And another piss ant goes in to the deep darkness of the ignore list.Originally Posted by parihaka
ho hum, can you ever say anything different, ever stay on topic, ever do anything but spout drivel?Originally Posted by Leader
And another piss ant goes in to the deep darkness of the ignore list.Originally Posted by parihaka
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
ditto little boyOriginally Posted by Leader
So much for respecting the moderators eh parihaka?
Does that make you a rectum kissing Australian?Originally Posted by PaulG
Colonists don't leave their colony after its proped up, try again...Originally Posted by parihaka
I didn't vote for the kissers. But by majority, Australia did. So regardless of my vote, Australian's (in the broad sense) are rectum kissers, on an individual level i am not.Originally Posted by smilingassassin
Unfortunately, its not economical, language wise, to say; 'More people around the world dislike america + side kick britain, and 51.298643328% of rectum licking Australian's.'
If this was your practice you would have to do the same for the other mentioned countries. So in this sense, im lumped in with all the other rectum kissers.
Thats democracy for ya, don't ya love it!
It would not be colonisation because colonisation involves administration of the country captured and brought into vassalage. It is quite a headache.doesn't really matter if you call it dictatorship, democracy or great aunt fanny's political musings, it's still colonisation
Given the way the Iraq issue was portrayed when it started, it had the typical Bush signature i.e. a quick fix, wham, bam, thank you, ma'm. I am sure he didn't want to colonise and be afflicted with the headache of governance.
I am all for Bush's War on Terror. But, I don't subscribe to the Iraq War since it is only adding to the terrorist cadre. True Saddam was a tyrant, but at least he was better than the Saudi Kings.
Saudis are such freaks that short of a chastity belt, every other restriction is there to the so called Freedom and Democracy what is today's fashionable clarion call. Much talk is made about the 'Free World' and how Freedom will be brought to the oppressed. If there are anyone really oppressed, it is the Saudis.
Even the War on Terror is flawed. Saudi Arabia is the Mother of all Terrorists. It is like dead flesh spawning maggots. And yet, the Freedom and Democracy vectored on Iraq. Afghanistan had the Taliban who were the most visible terrorists. Therefore, it was right to go after them like a bloodhound, but not lose scent after the first flush.
The time has come for me to tell you guys why I think the muslims fear and hate America, I'm not saying this is true, but this is the belief amongst quite a few of them....
Remember what the promised lands are....
"From the Nile to the Euphrates is mine...."Now lets do the math.
(Nile = part of Egypt) + (Euphrates = half of Iraq) + 'From'(all that in between) = Why the mullahs are afraid of the west.
Oh BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm a mullah who prefers shagging to suicide bombing but the above is why I think my brothers fear the west.
"It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty". [Sir Francis]
Originally Posted by Nisaar
Kiyon bay??? Londa shagging???
Wahabbi or salafi?
If you mean 'little boy' then sorry, yes over the top (not that he'll read it anyway) but then 'piss ant' which I gather is some sort of American put down ain't neighbourly either, what have the moderators got to do with it?Originally Posted by smilingassassin
to me colonisation is an attempt to control a country or regions political and/or governmental direction over the long term, it doesn't require an invasion of people, just control. whether that control is good or bad is debatable in each instance.Originally Posted by smilingassassin
"It would not be colonisation because colonisation involves administration of the country captured and brought into vassalage. It is quite a headache."
I agree, it is a headache, and thats what I see happening here.
parihaka, wouldn't that be Mercantilism? controlling a coutries trade, making them rely on you for finance and imports while you sit back and bleed em dry?
it's a fine line indeed, I guess to use an historical example, when Elgin enforced the Treaty of Tientsin in Beijing (Peking) in 1860 he was asked to interceed against the Taiping rebellion on behalf of the Imperium. He declined saying that he didn't want another India. So I would categorize that as mercantilism, as he was only interested in trade (however slanted and unfair).Originally Posted by PaulG
India however I would call colonisation despite no large scale settler activity (correct me if I'm wrong) as Britain controlled the political administrative arms of government, exactly what Elgin was trying to avoid in China. Thats why I see the above article as representative of colonialisation, because it's an attempt to control the political administrative arms of government.
Cool, I thought I'd have to start another thread.
First a personal perspective: I’m one of the Combat Mission refugees, and we’ve pretty much done the Iraq war / War on Terror into a dead horse. So I thought I could carry on here, but find that my desire to “get to the bottom” of it has be satisfied, and my melancholy my own resulting conclusions enough that I don’t want to do it anymore. On the other board I did a blog-like Islam 101 thread where I documented my research into Islam and UBL (Usama Bin Laden). So I’ll do a much much shorter version here, and if anyone has any questions or wants to compare notes – I’ll do what I can. I’ll post some of the most relevant web sites for the topics, but will not document each point.
And if you want to write me off as someone who hates American and is anti-Semitic Arab bigot – feel free. Your belief doesn’t make it so, but if you’d rather chant “USA” at the ‘They hate us because we’re free” rally – then stop reading now and live a full and happy life. I always wondered how a car mechanic in Podunk Saudi Arabia grew to hate us – after all most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi’s. And some of the figures I’ve seen make the Saudi’s the most common of foreign fighters in Iraq. (Foreign fighters make up about 5% of the insurgents killed in Iraq). PS I sometimes yield to my temptation to digress. Anyway I think I’ve found the answer to the mechanic.
During WWI (waiting for the groans to die down, and the “USA” chanters to leave) there was a Brit names Lawrence of Arabia. The Ottoman Empire was aligned with Germany, and Lawrence told the Arabs – “Help us fight the Ottomans, and Britain will help you gain your freedom”. The Arabs did, the Brits didn’t. The terms ‘backstab’ springs to mind.
During the 20’s and 30’s the Brits and French where busy putting down Arab rebellions on their newest colonies. The British tactic of using aircraft against the Arabs was some sort of innovation – first use of British aerial bombardment (? I forget now).
In the deserts of the Arabian peninsula, the tribe of Saud was busy militarily taking over the place in the 20’s. While on paper the Arabian peninsula was part of the British mandate – they didn’t really care what happened. Nothing but sand there – nothing interesting to the British Empire. Interestingly – it wasn’t until the late 30’s that the last of the reluctant Arab states finally recognized the realities of Saudi Arabia.
Now these Saudis didn’t spring from the sand, and they came with baggage. About the 1800’s a cleric called Wahhabi something or other, and his clan joined with a dirt poor Saud family. He preached a version of Islam that basically said: “All I ever needed to know was known in the 3rd century (about 900 AD by our calendar)” and “Austerity is a virtue”. The Sauds took to this ideology as a duck takes to … sand? If it was one thing they had in abundance it was austerity.” The outsiders called this “Wahhabism”, they referred to themselves as Unitarian.
So the official state religion of Saudi family, is and has been for centuries – Wahhabism. PS – Digression into Arabic spelling. Arabic words are spelled phonetically so kafeer, kafir, k’fer are all the same word, in this case “us”. Makes it tough comparing sources sometimes. It’s hard to put Wahhabism into a bottle. But I’ll try.
First Islam. The five pillars of Islam are
1 Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
2 Establishment of the daily prayers;
3 Concern for and almsgiving to the needy; (I’ve heard something like 2.5%)
4 Self-purification through fasting; and (Ramadan)
5 The pilgrimage to Makkah (Mecca) for those who are able.
The Jews and Christians have come to terms with the separtation between church and state. The Jews because so often in history they were without a state, and the Christians have all this “Give onto Ceaser” stuff. Islam has no such concept. Muhammad ended up running a government before his death. So there’s all kinds of governmental type stuff. Rules of war and all that. Now in general the standards set are both decent and pragmatic. After all there’s over a billion Muslims in the world and we’re not having trouble with all of them.
A pretty good web site: http://www.islam101.com/
Now there are some rather nasty passages in the Christian bible, but even extreme followers balk at the endorsement of slavery (as one example). Wahhabism don’t believe that their religion should adapt. Allah said it – it’s in the Quran (Koran) – end of story. Saudi Arabia has “moral police” on the government payroll that do things like wander in the shopping malls and remind the girls and boys they’re not to talk to each other. No music is allowed.
A good web site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/
Now we tend to focus on the most extreme aspects of Wahhabism, but they view themselves as loving caring people. They want to help each other in their attempts to follow Allah’s way. But at it’s core it’s all about purity. So it’s rigid. While we struggle with modern issues like stem cell research –they are dealing with:
In the event that the punishment of amputation is carried out, is the criminal entitled to have the amputated hand reattached by means of a surgical procedure?.
(My favorite) No.
Good site for that:
But I got a little ahead of myself. After WWII comes that disaster of biblical proportions – Israel. From here on out everything – I mean EVERYTHING is viewed through the Israeli Palestinian lens. Is it healthy? No. There’s something pathological about it. Perhaps the unified front put forth by the state controlled media of the Arab dictators “Don’t blame us – it’s Israel’s fault.” And since the Internet and satellite TV weren’t around – that’s all there was to know?
So the Cold War comes along, and the Saudi’a are our friends. They have tons of oil money. What to do with it all? Fund ostentatious public works programs glorifying man? Hardly. Build ever larger and more luxurious mosques. Nope. You spread the “Good News” of Islam. Build and fund schools teaching the virtues of Wahhabism to all who care to attend.
The Iranians get rid of the US backed dictator the “Shah of Iran”. Turns out that the rank and file Iranians weren’t too happy with the Shah’s torture chambers, secret police and all that. Who knew? And once they came to power – they weren’t too happy with the Superpower that kept the Shah in power. The USA. The Shah’s weakness is that he couldn’t control what was said inside mosques. So he was able to crush all other opposition political groups – except those based in mosque’s. No dictator can completely control what is said in mosques.
Time passes. The Saudi princes jail anyone who gets out of line. Saddam thinks Iran is a push-over. We like that idea. Blah Blah. The Soviets invade Afghanistan. Well this is too good an opportunity to pass up, and we organize the opposition. We’d like a prominent person to organize a pan-Arab resistance movement. Someone from the Saudi royal family, but not too high. Usama Bin Laden wants the job, and he gets it.
“Afghanistan the Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower. “ by Mohammad Yousaf and Mark Adkin. is a great book. Yousaf was the Pakistani doling out the “goods” to the mujaheedeen. Weapons was currency – the cooler the weapon the higher the prestige of the warlord. However turns out only the hard core religious types were actually shooting the guns. The moderates tended to wage war from London. Made no difference to Yousaf – he was just interesting in running the war. So through patience and toughness – the muhahadeen convince the Soviets to go home.
Everyone is happy. Then Saddam invades Kuwait. He gets his ass kicked. There’s this little matter of the US encouraging the Shia to revolt, then watching Saddams helicopter gunships shoot them up, but no harm no foul. In order to make the Saudi’s feel better – we end up stationing our troops out in the desert. There are some awkward feminist issues as we try and ‘blend’ with the Wahhabis. Pious Wahhabis (like UBL) point out that having any non-Muslim community on the Arabian peninsula is a sin. Foreign contractors is bad enough, but now we’ve got foreign troops! This cannot stand.
So in 1996 UBL has had enough. He’s tried for a couple of years to get rid of the foreign invaders through Saudi channels, and now he takes things into his own hands.
"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terroris...atwa_1996.html
Islamic law says you can’t kill another person unless a war is declared. Well a fatwa is a legal opinion written by a cleric – UBL is not a cleric. So technically it’s invalid, but it gains traction. In any case it’s a license for those that want to start killing Americans.
Later, in 1998, he and a bunch of other people write a fatwa they say “We’ve tried for seven years to get the American’s off our soil. This is not a temporary deployment like they told us it was going to be. This is an attack on Islam”. So now the Saudi royal family is put on notice.
The West (aka the USA) has always given the Arabs the shaft.
The only political opposition to survive dictator crackdown is religious.
As such it gains traction – the Islamic parties had tremoundous gains in the Pakistani elections in 2002.
Which is Ok, since Musharraf has made it clear he’s not interested in elections anymore.
The same thing in Yemen. The US can’t strong arm a government to loosen up. So our allies tighten up. Gaining us lots of friends in their citizenry. I wish we’d have used our Gulf War mojo to strong arm Kuwait into allowing a free press. And we’re busy p*ssing all over the only free press there is: Al jazeera
It’d be happy to further explain myself – upon request. My time is up today.
PSS - Please don't try and convince me. My opinion means nothing. If you want to do some good, flag down that Iraqi hoofing it across the street carrying the RPG and talk about the balance of powers with him. And be prepared to get an earful about furthering the Zionist cause in return.
Last edited by DonJasper; 30 Nov 04, at 18:28.
We're optimistic. They're p*ssed off. Another day in Iraq.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)