The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Kramanica]

Like you?

No, I don't bomb stuff and advocate death. I'm not ISIS-level Islamist.

You don't need to be ISIS-level to be an extremist.

You literally want to create a theocracy and implement nation-wide Sharia. By an objective measurement you are an extremist. Just because you aren't blowing shit up doesn't mean you aren't an extremist.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of how we suppressed commies during the Cold War. Let our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies deal with you lot.

The Red Scare? The time when people were accused of supporting communism with dubious or false evidence? The time that was likened to the Salem witch trials? Is that what you're talking about? Is that what you want to bring back?

For Islamists, yes.

[Kubumba Tribe]

No, I don't bomb stuff and advocate death. I'm not ISIS-level Islamist.

The Red Scare? The time when people were accused of supporting communism with dubious or false evidence? The time that was likened to the Salem witch trials? Is that what you're talking about? Is that what you want to bring back?

No you just defend ISIS-level Islamists.

Proof?

You literally want to create a theocracy and implement nation-wide Sharia. By an objective measurement you are an extremist.

>When adhering to your religion is extremism
Ok.

For Islamists, yes.

So you want to accuse people of supporting Islamism with sketchy or false evidence? Because that's what the Red Scare was.
Also, why not for any other political ideology?

[Genivaria]

No you just defend ISIS-level Islamists.

Proof?

You literally want to create a theocracy and implement nation-wide Sharia. By an objective measurement you are an extremist.

>When adhering to your religion is extremism
Ok.

For Islamists, yes.

So you want to accuse people of supporting Islamism with sketchy or false evidence? Because that's what the Red Scare was.

Why you be dishonest and strawman?

[Kramanica]

No you just defend ISIS-level Islamists.

Proof?

You literally want to create a theocracy and implement nation-wide Sharia. By an objective measurement you are an extremist.

>When adhering to your religion is extremism
Ok.

The way you adhere to it is, yes.

And if this is what Islam demands then perhaps we should just outlaw it completely.

For Islamists, yes.

So you want to accuse people of supporting Islamism with sketchy or false evidence? Because that's what the Red Scare was.
Also, why not for any other political ideology?

I find it to be infinitely preferable to a society where you can freely spread your cancerous views. Though that is not specifically what I want.

[Northern Davincia]

Seconded.

As a person who's lived with Muslims and under an Islamic theocracy for the entirety of his life, that's not going far enough.

The stars and stripes shall wave over all corners of the globe.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I find it to be infinitely preferable to a society where you can freely spread your cancerous views.

1: I don't have cancerous views
2: You prefer unjust trials over political freedom?

Though that is not specifically what I want.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Proof?

>When adhering to your religion is extremism
Ok.

So you want to accuse people of supporting Islamism with sketchy or false evidence? Because that's what the Red Scare was.

Why you be dishonest and strawman?

I'm doing neither of those. That's what the Red Scare was and that's what Kramanica wants to bring back.

[Northern Davincia]

Why you be dishonest and strawman?

I'm doing neither of those. That's what the Red Scare was and that's what Kramanica wants to bring back.

I believe Kram is trying to say that he wants a permanent social distrust of Islam, the sort of which followed communism after the Red Scare.

[Kramanica]

I find it to be infinitely preferable to a society where you can freely spread your cancerous views.

1: I don't have cancerous views

Yes, you do. You want a theocracy and you want to inflict the barbarity of Sharia upon this country. That's pretty cancerous.

2: You prefer unjust trials over political freedom?

In your case? Maybe.

Though that is not specifically what I want.

I don't to create another Red Scare. I want to suppress Islamists. That does not mean creating another Red Scare.

[Kramanica]

Why you be dishonest and strawman?

I'm doing neither of those. That's what the Red Scare was and that's what Kramanica wants to bring back.

Nope.

[Kramanica]

I'm doing neither of those. That's what the Red Scare was and that's what Kramanica wants to bring back.

I believe Kram is trying to say that he wants a permanent social distrust of Islam, the sort of which followed communism after the Red Scare.

Yep.

[Northern Davincia]

I believe Kram is trying to say that he wants a permanent social distrust of Islam, the sort of which followed communism after the Red Scare.

Yep.

I think 9/11 accomplished that goal.

[Kramanica]

Yep.

I think 9/11 accomplished that goal.

Clearly not well enough.

[Kubumba Tribe]

1: I don't have cancerous views

Yes, you do. You want a theocracy and you want to inflict the barbarity of Sharia upon this country. That's pretty cancerous.

Who's calling it barbarity? And I don't have cancerous views.

In your case? Maybe.

This also means falsely accusing people of supporting Islamism and not having a fair trial. You're ok with that?

[Kramanica]

Yes, you do. You want a theocracy and you want to inflict the barbarity of Sharia upon this country. That's pretty cancerous.

Who's calling it barbarity? And I don't have cancerous views.

Yes, you do.

In your case? Maybe.

This also means falsely accusing people of supporting Islamism and not having a fair trial. You're ok with that?

No, it doesn't.

[Frievolk]

Yes, you do. You want a theocracy and you want to inflict the barbarity of Sharia upon this country. That's pretty cancerous.

Who's calling it barbarity? And I don't have cancerous views.

In your case? Maybe.

This also means falsely accusing people of supporting Islamism and not having a fair trial. You're ok with that?

You're assuming there's an actual need to "falsely" accuse people of supporting islamism
Islamists tend to be fairly obvious to anyone who's looking for one tbh.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Who's calling it barbarity? And I don't have cancerous views.

Yes, you do.

This also means falsely accusing people of supporting Islamism and not having a fair trial. You're ok with that?

No, it doesn't.

You yourself said that you prefer unjust trials over political freedom in the case of Islamists:

2: You prefer unjust trials over political freedom?

In your case? Maybe.

So you're either ok with Islamists getting unfair trials or you support it. Or you misspoke.

Islamists tend to be fairly obvious to anyone who's looking for one tbh.

That's true for anyone who's vocal about their beliefs.

[Russiyskaya Respublica]

Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran shouldn't exist, and that should be dealt with the full might of the US government.
These two nations are to blame for most of the problems the Middle East suffers, guess what religion they follow.

*Points to the 3000+ year history of civilization in the Middle East*

No, they're not the main cause of most of the problems, they're just the most recent offenders (The previous ones being the UK and France).

Recent offenders? They most definitely are not, since the day SA struck it's massive oil reserves it's been doing nothing but spreadings its ways, which guess what, it ended up funding many terrorists groups and Islamic governments.
So much for "Recent offenders", the two are the problems of the middle east, alongside their creations, and just like a tumor they have to be cut out.

[Kubumba Tribe]

*Points to the 3000+ year history of civilization in the Middle East*

No, they're not the main cause of most of the problems, they're just the most recent offenders (The previous ones being the UK and France).

Recent offenders? They most definitely are not, since the day SA struck it's massive oil reserves it's been doing nothing but spreadings its ways, which guess what, it ended up funding many terrorists groups and Islamic governments.

Saudi isn't funding any Islamic governments. Reason 1: there are none (except maybe in Aceh), reason 2: Muslims don't help each other like we used to.

So much for "Recent offenders", the two are the problems of the middle east, alongside their creations, and just like a tumor they have to be cut out.

What do you mean by that?

[United Muscovite Nations]

If they're extremists, sure. Also, what does "full might" mean? Are you supporting that the US do military action on its own citizens? And if so, only inside the US, right (even though that shouldn't be happening anyway)?

Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran shouldn't exist, and that should be dealt with the full might of the US government.
These two nations are to blame for most of the problems the Middle East suffers, guess what religion they follow.

The US is more responsible for the problems in the Middle East. The Mid East was actually pretty stable until the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, after which the country became an Islamist training camp writ-large.

[Frievolk]

Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran shouldn't exist, and that should be dealt with the full might of the US government.
These two nations are to blame for most of the problems the Middle East suffers, guess what religion they follow.

The US is more responsible for the problems in the Middle East. The Mid East was actually pretty stable until the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, after which the country became an Islamist training camp writ-large.

Lmao no it was not. The Middle East was never "stable". Before the rabid dog that is Saddam was put down, he and his poisonous ideology (along with Iran's fellow poisonous ideology) were responsible for the shit happening in the Middle East. Before them (in the 1960s-70s) it was the US and USSR measuring their figurative dicks in the "Arab World" and "Israel" that was putting the Middle East in jeopardy. Fuck, the Middle East started being in jeopardy as soon as the Arabs were given the right to govern themselves again.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The US is more responsible for the problems in the Middle East. The Mid East was actually pretty stable until the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, after which the country became an Islamist training camp writ-large.

Lmao no it was not. The Middle East was never "stable". Before the rabid dog that is Saddam was put down, he and his poisonous ideology (along with Iran's fellow poisonous ideology) were responsible for the shit happening in the Middle East. Before them (in the 1960s-70s) it was the US and USSR measuring their figurative dicks in the "Arab World" and "Israel" that was putting the Middle East in jeopardy. Fuck, the Middle East started being in jeopardy as soon as the Arabs were given the right to govern themselves again.

Prior to the ouster of Saddam, suicide bombings and the like were almost unheard of in countries like Syria and Egypt. Whether you want to admit it or not, the ouster of Saddam was a disaster that hugely destabilized the Middle East and killed 600,000 people directly.

[Frievolk]

Lmao no it was not. The Middle East was never "stable". Before the rabid dog that is Saddam was put down, he and his poisonous ideology (along with Iran's fellow poisonous ideology) were responsible for the shit happening in the Middle East. Before them (in the 1960s-70s) it was the US and USSR measuring their figurative dicks in the "Arab World" and "Israel" that was putting the Middle East in jeopardy. Fuck, the Middle East started being in jeopardy as soon as the Arabs were given the right to govern themselves again.

Prior to the ouster of Saddam, suicide bombings and the like were almost unheard of in countries like Syria and Egypt. Whether you want to admit it or not, the ouster of Saddam was a disaster that hugely destabilized the Middle East and killed 600,000 people directly.

They weren't unheard of. They were only not relevant in the West, because the West did not care about such trivial things on trivial places most people couldn't even point out on a map. There's been reports of car bombings from as far back as the 90s. You'll find that car bombings didn't even start being a trend (in the form that they'd start popping up everywhere) until after 2015 (where we saw the most concentrated number of reported car bombings in recent history) which is closer to Assad than it is to fucking Saddam who was put down in the 2000s.
By the way, The reason the media did not give attention to them was because there already was a big bad wolf they needed everyone to think about. Saddam literally commited genocide on multiple groups, and tried to do that to some other groups. Before he became relevant, the Egyptians and the Syrians had coups almost every week (but I exaggerate), almost to a level that puts Hergé and his San Theodoros to shame. There were literal wars of extermination going on. Suggesting that Saddam (who had been pretty much irrelevant to the events happening in the Middle East after his humiliation in the Iran-Iraq war and later his annihilation in the Gulf War) was some sort of Gendarme for the middle east is atrocious, really.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Prior to the ouster of Saddam, suicide bombings and the like were almost unheard of in countries like Syria and Egypt. Whether you want to admit it or not, the ouster of Saddam was a disaster that hugely destabilized the Middle East and killed 600,000 people directly.

They weren't unheard of. They were only not relevant in the West, because the West did not care about such trivial things on trivial places most people couldn't even point out on a map. There's been reports of car bombings from as far back as the 90s. You'll find that car bombings didn't even start being a trend (in the form that they'd start popping up everywhere) until after 2015 (where we saw the most concentrated number of reported car bombings in recent history) which is closer to Assad than it is to fucking Saddam who was put down in the 2000s.
By the way, The reason the media did not give attention to them was because there already was a big bad wolf they needed everyone to think about. Saddam literally commited genocide on multiple groups, and tried to do that to some other groups. Before he became relevant, the Egyptians and the Syrians had coups almost every week (but I exaggerate), almost to a level that puts Hergé and his San Theodoros to shame. There were literal wars of extermination going on. Suggesting that Saddam (who had been pretty much irrelevant to the events happening in the Middle East after his humiliation in the Iran-Iraq war and later his annihilation in the Gulf War) was some sort of Gendarme for the middle east is atrocious, really.

Saddam wasn't really humiliated in the Iran-Iraq War. While he wasn't successful, the Iraqi Army performed well, often destroying whole Iranian divisions with few losses.

[Frievolk]

They weren't unheard of. They were only not relevant in the West, because the West did not care about such trivial things on trivial places most people couldn't even point out on a map. There's been reports of car bombings from as far back as the 90s. You'll find that car bombings didn't even start being a trend (in the form that they'd start popping up everywhere) until after 2015 (where we saw the most concentrated number of reported car bombings in recent history) which is closer to Assad than it is to fucking Saddam who was put down in the 2000s.
By the way, The reason the media did not give attention to them was because there already was a big bad wolf they needed everyone to think about. Saddam literally commited genocide on multiple groups, and tried to do that to some other groups. Before he became relevant, the Egyptians and the Syrians had coups almost every week (but I exaggerate), almost to a level that puts Hergé and his San Theodoros to shame. There were literal wars of extermination going on. Suggesting that Saddam (who had been pretty much irrelevant to the events happening in the Middle East after his humiliation in the Iran-Iraq war and later his annihilation in the Gulf War) was some sort of Gendarme for the middle east is atrocious, really.

Saddam wasn't really humiliated in the Iran-Iraq War. While he wasn't successful, the Iraqi Army performed well, often destroying whole Iranian divisions with few losses.

That was more of Iran sucking at war than of Saddam doing anything.
He literally got stuck in an 8 years long war of attrition that he promised he'd be done with in a week. You know, literally "We'll be dining in Tehran in a week" was what he said when he tore the Aljazireh agreement on live TV lmao.