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

[Sahansahiye Iran]

*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.

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

[Russiyskaya Respublica]

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.

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

Yes. Hence why in the 1,400 year history of Islam, their existence of 80 years makes them "recent offenders". I'm just confused as to why exactly you disputed that part of what NHA said and did it horribly.

[Kramanica]

Yes, you do.

No, it doesn't.

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

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.

I said that ironically, m8. Notice the "maybe".

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

Which is why colonialism is bad. The colonized usually come back crooked.

[Frievolk]

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

Which is why colonialism is bad. The colonized usually come back crooked.

They were literally under the control of Turks as the rightful "caliphate of Muslims" for more than 800 years, Amin. The parts of Arabian Middle East that are actual shitholes, with the exception of Yemen, maybe, are all Ottoman territories, not Colonized ones.
The Arabs not being capable of doing anything correctly and causing problems isn't the Europeans' or Colonialism's fault. Its their own.

[Jolthig]

No doubt he means that muslims should show the world that they are better than atheists. That they bring more joy, more health, more beauty, more knowledge etc. to the world.

Of course, they currently are lagging a tiiiinnnyy bit behind there. But with some effort I am certain they can grow. Eventually.

I very much doubt that, since fighting atheists in many cases means fighting science and civil rights, like your glorious Sharia law, yay to patriarchy!

I would've said no to both physical fighting and fighting atheism on here anyway.

Of course you would fight atheists physically, what better way to show right-wingers that Muslims indeed do enjoy violence, good job giving the right what they want!

Did I say that?

Don't put words in my mouth.

[New haven america]

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

I absolutely do

No you don't.

[Jolthig]

Which is why colonialism is bad. The colonized usually come back crooked.

They were literally under the control of Turks as the rightful "caliphate of Muslims" for more than 800 years, Amin. The parts of Arabian Middle East that are actual shitholes, with the exception of Yemen, maybe, are all Ottoman territories, not Colonized ones.
The Arabs not being capable of doing anything correctly and causing problems isn't the Europeans' or Colonialism's fault. Its their own.

Yeah, the Arabs are at fault, but you can't deny that that the more powerful countries take advantage of their ignorance and blind rage to spread their interests in the region.

Saudi Arabia sells itself to the Western countries especially the United States as much as vice versa for oil and money. In tune the US supports Saudi Arabia in their brutal bombings of Yemen.

Or Syria where Russia supports al-Assad and the US supports the rebels. It's all about power. You're right that the Arabs have many faults, but as part of the biasness in your views, you say that it's entirely the fault of the Arabs when the Western nations help to instigate these things.

No doubt the Ottomans helped to keep peace in the region for a while but when promised help from the Allies, they rebelled as further evidence that the Western countries especially the British and French are also at fault.

[Jolthig]

I don't think you understand what the term "recent offenders" means lol.

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

No you don't. Recent offenders means that the Saudis and Iranians only recently have been competing with one another for control of the region with the US on SA's side and Russia on Iran's.

And we should attack them really? That is an insane idea. Please tell me more about how an invasion of Saudi Arabia and Iran will solve anything. We did that to Iraq and look where they were at the last decade. You are basically admitting in your posts and strengthening my reply to Pillarcraft that the Western countries are also to blame.

Want proof for my above claim? Here you go, your own words:

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.

And:

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.

[New haven america]

I absolutely do, ever since they were given independence they were nothing but trouble.

No you don't. Recent offenders means that the Saudis and Iranians only recently have been competing with one another for control of the region with the US on SA's side and Russia on Iran's.

And we should attack them really? That is an insane idea. Please tell me more about how an invasion of Saudi Arabia and Iran will solve anything. We did that to Iraq and look where they were at the last decade. You are basically admitting in your posts and strengthening my reply to Pillarcraft that the Western countries are also to blame.

Want proof for my above claim? Here you go, your own words:

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.

And:

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.

I mean, nations like Saudi Arabia weren't supposed to exist, it was the UK and France's fuckery in the region that created them.

[Jolthig]

No you don't. Recent offenders means that the Saudis and Iranians only recently have been competing with one another for control of the region with the US on SA's side and Russia on Iran's.

And we should attack them really? That is an insane idea. Please tell me more about how an invasion of Saudi Arabia and Iran will solve anything. We did that to Iraq and look where they were at the last decade. You are basically admitting in your posts and strengthening my reply to Pillarcraft that the Western countries are also to blame.

Want proof for my above claim? Here you go, your own words:



And:

I mean, nations like Saudi Arabia weren't supposed to exist, it was the UK and France's fuckery in the region that created them.

I know that. And that's the same with Pakistan. They should've remained part of India.

My point is an invasion of them is dumb and childish.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://youtu.be/e8-rWwMsniA

[The Alma Mater]

They were literally under the control of Turks as the rightful "caliphate of Muslims" for more than 800 years, Amin. The parts of Arabian Middle East that are actual shitholes, with the exception of Yemen, maybe, are all Ottoman territories, not Colonized ones.
The Arabs not being capable of doing anything correctly and causing problems isn't the Europeans' or Colonialism's fault. Its their own.

Yeah, the Arabs are at fault, but you can't deny that that the more powerful countries take advantage of their ignorance and blind rage to spread their interests in the region.

Saudi Arabia sells itself to the Western countries especially the United States as much as vice versa for oil and money. In tune the US supports Saudi Arabia in their brutal bombings of Yemen.

Or Syria where Russia supports al-Assad and the US supports the rebels. It's all about power. You're right that the Arabs have many faults, but as part of the biasness in your views, you say that it's entirely the fault of the Arabs when the Western nations help to instigate these things.

No doubt the Ottomans helped to keep peace in the region for a while but when promised help from the Allies, they rebelled as further evidence that the Western countries especially the British and French are also at fault.

It is so adorable how you (and quite a few others in this thread) keep portraying muslims as retarded children who cannot take care of themselves.
"It is all the fault of colonialism !"
"No, they were ruled by themselves"
"Well, yes, but they still are manipulated by the west,so it is still all the wests fault !"

Ironicallyl, as soon as muslims learn to take responsibility for their own actions they will become a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps even rule the world in a generation or two.
But I doubt they will ever learn...

[Jolthig]

Yeah, the Arabs are at fault, but you can't deny that that the more powerful countries take advantage of their ignorance and blind rage to spread their interests in the region.

Saudi Arabia sells itself to the Western countries especially the United States as much as vice versa for oil and money. In tune the US supports Saudi Arabia in their brutal bombings of Yemen.

Or Syria where Russia supports al-Assad and the US supports the rebels. It's all about power. You're right that the Arabs have many faults, but as part of the biasness in your views, you say that it's entirely the fault of the Arabs when the Western nations help to instigate these things.

No doubt the Ottomans helped to keep peace in the region for a while but when promised help from the Allies, they rebelled as further evidence that the Western countries especially the British and French are also at fault.

It is so adorable how you (and quite a few others in this thread) keep portraying muslims as retarded children who cannot take care of themselves.
"It is all the fault of colonialism !"
"No, they were ruled by themselves"
"Well, yes, but they still are manipulated by the west,so it is still all the wests fault !"

Ironicallyl, as soon as muslims learn to take responsibility for their own actions they will become a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps even rule the world in a generation or two.
But I doubt they will ever learn...

This post by yourself in no way refutes what I've said.

I never said that Arabs never take responsibility for their actions. I said the West also helps to instigate the chaos.

A very poor rebuttal, and not a proper argument, but more of a poorly thought out opinion on your part.

[Frievolk]

It is so adorable how you (and quite a few others in this thread) keep portraying muslims as retarded children who cannot take care of themselves.
"It is all the fault of colonialism !"
"No, they were ruled by themselves"
"Well, yes, but they still are manipulated by the west,so it is still all the wests fault !"

Ironicallyl, as soon as muslims learn to take responsibility for their own actions they will become a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps even rule the world in a generation or two.
But I doubt they will ever learn...

This post by yourself in no way refutes what I've said.

I never said that Arabs never take responsibility for their actions. I said the West also helps to instigate the chaos.

A very poor rebuttal, and not a proper argument, but more of a poorly thought out opinion on your part.

And you're wrong in that. The West has literally zero blame to take for the Arab society not reaching the "Nation-state" level of political evolution. The reason all of this shit is happening is because Arabs still don't get what a nation and a state is. (The Muslims still insist on a "Christendom" for Muslims, the non-Muslims still live in the tribal era.)

[Kubumba Tribe]

This post by yourself in no way refutes what I've said.

I never said that Arabs never take responsibility for their actions. I said the West also helps to instigate the chaos.

A very poor rebuttal, and not a proper argument, but more of a poorly thought out opinion on your part.

And you're wrong in that. The West has literally zero blame to take for the Arab society not reaching the "Nation-state" level of political evolution. The reason all of this shit is happening is because Arabs still don't get what a nation and a state is. (The Muslims still insist on a "Christendom" for Muslims, the non-Muslims still live in the tribal era.)

Fyi, not everyone agrees with the nation-state model. And you shouldn't be generalizing Arabs like this. Also, Jolthig wasn't talking about nationstates^tm (yes, pun intended).

[Frievolk]

And you're wrong in that. The West has literally zero blame to take for the Arab society not reaching the "Nation-state" level of political evolution. The reason all of this shit is happening is because Arabs still don't get what a nation and a state is. (The Muslims still insist on a "Christendom" for Muslims, the non-Muslims still live in the tribal era.)

Fyi, not everyone agrees with the nation-state model. And you shouldn't be generalizing Arabs like this.

Everyone agrees its the latest model. Those who disagree with it wish to evolve into something more, not return to something prior to it. Except for Nazis and some Muslims.
And I should. None of the Arab States in the Middle east are nation-states. Not Egypt, not Syria, not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Yemen, not Oman, not Kuwait (that one is really a city-state but I digress), not the UAE, and definitely not the KSA. Why shouldn't I generalize them as such if the only three nation-states in The Middle East are Israel, Turkey, and Iran (the three-non Arab ones) [though, all three are starting to inch back towards the devolved state of tribal society as it seems like)

[Jolthig]

And you're wrong in that. The West has literally zero blame to take for the Arab society not reaching the "Nation-state" level of political evolution. The reason all of this shit is happening is because Arabs still don't get what a nation and a state is. (The Muslims still insist on a "Christendom" for Muslims, the non-Muslims still live in the tribal era.)

Fyi, not everyone agrees with the nation-state model. And you shouldn't be generalizing Arabs like this. Also, Jolthig wasn't talking about nationstates^tm (yes, pun intended).

Pillarcraft give me any evidence that it's only the Arabs that are instigating the chaos in the middle east. No doubt, they're a very hard hearted people, but I would like evidence to show that somehow the west isn't involved in the affairs of the middle east.

Or more strait to the point, how are the West not in anyway involved in the middle east and it's only the Arabs themselves responsible?

What you guys don't get is that, yes, we know that some of the Arabs don't take responsibility for their actions. I am not denying it. And it is their fault for allowing the West to influence them into further fighting one another.

But anyway, yeah, why isn't the west not responsible at all?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Fyi, not everyone agrees with the nation-state model. And you shouldn't be generalizing Arabs like this.

Everyone agrees its the latest model. Those who disagree with it wish to evolve into something more, not return to something prior to it. Except for Nazis and some Muslims.
And I should. None of the Arab States in the Middle east are nation-states. Not Egypt, not Syria, not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Yemen, not Oman, not Kuwait (that one is really a city-state but I digress), not the UAE, and definitely not the KSA. Why shouldn't I generalize them as such if the only three nation-states in The Middle East are Israel, Turkey, and Iran (the three-non Arab ones) [though, all three are starting to inch back towards the devolved state of tribal society as it seems like)

https://www.google.com/search?q=nation- ... e&ie=UTF-8:

a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

Many more nations wouldn't be classified as nation-states according to this definition. Also, Egypt, maybe Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia fit into that definition of "nation-state". And no, you shouldn't generalize people, especially ethnicities. It comes off as racist.

[Frievolk]

Everyone agrees its the latest model. Those who disagree with it wish to evolve into something more, not return to something prior to it. Except for Nazis and some Muslims.
And I should. None of the Arab States in the Middle east are nation-states. Not Egypt, not Syria, not Lebanon, not Iraq, not Yemen, not Oman, not Kuwait (that one is really a city-state but I digress), not the UAE, and definitely not the KSA. Why shouldn't I generalize them as such if the only three nation-states in The Middle East are Israel, Turkey, and Iran (the three-non Arab ones) [though, all three are starting to inch back towards the devolved state of tribal society as it seems like)

https://www.google.com/search?q=nation- ... e&ie=UTF-8:

a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

Many more nations wouldn't be classified as nation-states according to this definition. Also, Egypt, maybe Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia fit into that definition of "nation-state".

1- No. Egypt and Syria are both Arab ethnostates (with the minorities having almost zero rights), Yemen is still a tribal confederation with modern buildings, and Saudi Arabia is a theostate. Turkey, Iran, and Israel (and even Israel is stretching it) are the only nationstates in the area
2- Yes. Most of the African countries are still in tribal period. They at least have a justified excuse for that.

[Jolthig]

https://www.google.com/search?q=nation- ... e&ie=UTF-8:

a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

Many more nations wouldn't be classified as nation-states according to this definition. Also, Egypt, maybe Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia fit into that definition of "nation-state".

1- No. Egypt and Syria are both Arab ethnostates (with the minorities having almost zero rights), Yemen is still a tribal confederation with modern buildings, and Saudi Arabia is a theostate. Turkey, Iran, and Israel (and even Israel is stretching it) are the only nationstates in the area
2- Yes. Most of the African countries are still in tribal period. They at least have a justified excuse for that.

On your second point, are you saying that to prove a point on Islam or are you not aware some African countries are like the Arab States? I'm not talking about war in this current post of mine, but infrastructure and tribal divisions

[Kubumba Tribe]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation-state
But if you wanna argue with a dictionary (a highly reliable one at that), then have at it.

[Frievolk]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation-state
But if you wanna argue with a dictionary (a highly reliable one at that), then have at it.

The Nation-state has a political definition, and merriam-webster doesn't have it. I'll let you search for the definition in order not to put words in your mouth though.

[Jolthig]

Oh, I just reread your post, Pillarcraft. (The one I replied with "give me evidence"). Yeah, I see what you mean that it's not the West's fault on individual governments for not taking care of themselves.

Though again, when it comes to foreign policy, I still say the West makes attempts to meddle in the affairs of the middle east and attempts to influence the middle eastern governments into fighting one another. That's what my main points were this entire time was mostly centered on foreign policy and infighting with one another.