Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,585]

Yes, unfortunately. Most middle eastern countries need a dictator running the country or they turn into Iraq or Syria or Lybia.

My country is included in this, btw. Lebanon has been the "pioneer" in democracy and freedom in the middle east and as a result, we've practically had an ongoing civil war since 1940 with pauses here and there.

You do know that dictators tend to commit war crimes, massacres and such as well?

So your in fact admitting to having such condemnations for the better of the stability of the region?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

You do know that dictators tend to commit war crimes, massacres and such as well?

So your in fact admitting to having such condemnations for the better of the stability of the region?

Democratically elected presidents and prime ministers have committed much more massacres and war crimes in the past century than dictators

[Fernando 6,585]

Democratically elected presidents and prime ministers have committed much more massacres and war crimes in the past century than dictators

Like how?

What compares to Saddam mustard gas to a democrat using it on his people?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Like how?

What compares to Saddam mustard gas to a democrat using it on his people?

The nuclear bombs on Japan? How about the democratically elected Hitler? The million martyrs in Algeria at the hands of France? The over million dead Vietnamese?

[Stingray 9,441]

So because it's not ready for democracy then what are you saying about the nations?

That they are Brutes?

That is an enormously exagerated and false dichotomy. First of all you have many forms of democracy, many of which de facto play in the middle east on the level of communities.

Also, assuming 'our' from of democracy (i very much doubt the belgian one is the same then yours, thus proving my point) is morally superior, is quite a narcistic view. It might domecracy is the more functional one (which it isnt necessarily eg. The Nazi party was democratically elected as where many dictators)) or the more peacefull one (doubt that is true) or the one in which the people have the most power (doubt that as well), and so on.

Claiming a people are brutes or ' barbarians' as the greeks would have called them, because they have a different cultural history or are in a different geopolitical situation where instelling it would just be detrimental is quite unnuanced.

Try some reading on philosopical moral relativism before you start spreading these 19th century clichés

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

I think one of them was actually born in the UK, whilst the other was brought into the UK at a later age, I think at around 10 or 11. They've both been life long Muslims, and I used to have avid and interesting debates about Islam with the first one who was very much against this whole Jihad movement thing, ironically however he's now apart of it. The very sad thing is that the mosque they went to is partly of to blame for them defecting as they brought in an extremist speaker who obviously used the opportunity to try and recruit behind the scenes.

It's really crazy. How did they even try to approach you? Glad you've seen sense into not entertaining it.

At such young age they can be easily manipulated. A few months before September 11th while I was still studying at the states, someone knocked on my door. When I opened there were two Muslims at the door. They greated me with "Alsalamo Alaikom" meaning peace on you in Arabic. Automatically from their appearance and from their pronunciation I was able to tell that one of them was an Arab. There are certain letters that are really hard for a non Arab tongue to pronounce and even if they do, you can tell that they are not Arabs. Add to that his name give it away somehow too. I really can't remember what it was, but it is his family name. The Arab guy wouldn't talk to me. His friend, who was somewhere from South East Asia (again from the accent of English) would do all the talking. He would ask where I go to pray and where I am from. I would answer with no problem, but I was alerted. It is UNUSUAL for a Muslim to come and start preaching to another Muslim about Islam. If I wanted to know something I would go and ask, but for someone to offer his knowledge without even me needing it or asking for it is VERY SUSPICIOUS.

During this time there were troubles in Palestine in the west bank. As usual there were civilians killed and rage all over the Arab countries. So he would talk about " My Muslim brothers who are being killed and in need of help....etc". He would also talk about how a good Muslim does not sit and watch his brothers being killed. Basically, he would talk about things that you ( a Muslim) knows is right. He would through versus of the Quran and Hadith (sayings of the prophet) to back up what he is saying. I was 20 yrs at the time and curious . However, I had a very strong foundation in Islamic studies and Classical Arabic. So politely, I would start asking questions and debating. I was able to see the frustration and the Arab dude trying to signal to the other guy to end the conversation. If you know your foundations of Islam and you show them that you can think for yourself and that you are not willing to accept anything without trying to understand it, that means you are definitely a bad person to recruit. At the end of the conversation he asked me where I go for Friday prayers and I said I pray at the University. Then he asked me to come and pray at a certain Mosque (an Islamic center downtown). That was just a definite sign that there is something really wrong with those people. You see, in Islam, you are not suppose to tell people where to pray. Simply because a prayer is something between the Muslim and God. I don't have to go to a mosque, I can pray at home if I wanted to. So for him to tell me to not pray in a specific place and to go to a certain place was a clear indication. Three weeks later I went out of curiosity. Of course what I heard being preached over there was not what I was taught in my schools in Egypt and Kuwait ( Arab Muslim countries). It was radical. Too radical. I had a Saudi friend, a Syrian friend, two Egyptians and a third Egyptian but he was Christian. We went together, to see what those people where all about as I had expressed my concerns to them earlier. Dude the people who were listening to them would just listen and obey. If you would argue with something, they would throw a verse of the Quran with their interpretation. You are argue about it, they would hint that I am an infidel. Something like when you disagree with a Jew, they antisemitic card would be played. That was kind of the case. With people have no understanding of Arabic and Islamic studies, it is easy to manipulate their thoughts once you expose an area of vulnerability in them. The sympathy for the Palestinians was the angle they tackled with me. Other people they would tackle differently. I am somehow certain that your anti Jihad friend who eventually joined up, was tackled in a similar way.

A way to tackle a European who was a sinner (Muslim) or was of a different belief, is to convince him that he has to make up for all these years of sin. And if they die in the name of God, all their sins will be erased and they will be at the highest levels of heaven. Such approach will sound very appealing to a person with feelings of guilt and who is seeking redemption or salvation. It also helps, when you find a person who is poor and you start helping him out. Or a person who is in need and you provide whatever help you can. You earn his trust and loyalty, which would be easier to pass on the message you want. Knowing versus of the Quran and Hadith gives that person the impression that you are a man of knowledge. It is a combo of things they can do really. As an Egyptian we are aware of that very well. Others too are aware of course. That was one of the reasons we ousted the Muslim Brotherhood President who was democratically elected btw. We are experts in the way they operate and think.

I also had other experiences later in Egypt and Kuwait. But by that time I was relatively more mature and would actually scare them away. You can easily know their ideology. Them and the Islamophobes share the same interpretations of Islam

[Fernando 6,585]

The nuclear bombs on Japan? How about the democratically elected Hitler? The million martyrs in Algeria at the hands of France? The over million dead Vietnamese?

The nuclear bombs on Japan....How can you use such example?

It was WW2. It was a war.

Hitler was elected and the people of Germany was able to take him out. This falls on the entire nation, in which the nation has vow to never forget.

It's a crime to negate that the Holocaust happened in Germany.

While in Turkey it's a crime to talk about the Armenian genocide...

So the Germany nation learned from this and moved on.

Can you say the same thing about a nation in the middle east your talking about?

Can't really comment on the France thing.

Vietnam was a war. Can't reprobate such outcome on the leaders. Now War crimes do happen in war, no one side is perfect. But the nation that is truly democratic will punish those who commit war crimes after the dust is settled.

Can you say the same for dictators?

[Fernando 6,585]

That is an enormously exagerated and false dichotomy. First of all you have many forms of democracy, many of which de facto play in the middle east on the level of communities.

Also, assuming 'our' from of democracy (i very much doubt the belgian one is the same then yours, thus proving my point) is morally superior, is quite a narcistic view. It might domecracy is the more functional one (which it isnt necessarily eg. The Nazi party was democratically elected as where many dictators)) or the more peacefull one (doubt that is true) or the one in which the people have the most power (doubt that as well), and so on.

Claiming a people are brutes or ' barbarians' as the greeks would have called them, because they have a different cultural history or are in a different geopolitical situation where instelling it would just be detrimental is quite unnuanced.

Try some reading on philosopical moral relativism before you start spreading these 19th century clichés

What the heck your talking about men.

I was asking him what is his view.

My view is not that they are brute.

I was asking why the need for dictatorship? Because the people are brutes?

So it was a question to him not to you!

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Ok but let me complete another difference, we don't belive god make you do things, you have your free will and a mind, arms, eyes, legs, brain human beings decide what to do. From time to time we belive in reincarnation of Tawis-I-Melek whom comes to the earth in different ways to help Ezidis "get back on track" or save them. Thats another big difference, every ppl is responsible for his doings, not any god or bad S****an...

A few years ago a few thousand ppl. where killed in a massacre in iraqi Kurdistan Shengal again, they poisened our water, it was Islam-Radicalist agin, this was called 73. Massacre, now is th 74.th. Like I said before nearly every kurd was Ezîdi, because all prayers the language and all we do is kurdish, islam is arabic, christ are asyric, iran is farsi (but kurdish and farsi is quite equal). Arabic Muslims converted many ppl when they came over with Muhamad however they did it's gone and history. Ezidîs resistet in a very strong manner, like I said you often here with us, one Ezdi is like 10 oter men and we don't say so others do, and how strong they press the Ezidis, the ISIS themself say it's so hard to convert one ezidi, we film it every time before we slaughter them, and if one converts before we slaughter him, its like feast.

And I can't tell you what it is, but the most kurds until Mala Mustafa Barzani and Abdulla Öcalan, where involved in many massacres. Only a few examples: 19th Century, the kurdisch Mele Mehmûdê Beyazîdî writes: "Killing kurdish people is not a sin for kurdish moslems, and every time a kurdish moslem kills a Ezid, he should take his wife for his fun. We don't buy from Ezdi-Slaughtery because they pray to S****an"

In the time of Mîr Ceferê Desinî 225 - 226 after Muhammed there was a massacre, in that time they called us "DASINI", because it was even a sin to say Êzdî. Khalif Abasîyan Muhtesîm, son of Harûn Reşîd two times started a attack with a big army but Ezids defended themselvs. The third time he came with Eytax the turkmenian and his turkish army, they broke down the resistance and made quite the same things IS does today, exactly what they do they did then, they killed 1000 Familys and ezdis have big familys, so a low number would be 10, they killed over 10 000 that time, by slaughtering and pecking theyre heads on pikes and put the spikes up all around the region to show they're cutted of heads. 100 000 Ezdis ran away, And another 100 000 where converted to islam by force. This was such a big massacre the Muslims accept this as one of the seven Al-Muhtesîms.

In the beginning of the 19th Century Mîr Mehmed (Mîrê Kor, the blind emir ) started another massacre with the fatwa of Mele Xatî, he catched the Ezdi mir Elî beg, took 10 000 girls with him and as a kurd gave them as a gift to the arabic muslim Sheiks, Begs, and Axas of Musil. 500 Men where killed and thrown into a hole in the earth.

The Diplomat A.H.Layard that the Pashas and Begs became very rich when they stole all the gold of the Ezdis after killing them. Furhter he writes, when all ran away children and old womens where left over because they couldnt leave, the hide in they're houses. They've been killed and after that slaughtered, the heads sticked to the tip of the guns and they laughed clapped and danced while they slaughtered them. He did understand they killed them but why have they been so cruel and cut theyre heads off? He was frightened they would do the same with him. And was shocked they danced clapped and played with the heads of em.

1891 Emer Wehbî paşa (Firik Pasha), a kurd from Sulemaniya, steals our Tawis out of pure gold and other ancient relicts, makes our holy place Lalish to an islamic school, he converts them by foricing them with the swort, the ppl in the town have no choice but the men in the Shinjar-Mountains fight and in that time England, France and others wisdom this and the is a ruleing aginst him, he then ran away from lalish and gives it back.

only a few...

Wow, I don't know if any words could express my sympathy. I guess you guys suffered a lot. I am sorry for your loses. It is more like ethnic cleansing which is barbaric. What was Saddam doing with you guys?

[Weckerz 3,781]

On a lighter note:

Meet Syrian Lannister

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The nuclear bombs on Japan....How can you use such example? It was WW2. It was a war.

Yes, hence the term "war crime".

Hitler was elected and the people of Germany was able to take him out. This falls on the entire nation, in which the nation has vow to never forget.

It's a crime to negate that the Holocaust happened in Germany.

While in Turkey it's a crime to talk about the Armenian genocide...

So the Germany nation learned from this and moved on.

Can you say the same thing about a nation in the middle east your talking about?

Can't really comment on the France thing.

No really my point. My point was that democratically elected leaders commit as much massacres and war crimes and massacres as dictators if not more. So, at the very least, democracies aren't learning from each other. Not to mention democracies like the USA that don't seem to have learned from Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia...etc.

Vietnam was a war. Can't reprobate such outcome on the leaders. Now War crimes do happen in war, no one side is perfect. But the nation that is truly democratic will punish those who commit war crimes after the dust is settled. Can you say the same for dictators?

Others get reelected like Bush or become "Peace ambassadors" like Blair.

[Fernando 6,585]

Yes, hence the term "war crime".

No really my point. My point was that democratically elected leaders commit as much massacres and war crimes and massacres as dictators if not more. So, at the very least, democracies aren't learning from each other. Not to mention democracies like the USA that don't seem to have learned from Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Lybia...etc.

Others get reelected like Bush or become "Peace ambassadors" like Blair.

Yeah but there's a big difference in deliberately using chemical weapons in your own people.

You are pretty much taking the role of the lesser two evils men.

And this is the exact view that Israel takes when kids and such get killed.

Like it was Hamas fault and they have to do it to save lives.

The lesser of two evils, every country does it!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yeah but there's a big difference in deliberately using chemical weapons in your own people.

You are pretty much taking the role of the lesser two evils men.

And this is the exact view that Israel takes when kids and such get killed.

Like it was Hamas fault and they have to do it to save lives.

The lesser of two evils, every country does it!

So, it's okay to massacre people as long as they are not your own? You're trying to prove that democracies are more moral than dictatorships which historically is incorrect.

In NO world is trying to wipe an entire people off the face of earth the "lesser evil" and in Palestine, the have many other options that they do not take while the Palestinians are the ones who have no choice. It's a bit more complicated than you're trying to make it be.

[Fernando 6,585]

So, it's okay to massacre people as long as they are not your own? You're trying to prove that democracies are more moral than dictatorships which historically is incorrect.

In NO world is trying to wipe an entire people off the face of earth the "lesser evil" and in Palestine, the have many other options that they do not take while the Palestinians are the ones who have no choice. It's a bit more complicated than you're trying to make it be.

Yes according to what you said.

Saddam tried to wipe certain people of the map but you said that's better then now.

So for you that's the lesser of two evils.

[Clevemayer 764]

Wow, I don't know if any words could express my sympathy. I guess you guys suffered a lot. I am sorry for your loses. It is more like ethnic cleansing which is barbaric. What was Saddam doing with you guys?

he was worst of all but couldnt fulfill his plan. we never came off the mountains because they are our place of safety. He paid the ppl millions to come down to the desert and not live in the mountains any more and they took the money, he didn't like sunis, so sunis hated us, it was like our enemys enemy is our enemy too. one of the biggest mistake we did. Saddam did al anfal and this was against all kurds not only us, if you remember if not google it

Your words mean very much to me mate...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Yes according to what you said.

Saddam tried to wipe certain people of the map but you said that's better then now.

So for you that's the lesser of two evils.

No he didn't. If he wanted he wouldn't have "tried" he would have actually done it.

Comparing what Saddam did to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people for over 60 years is beyond ridiculous and simplistic.

I will not defend Saddam, but what I said was that because he gave his people peace and security and a good economical life and stuff like free schools and universities, he is better option than what it is happening at the moment.

[Fernando 6,585]

No he didn't. If he wanted he wouldn't have "tried" he would have actually done it.

Comparing what Saddam did to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people for over 60 years is beyond ridiculous and simplistic.

I will not defend Saddam, but what I said was that because he gave his people peace and security and a good economical life and stuff like free schools and universities, he is better option than what it is happening at the moment.

And likewise Israel will say the same thing.

Really men your being a hypocritical saying one thing is better while this other is wrong.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Thanks for the very detailed reply Mohammed. Very insightful. You're right though in saying that if you're not strong as a person in your faith, that it definitely is easy to get corrupted by them. If you don't know your Bible/Quran/Torah then yes, this is a real possibility.

It still really, really surprised me though, especially in regards to the previously anti-jihadist one. Many Muslims at school and college looked up to him because he seemed very knowledgeable about the Quran and all the Hadith teachings. Many of those immediately went to his Facebook page after the news broke out and started blasting him, complaining how they all looked up to him and how he's betrayed them and stuff, it was quite sad to see. I still find it very odd right now.

[lucio 5,418]

The nuclear bombs on Japan? How about the democratically elected Hitler? The million martyrs in Algeria at the hands of France? The over million dead Vietnamese?

i dont think hitler was elected democratically. loads of opposition parties were banned after the reichstag fire.

the Weimar Republic had in many ways ceased to be a democracy by the time that Hitler was appointed chancellor. After 1930, Hindenburg began sidelining parliament and largely ruling by emergency decree (under the notorious Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution) through a succession of chancellors (first Bruning, then Papen, then Schleicher, and finally Hitler). So I

don’t think it’s quite right to say that Hitler was appointed chancellor as part of parliamentary politics — by the time of his appointment parliamentary politics in Weimar was basically dead already and the government was being run on largely authoritarian lines.

http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/

[CHOULO19 24,332]

And likewise Israel will say the same thing.

Really men your being a hypocritical saying one thing is better while this other is wrong.

Israel will say what exactly?

You are being ridiculous to even try to compare the two. Let me put thin in simple terms:

The reason Saddam is better than the current situation is because apart from doing horrible things, he did do some good things for a lot of people who now no longer have those good things.

But more importantly, Saddam is a better choice because the alternative is the death of thousands of people and constant terror in the country and the undermining of the security of the while region and possibly the world.

Even attempting to compare this complex situation with a completely different and more complex situation is ridiculously simplistic.