq?

[Pilarcraft]

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

You're blaming Assad now for the Salafists you guys let into Iraq?

Imagine blaming Assad for the fuck up that had already been started through the Theocratification of Saddam.
also, seriously, the biggest base of Salafism (wahhabism) in Middle East is in Saudi Arabia, which is, you guessed it, allied with the US.

[Improved werpland]

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

You're blaming Assad now for the Salafists you guys let into Iraq?

Assad let them into Iraq. What makes you think he wouldn't support terrorists that'd come back to nip him in the future? Why did his dad support the PKK?

[Kubumba Tribe]

I'll give you some examples: hijab is an integral part of Al-Islam, and some sisters go to the next level (niqab and burqa). Now, many Western nations are banning the parentheses. Why should we as Muslims stabd for that? LGBTism is gaining tolerance in the West, get that is haram in Al-Islam. Why should we as Muslims stand for this? We are being harassed, beaten and killed for being who we are and told to 'assimilate'. Why should we as Muslims stand for that?

If these examples aren't what you meant, please give me a relevant one. Thx.

You shouldn't stand for being beaten or harassed, no one should.

However, for what it's worth you could at least try integrating, it would save everyone so much time and effort. Like, if your not willing to at least somewhat integrate into a society/culture, why stay there?

Depends on what you mean by 'integrate

Quick question, how do you feel about the US' staggering homeless Vet. population?

Cause most of them, despite having served the US for many years, are reduced to having to beg and live off others, because the country they chose to serve has decided to screw them over.

I am going to probably fan the flames here by saying this, but US veterans will actually get far less understanding from me than anyone else.

They chose to join an imperialist mass murdering machine and killed God knows how many people in whatever Third World country their masters sent them to oppress.

It might sound harsh, but their fate upon coming home might be imminent justice.

Akhi, many people don't know the truth of US foreign policy. When they join the military, they think they're doing something good, until they actually go to a war and realize that the US is the real enemy.

I am going to probably fan the flames here by saying this, but US veterans will actually get far less understanding from me than anyone else.

They chose to join an imperialist mass murdering machine and killed God knows how many people in whatever Third World country their masters sent them to oppress.

It might sound harsh, but their fate upon coming home might be imminent justice.

I will say this, as someone who just recently left the US military. I can agree with your opinion to an extent. The funny thing was that coming into the military I was a nationalist, and I am now not. Being part of the government's plots, you see their methods and their scheming. The miltary is dirty, you feel dirty being in it if you have a conscience, you learn to love your fellow sailor, but not the organization or the government that's pulling the puppet strings.

I thank the Navy for my experiences though, for without them I wouldn't be muslim today. All my time in the Gulf being immersed in muslim culture and people, I felt at home, spiritually speaking for the first time in my life.

I am also glad that I could help rid God's (swt) Earth of hundreds upon hundreds of Daesh kafir over the years I served, that is the one thing I don't regret.

LIke I said.

You're blaming Assad now for the Salafists you guys let into Iraq?

Imagine blaming Assad for the fuck up that had already been started through the Theocratification of Saddam.
also, seriously, the biggest base of Salafism (wahhabism) in Middle East is in Saudi Arabia, which is, you guessed it, allied with the US.

Bruv Saddam was a secularist.

Is it really our fault that Jihadists swarmed into Iraq (mainly through Assad's regime) after we liberated it?

You mean terrorists? Yeah, partially.

[Pilarcraft]

Imagine blaming Assad for the fuck up that had already been started through the Theocratification of Saddam.
also, seriously, the biggest base of Salafism (wahhabism) in Middle East is in Saudi Arabia, which is, you guessed it, allied with the US.

Bruv Saddam was a secularist.

no he was not, 'bruv'.
first off, Saddam wasn't Secular, not even from the Start. That's a key difference between the Iraqi and Syrian branches of Ba'ath. After his coup, Saddam slowly moved away from Secularism. by the end of his war with iran, he was full Arab-Supremacist, and views Islam as a weapon of Arab supremacy (and, at some point his government ended up theocratic)
whether or not his view on Islam is correct or not (it shouldn't be, but many of the muslim rulers, even back in the earlier ages of Islam, ended up using Islam as a weapon for Supremacy of Arab over 'Ajam') isn't my concern, but after his lack of success in the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam's state was no longer Secular.

[Acarn]

Saudi Arabia will be letting women into sports arenas, long overdo but I am thankful that the crown-prince wants to modernize and advance human rights in his country. There is much work to do but this is a start

[Yanitza]

You're blaming Assad now for the Salafists you guys let into Iraq?

Assad let them into Iraq. What makes you think he wouldn't support terrorists that'd come back to nip him in the future? Why did his dad support the PKK?

al Zarqawi's group already existed in Iraq prior to the U.S invasion of 2003.They had a base in Iraqi Kurdistan in alliance with a local Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al Islam. So Assad cannot be blamed for that. You are correct however that Syria was a transit route for foriegn Jihadists to Iraq once the insurgency was well under way. This did not last throughout the whole of the conflict however and the foriegn Jihadists had other routes of entry.

The consequences of the U.S invasion and occupation was what allowed for the establishment of al Qaeda networks in Iraq, who played an important role in triggering the insurgency and sectarian war in the 2000s, as well as the introduction of much of the brutality of the conflict that has since been replicated by al Qaeda Jihadists around the world. Iraq really was a big mistake in terms of countering terrorism.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Assad let them into Iraq. What makes you think he wouldn't support terrorists that'd come back to nip him in the future? Why did his dad support the PKK?

al Zarqawi's group already existed in Iraq prior to the U.S invasion of 2003.They had a base in Iraqi Kurdistan in alliance with a local Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al Islam. So Assad cannot be blamed for that. You are correct however that Syria was a transit route for foriegn Jihadists terrorists to Iraq once the insurgency was well under way. This did not last throughout the whole of the conflict however and the foriegn Jihadists terrorists had other routes of entry.

The consequences of the U.S invasion and occupation was what allowed for the establishment of al Qaeda networks in Iraq, who played an important role in triggering the insurgency and sectarian war in the 2000s, as well as the introduction of much of the brutality of the conflict that has since been replicated by al Qaeda Jihadists terrorists around the world. Iraq really was a big mistake in terms of countering terrorism.

Replace 'jihadists' with 'terrorists' please.