Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Trotsky, Mar 12, 2018.
I sure know who I will be rooting for:
what the heck is that?
I would say that the jihadist element has always existed, and has historically been repressed by authoritarian regimes. United States, with its constant intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, played a primary role in enabling these movements to operate with more "liberty" and gave them the sympathies of the people.
In the Iranian coup of 1953, America played the role of a muscle-head goon for British interests. It wasn't until the late 1970's when it became state policy, seemingly, to systematically crumble law and order in the Middle East so that the jihadist element could rule. Previously, it was excused with by the Cold War, but by the 90's, it simply became a habit as old Cold War-era crooks remained in charge, with the same foreign policy platforms. Old enemies (Cuba, Libya, Iran, etc.) remained old enemies even though realistically they should've been "pardoned", once the Soviet structure fell and was no longer a threat.
The Saudi Arabian monarchy are not truly the source of Wahhabism. It's just that every time they've tried to impose changes, the people have responded with rebellion. So eventually they've just given in, and given the people (or atleast a very vocal, radical portion of the people) what they want.
The new Saudi prince seems to be more "liberal-minded" than the past regimes, but I worry about his long-term well-being if he moves forth with the changes that he's proposing. It won't be the aristocrats that will poison him, but the religious folk who will come for his head.
I’ll watch it because I’m interested but my gut reaction is that this is on par with “liberals are the REAL racists”
America has fucked with a lot of countries but only Muslim ones are exporting jihad. The root problem being the religion, but of course Western interference being aggravating/push factors into religiosity
Well said. Agreed.
Well, no, but the monarchy only makes up half of the head of government. The clerics of the ulema have been historically resistant to change and have comparable social sway to the Saud family, such that they could foreseeably stoke their overthrow. They basically embody the institutionalization of the Salafi conservative reforms.
I have lost all hope, from talking with my Saudi friends, that he is at all "liberal" in any principled sense. He's just using very basic liberal reforms to consolidate power. If that results in fluidly autocratic rule, that could be good or bad - it's hard to say.
Well, I hope you do watch it, as it points to the United States spending billions funding the exportation of Jihad.
The solution to middle east peace.
Hookers and blackjack?
no it is idiotic and would never work. lol at sudan in there eritrea sharing border policy with maghreb and north africa or kazakhstan and pakistan.
Then again neither was Lyndon B. Johnson, but one cannot argue against what he achieved for the liberal movement, in that front, during his quest for power.
Sometimes you need a bold, pragmatic "player of the game" to drive the necessary changes, rather than a pure idealist. Even if their end game is power rather than change, such people can set the necessary "precedent" that others can follow. When achieving more liberty for the society is no longer a risk, but rather a proven gain, even the most sniveling cowards will align themselves with the side of liberty.
The danger, however, is that there's going to be wide-spread backlash from the theocratic elements. It is not enough for the prince to purge the aristocracy, he'd also need to purge the theocracy, to seize power. And that's a significantly more difficult job to accomplish.
Well, they would all be occupied by Germans.
So it doesn't really matter what borders those "countries" have now or what pointless wars
they are fighting because 300 years ago someone insulted someone's moms.
Or Edward de Bonos plan to sort out the Middle East by supplying them all with Marmite .
Istanbul would be a good world capital it was already once before in many ways. Napoleon said so and predict it would be of world. some religious christian people say jersualem is center of earth but the real center of land mass is actually Giza egypt or basically cairo in between. plus nobody would ever want to share jersualem. i dont think jews want it to be world capital either since i means sharing it. Ankara is also another major 'center' point becuase it center of anatollia. istanbul is good compromise
Iran woulda made an awesome ally if Britain (with the help of the US) hadn't been so greedy for that black gooey gold...
All these terrorist countries would be radioactive ruins if oil wasn't there.
Well, terrorism wouldn't have taken hold if there wasn't oil.
So you're saying that your country would have dropped atomic bombs on peaceful countries that were without terrorists and oil?
Team Ottoman all the way. Safavids were assholes.
Root for them to wipe each other out totally and arm whomever is losing
Actually just ignore the whole thing and cut off toes with whomever is left at the end
We wouldn’t be involved. That’s he only difference
So, are you just going to ignore the OP that goes over how jihadists throughout the Middle East were indoctrinated, trained, armed, and given political power by the United States?
Do you think, absent the United States, the modern and secular countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia c. 1950 would have just organically yielded to some spontaneous terrorist wave, without our prompting?
Separate names with a comma.