Politics & Stuff

[haranr 485]

Dude, what are you talking about? your friend is the one who put that. Ask him

Ohhh sorry. I thought you mentioned it. I actually haven't heard about these 'release'.

Anyways, Israel does it's best. Israel must be aggressive towards Hamas and it's 'facilities'.

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

Israel have been so lucky benefitting from years of state of art weaponry from the US that they can bully, torture and kill Palestinians with impunity, steal the land and call any resistance "terror". But they have also been cute with the lobbying of US an UK govts to ensure that no bad words are spoken about them.

The danger is all liars get found out in the end, and although they manage to pull the wool over so much of the worlds eyes with heavily zionist influenced media outlets, and as we see on this forum for example, there is a real possibility in the future of the chickens coming home to roost. The surrounding arab countries do not intervene in the main due to puppet govts. However there are around a billion muslims, and savvy people in other countries that can see through the bullshit.

At some point in the future, when Israel takes its eye off the ball, there is a real danger of someone taking substantial retribution. It will be a very dangerous time in the middle east then , as its the worlds best unkept secret that Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons. For the benefit of the Middle East includingIsraelis, they really ought to rein in their fascist government, a pseudo democracy with expansionist sociopathic tendancies

[Peace. 4,352]

My knowledge is very limited and while I have absolutely NOTHING against the religious Muslim and I definitely think that the situation in Israel doesn't have a right and a wrong side for a long time, they're both wrong at this point and time, it's easy to find people in the Western not sympathizing at all with the civilians being killed... But that's not only why I think there's such an 'anti' feeling towards Muslims in many places in the Western. That's only part of it, I'm not even sure if that's the biggest part of it, but I'm positive the Muslim involvement in many wars and conflicts in many other countries are one of the big reasons people can't be sympathetic to them.

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriotic and unify all of themselves behind the head of State to cope against that external menace. And as a matter of fact, people forget internal problems (economic crisis, poverty, corruption, politicians careless of the people, etc...). It happens that with USSR fall, there was no longer an external menace and thus the US monopolistic class needed one.

On the second hand, when you want to declare war against a state or somebody, you need a virtuous justification ; you need to declare a "humanitarian war", or to declare war to protect your people. Indeed, rarely do people accept their country to go to war if it is not for a noble cause.

• USA did it in 1941, they waited to be forced to enter war, in order to have the support of its people.
• Vietnam : they declared war to protect vietnamese people (they killed millions of civilians in the process, LOL), while in truth it was to stop communist expansion (USSR and all..).
• Afghanistan : they made it look that it was to kill the terrorists that have killed americans and attacked USA, and to liberate the people from the talibans, and to bring liberty to women ; while it was for political strategy and economy.
• Iraq, the same : it was to attack so-called terrorists and to free iraqi people from their tyran ; in fact it was for the petrol and geopolitical reasons.
• Libya : it was to free the people from Kadhafi. The truth is that it was for its oil. Uk and France have been stupid enough to let themselves to dirty their hands instead of the Peace Nobel price Obama. It has to be noted that Bernad-fucking-Henry fukcing he has a lot to do with that war, as he is a friend of the rebel leaders, he pushed very hard to convince France to declare war. Funnily enough, he is okay with gazan people to be murdered and while muslim children are killed by jewish soldiers, all he is talking about is antisemitisme LOL !! But this is another story.
• Iran and Syria, the same, but they failed.

To summarize, after 2000, the US needed a virtual menace to control its people and needed to control some muslim countries (for their oil and for geopolitical reasons). Had W Bush said "we're gon' to kick some muslim asses to take their oil", he would have had no support. Instead, he said "we declare war against terrorism and the Axe of Evil" ; and in the meantime he would free women from islamic oppression (because women are very well treated in the West......) and free people from islamist-barbarian-terrorist tyrans... How could someone say no to such a noble cause ?

As a matter of fact, since 2000's, the mass propaganda has made muslim people like look terrorist, barbarians and uneducated people that kills at sight in the name of Allah.

So in a sens you are right, why any sane people would support terrorists (because nowadays being muslim equates to terrorist) instead of people that suffered from a genocide ?

That is what propaganda does, Barbara

[Barbara 15,149]

When a government wants to control its population, the best way to do so is to fear its people by creating an external enemy. This way, people feel endangered by an outside menace, become more patriotic and unify all of themselves behind the head of State to cope against that external menace. And as a matter of fact, people forget internal problems (economic crisis, poverty, corruption, politicians careless of the people, etc...). It happens that with USSR fall, there was no longer an external menace and thus the US monopolistic class needed one.

On the second hand, when you want to declare war against a state or somebody, you need a virtuous justification ; you need to declare a "humanitarian war", or to declare war to protect your people. Indeed, rarely do people accept their country to go to war if it is not for a noble cause.

• USA did it in 1941, they waited to be forced to enter war, in order to have the support of its people.
• Vietnam : they declared war to protect vietnamese people (they killed millions of civilians in the process, LOL), while in truth it was to stop communist expansion (USSR and all..).
• Afghanistan : they made it look that it was to kill the terrorists that have killed americans and attacked USA, and to liberate the people from the talibans, and to bring liberty to women ; while it was for political strategy and economy.
• Iraq, the same : it was to attack so-called terrorists and to free iraqi people from their tyran ; in fact it was for the petrol and geopolitical reasons.
• Libya : it was to free the people from Kadhafi. The truth is that it was for its oil. Uk and France have been stupid enough to let themselves to dirty their hands instead of the Peace Nobel price Obama. It has to be noted that Bernad-fucking-Henry fukcing he has a lot to do with that war, as he is a friend of the rebel leaders, he pushed very hard to convince France to declare war. Funnily enough, he is okay with gazan people to be murdered and while muslim children are killed by jewish soldiers, all he is talking about is antisemitisme LOL !! But this is another story.
• Iran and Syria, the same, but they failed.

To summarize, after 2000, the US needed a virtual menace to control its people and needed to control some muslim countries (for their oil and for geopolitical reasons). Had W Bush said "we're gon' to kick some muslim asses to take their oil", he would have had no support. Instead, he said "we declare war against terrorism and the Axe of Evil" ; and in the meantime he would free women from islamic oppression (because women are very well treated in the West......) and free people from islamist-barbarian-terrorist tyrans... How could someone say no to such a noble cause ?

As a matter of fact, since 2000's, the mass propaganda has made muslim people like look terrorist, barbarians and uneducated people that kills at sight in the name of Allah.

So in a sens you are right, why any sane people would support terrorists (because nowadays being muslim equates to terrorist) instead of people that suffered from a genocide ?

That is what propaganda does, Barbara

No, I didn't say it is because of Jewish Rabbis. It is because of a political movement called Zionism. A movement that started about 100 years ago and most religious rabbis actually hate. There is a big difference bewteen Judaisim and Zionism. One is a faith, respected, and the other is a political movement. There is a book called protocols of the elder zions. Check it out. There are also many books and researches (by Israeli Jews), that show how zionism is against Judaism.

I wasn't aware of 'Jewish' involvement in those seemingly authoritarian Muslim government issues that led to conflicts, although I was aware of the Zionism movement to some extent.

Well there's a reason I prefer to keep away. I'm too soft for those things and easily impressed by violence, so I never really researched about the roots of the problems. Thanks for the clarifications. I'll choose not to know further... and pray for peace

[CHOULO19 24,332]

You can't blame the West for all the ills of Humanity. The Americans didn't make these people act like barbarians. They've abused the liberty of Saddam's demise to kill, murder, rape and mutilate.

What does ISIS have to do with Iraq?

You SERIOUSLY need to look at the background of the things you are saying. It started in Libya when the 'revolution' against Gaddafi was catching speed. The US, along with the Gulf countries decided to arm and fund some extremists groups to take the tyrant down. The fighters were mostly from the north of Africa. It worked and they won and gained considerable power. So the same countries decided to use the same tactic in Syria. In came the fighters from north Africa and they had used their power to get more fighters from Asian countries like Chichani, Afganistan and even the KSA. The US and the gulf countries continued arming and funding them even after the whole Ben Gazi debacle (same group, btw). They called themselves "Jabhat Al Nosra". This continued until a part of Jabhat Al Nosra refused to play by the US rules anymore. They took advantage of a political problem between KSA and Qatar and started ISIS. The KSA and US are still funding Jabhat Al Nosra and Qatar are still funding ISIS.

The more racdial ISIS fought both the Syrian army and the other militias fighting it. They won control over a lot of areas because they seem to have more numbers than the other groups. They kept on winning until Hezboullah and some Iraqi militias jumped to save Al Asad. They lost a few important battles in Syria so they decided to take advantage of Al Maliki not sharing the power with the Sunnis in Iraq and implemented a typical "withdrawing to the front" tactic into Iraq after convincing some of the most power tribe leaders there to aid them. They took control over most of the north or Iraq and are terrorizing the minorities and trying to implement their crazy views of Islam.

Yes, they wouldn't have been able to occupy north Iraq if Saddam was never overthrown, but other than that, they have very little to do with Iraq.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

CFC_4EVER, on 24 Jul 2014 - 10:37 PM, said:

150 Hamas members surrendered to the army. 70 of them were taken in for questioning, the rest were released.

That desperate for a psychological victory?

Those are the 150 remaining male civilians in the Khaza'a area. After the IOF entered the area, they were made to strip and half of them were detained.

First of all, Hamas never have that many fighters in one area. They operate in groups of 5-6 or 10 at most. Then, why in the world would a Hamas fighter surrender? They DREAM of dying fighting because they think they will go to heaven and get 72 virgins if they do.

Seriously, how can you believe that 150 armed fighters decided to just give up their weapons, and that you let over half of them go!

[MrExcalibur100 7,124]

What does ISIS have to do with Iraq?

You SERIOUSLY need to look at the background of the things you are saying. It started in Libya when the 'revolution' against Gaddafi was catching speed. The US, along with the Gulf countries decided to arm and fund some extremists groups to take the tyrant down. The fighters were mostly from the north of Africa. It worked and they won and gained considerable power. So the same countries decided to use the same tactic in Syria. In came the fighters from north Africa and they had used their power to get more fighters from Asian countries like Chichani, Afganistan and even the KSA. The US and the gulf countries continued arming and funding them even after the whole Ben Gazi debacle (same group, btw). They called themselves "Jabhat Al Nosra". This continued until a part of Jabhat Al Nosra refused to play by the US rules anymore. They took advantage of a political problem between KSA and Qatar and started ISIS. The KSA and US are still funding Jabhat Al Nosra and Qatar are still funding ISIS.

The more racdial ISIS fought both the Syrian army and the other militias fighting it. They won control over a lot of areas because they seem to have more numbers than the other groups. They kept on winning until Hezboullah and some Iraqi militias jumped to save Al Asad. They lost a few important battles in Syria so they decided to take advantage of Al Maliki not sharing the power with the Sunnis in Iraq and implemented a typical "withdrawing to the front" tactic into Iraq after convincing some of the most power tribe leaders there to aid them. They took control over most of the north or Iraq and are terrorizing the minorities and trying to implement their crazy views of Islam.

Yes, they wouldn't have been able to occupy north Iraq if Saddam was never overthrown, but other than that, they have very little to do with Iraq.

1. And where did I say ISIS was founded in Iraq? I never said that which is what majority of your post is about.

2 And also telling the Christians there to either convert, pay tax or die (which is gotten from Qur'an 9:29)

3. You can't blame the West for the ideology of ISIS which was the point I was making, not the history of ISIS and how it was formed.

4. They do now.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1. And where did I say ISIS was founded in Iraq? I never said that which is what majority of your post is about.

2 And also telling the Christians there to either convert, pay tax or die (which is gotten from Qur'an 9:29)

3. You can't blame the West for the ideology of ISIS which was the point I was making, not the history of ISIS and how it was formed.

4. They do now.

Can I blame the west for arming and funding them and giving the power to enable them to terrorize those people in Syria and Iraq?

[The only place to be 11,313]

To summarize, after 2000, the US needed a virtual menace to control its people and needed to control some muslim countries (for their oil and for geopolitical reasons). Had W Bush said "we're gon' to kick some muslim asses to take their oil", he would have had no support. Instead, he said "we declare war against terrorism and the Axe of Evil" ; and in the meantime he would free women from islamic oppression (because women are very well treated in the West......) and free people from islamist-barbarian-terrorist tyrans... How could someone say no to such a noble cause ?

Firstly, it's the 'axis of evil'. It's a catchy moniker so really no reason to get it wrong

Secondly, as someone who lives in the West (much like yourself) I think it's okay to give ourselves a pat on the back when it comes to equal rights for women. I don't know if you missed a question mark, but women in the West are very well treated.

In fact one of the people who liked your post (Mr Seif) comes from a country where 91% of women aged 15-49 are victims of female genital mutilation. Now I know it's fashionable to bash 'the west' but let's try and be measured in our criticisms ok.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Firstly, it's the 'axis of evil'. It's a catchy moniker so really no reason to get it wrong

Secondly, as someone who lives in the West (much like yourself) I think it's okay to give ourselves a pat on the back when it comes to equal rights for women. I don't know if you missed a question mark, but women in the West are very well treated.

In fact one of the people who liked your post (Mr Seif) comes from a country where 91% of women aged 15-49 are victims of female genital mutilation. Now I know it's fashionable to bash 'the west' but let's try and be measured in our criticisms ok.

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/facts-and-statistics-on-gender-inequality/

LOL

[The only place to be 11,313]

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/facts-and-statistics-on-gender-inequality/

LOL

It's not really a LOL matter is it? There's a difference between isolated incidents of violence against women (which thankfully groups like this are trying to eradicate further, although there are probably other higher profile campaigns that you could have cited) and more than NINE IN TEN women having their genitals mutilated.

Why is that such a big cultural thing in your country?

Any solid arguments, mate?

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

It's not really a LOL matter is it? There's a difference between isolated incidents of violence against women (which thankfully groups like this are trying to eradicate further, although there are probably other higher profile campaigns that you could have cited) and more than NINE IN TEN women having their genitals mutilated.

Why is that such a big cultural thing in your country?

Any solid arguments, mate?

Nice of you to call me mate, mate

It is funny, because I got to you apparently without intending at all. You just had to throw my name hint and hint my country. No problem. I can dig that. We acknowledge our problems. We are courageous enough to admit them. We are courageous enough to go through two revolutions in 3 years to make things right. And apparently we are. We don't assume that we are perfect and better than the rest of the world. We are not trivial or ignorant. And we don't get pissed when crticized, even if the criticism was as gentle as the one Peace gave to an over all political environment in the western country mate. I think any rational personal would accept some criticism, not assume perfection, acknowledge problems and tries to solve them.

Right mate?