Quake3World

so where's a quick synopsis of the last 100 yrs in the middle east then :icon32:

Start at the millet system and the Tanzimat and work your way forward

Oh and if you've never heard of either of those then you'd better off not starting with the quick version

Dave wrote:I'm pulling this out of my ass on a whim, but I'd say Europe faces the same kind of "threat" (a loaded term that needs a clear definition) that the US faces from Latin American immigration. The only real threat in both instances is uncertainty caused by xenophobia, not the immigrants.

there's a scale difference though. you have a long leaky border with mexico. the only muslim country on europe's borders is turkey, and it's only a tiny bit of border in the balkans. it's harder - though not impossible - for illegal immigrants to get in since they have to either come by boat from africa (dangerous and often fatal) or in containers overland from the east (also dangerous and often fatal)

as for xenophobia, i think that comes from cultural weakness. our institutions are so riddled with political correctness any kind of identity that could be publicly adopted by newcomers scarcely exists, so you end up with ghettos, plus governments desperately trying - and failing - in 'include' them in society

Right, but there is also legal immgration in the form of guest worker programs. The ghettos of northern Paris that we heard about all over the news last year depict that pretty violently. Neither the cultures of the EU nor the US are currently in any real danger of being made irrelevant, but the perception of cultural identity loss is very real. Politicians use that to their advantage all of the time.

Take Dominique de Villepin for instance:

His crackdown on militancy has included tighter security controls and making it a requirement for the country's imams to take courses on the language, laws and customs of France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2768503.stm

I really don't think you can read that quote and honestly tell me Europe (either in part or in whole) isn't suffering from real or imagined cultural erosion.

The same shit is happening here with this little bit about defending freedom and our way of life or court battles over the place of the word God in the pledge of allegiance, or forcing people to take the damn pledge at all...

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:lol

what do you know about history? rofl

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Do people like Riffraff and busetibi know that Iran had a democratically elected government several decades ago until the USA imposed the Shah as leader?

ROFL.. You should talk. Did you know that the last Shah was actually put on the throne after Britain and Russia invaded Iran in 1941? He took the place of his father who took control of Iran in 1925 founding the Pahlevi dynasty. Britain and Russia were concerned about the elder Shah's relations with Germany. The younger Shah was friendly with the US and this was one of the reasons, among many others, that he was overthrown.

RiffRaff wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:lol

what do you know about history? rofl

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Do people like Riffraff and busetibi know that Iran had a democratically elected government several decades ago until the USA imposed the Shah as leader?

ROFL.. You should talk. Did you know that the last Shah was actually put on the throne after Britain and Russia invaded Iran in 1941? He took the place of his father who took control of Iran in 1925 founding the Pahlevi dynasty. Britain and Russia were concerned about the elder Shah's relations with Germany. The younger Shah was friendly with the US and this was one of the reasons, among many others, that he was overthrown.

yes i did know that but what's pertinent to the discussion is the British-American supported coup which essentially undermined Iran's existing democracy and consolidated the Shah's power until he was overthrown in '79.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:yes i did know that but what's pertinent to the discussion is the British-American supported coup which essentially undermined Iran's existing democracy and consolidated the Shah's power until he was overthrown in '79.

There was no coup by America to put the Shah in power. He was in power since 1941, after assuming the throne from his father thanks to the BRITISH and RUSSIANS, with a parliment that was limited in its power and eventually grew ineffective. This is much as it is today. They elect a president and parliment but it's the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council that currently holds the "real" power.

Your initial statement put some type of blame squarely on America which is not the case.

R00k wrote:Tell me... Aside from the attacks directly after the invasion of Iraq, how many times in recent history have fundamentalist Muslims tried to force Europeans to adopt their way of life?

edit: I'm talking specifically about offensive attacks here, not shit like the 21st century comic riots.

I put their words in front of you and you can't absorb what their saying?

I'm not the one who said it's a holy war until Islam prevails from Spain to Iraq. Al-Zawahri is the one making that claim so you should take that up with him or some other Al Qaeda representative. I'm sure you'll be rushing out soon to do just that.

PS. If you google the timeline of terrorism, you'll see terrorist attacks by radical muslims, and other groups, have been occuring for decades.

RiffRaff wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:yes i did know that but what's pertinent to the discussion is the British-American supported coup which essentially undermined Iran's existing democracy and consolidated the Shah's power until he was overthrown in '79.

There was no coup by America to put the Shah in power. He was in power since 1941, after assuming the throne from his father thanks to the BRITISH and RUSSIANS, with a parliment that was limited in its power and eventually grew ineffective. This is much as it is today. They elect a president and parliment but it's the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council that currently holds the "real" power.

Your initial statement put some type of blame squarely on America which is not the case.

With breezy storytelling and diligent research, Kinzer has reconstructed the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, who was wildly popular at home for having nationalized his country's oil industry. The coup ushered in the long and brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah, widely seen as a U.S. puppet and himself overthrown by the Islamic revolution of 1979. At its best this work reads like a spy novel, with code names and informants, midnight meetings with the monarch and a last-minute plot twist when the CIA's plan, called Operation Ajax, nearly goes awry.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047167 ... e&n=283155

some suggested reading :icon26:

Some people ignore the fundamental shift in American foreign policy that resulted from WWII in which America begins to take an hyperactive role (the role mostly of Britain before) in direct intervention in the affairs of other states because of things like demand for oil, fear of more world wars (that challenge American isolationism), globalization, and general fear over communist aggression. Thus, we have the American triumvirate in the mideast region: Saudi Arabi, Israel and Iran (under Reza Shah). Integrate that policy shift with what Puff is saying and you begin to realize that the US is fully capable of meddling and is not beyond reproach no matter how much nationalist dogma you want to consume.

No doubt the US meddled in getting rid of the PM, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq.

"He amassed power. When the shah refused his demand for control of the armed forces in 1952, Dr. Mosaddeq resigned, only to be reinstated in the face of popular riots.

He then displayed a streak of authoritarianism, bypassing Parliament by conducting a national referendum to win approval for its dissolution. Meanwhile, the United States became alarmed at the strength of Iran's Communist Party, which supported Dr. Mosaddeq.

In August 1953, a dismissal attempt by the shah sent Dr. Mosaddeq's followers into the streets. The shah fled, amid fears in the new Eisenhower administration that Iran might move too close to Moscow.

Yet Dr. Mosaddeq did not promote the interests of the Communists, though he drew on their support. Paradoxically, the party turned from him in the end because it viewed him as insufficiently committed and too close to the United States. By the time the royalist coup overthrew him after a few chaotic days, he had alienated many landowners, clerics and merchants."

Your statement that America put the Shah into power was incorrect. The Shah was in power since 1941 and actually appointed Mosaddeq as PM in 1951. It was a battle of wills/power and the Shah came out on top with assistance from other sources including America and Britain.

Dave: If consuming nationalist dogma is not taking any perceived anti-american statment as whole truth without researching the facts and pointing out holes in the statement, then I consume a lions share.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:hey Rifrat you know al qaeda offered a truce a while back right? Remember the terms?

Missed this. You really trust them at any point? If you do, and I don't, I'd stop at the first "requirement". That's #1 with them and it should be enough for you to see what their true agenda is.

I'm sure you'd love absolute judgement by the laws of Islam.

Bin Laden's letter to America :

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

RiffRaff wrote:No doubt the US meddled in getting rid of the PM, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq.

"He amassed power. When the shah refused his demand for control of the armed forces in 1952, Dr. Mosaddeq resigned, only to be reinstated in the face of popular riots.

He then displayed a streak of authoritarianism, bypassing Parliament by conducting a national referendum to win approval for its dissolution. Meanwhile, the United States became alarmed at the strength of Iran's Communist Party, which supported Dr. Mosaddeq.

In August 1953, a dismissal attempt by the shah sent Dr. Mosaddeq's followers into the streets. The shah fled, amid fears in the new Eisenhower administration that Iran might move too close to Moscow.

Yet Dr. Mosaddeq did not promote the interests of the Communists, though he drew on their support. Paradoxically, the party turned from him in the end because it viewed him as insufficiently committed and too close to the United States. By the time the royalist coup overthrew him after a few chaotic days, he had alienated many landowners, clerics and merchants."

Your statement that America put the Shah into power was incorrect. The Shah was in power since 1941 and actually appointed Mosaddeq as PM in 1951. It was a battle of wills/power and the Shah came out on top with assistance from other sources including America and Britain.

Dave: If consuming nationalist dogma is not taking any perceived anti-american statment as whole truth without researching the facts and pointing out holes in the statement, then I consume a lions share.

lol nice m.o.

nice try misrepresenting what i said in this thread but reread and you see what i've said fits perfectly. meanwhile you ignore your earlier claims that the U.S. had no involvement in a coup which of course is utter bullshit and you are just another lying apologist.

gg true amurican

Dave wrote:Start at the millet system and the Tanzimat and work your way forward

I've never heard of them and I know pretty much everything, so chances are Dave is just pulling your chain here.

RiffRaff wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:hey Rifrat you know al qaeda offered a truce a while back right? Remember the terms?

Missed this. You really trust them at any point? If you do, and I don't, I'd stop at the first "requirement". That's #1 with them and it should be enough for you to see what their true agenda is.

I'm sure you'd love absolute judgement by the laws of Islam.

Bin Laden's letter to America :

@ quoting a Bin Laden letter

Get fucked you halfwit dumbass, you're obviously just another redneck who ignores the flaws and faults of his country (in your case, the MANY flaws and faults) and repeats shit that is stuffed into his mouth every night at 11pm.

nope hes not, @ splish
tanzimat covers the reforms made by the
otto man ( ) empire between 1839 to 1876 and the millet system was about non-Muslim communities which were divided into millets, administrative units organized on the basis of religious affiliation rather than ethnic origin.
millets were armenian, catholic, jewish and orthadox at the head of each millet was a religious leader who answered to the sultan.
again i know its not covering the last 100 years as the puff asked for, same now as on friday night,
i cbf'ed.

btw, anyone up to answering my questions about the virgins??
edit: fonts
edit:2 @ splish

Still can't get any? Just join the US army and rape women and kids, often men as well.

Captain Mazda wrote:Still can't get any? Just join the US army and rape women and kids, often men as well.

so you mean you dont know.
wouldn't it have been easier just to shut the fuck up you spamming fool.

i cant join the US army dumb fuck as im not an american

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

Ryoki wrote:When you think about it, it was the christians that rode into the Arab lands during the crusades that changed Islam for the worse. The whole radicalism, the military concept associated with the term Jihad, the promises for holy warriors - all that comes from having to whip up an entire people into fighting for their very existance. It's a direct response to the radical thinking that caused the crusades.

Too bad it never changed back.

you're on to something here and you'll find that the West's intervention in the region mirror's this today.

We've been in their countries fucking with them for hundred's of years.

Do people like Riffraff and busetibi know that Iran had a democratically elected government several decades ago until the USA imposed the Shah as leader?

the last crusade was in 1291

in 61 BC roman troops under pompei invaded judea, Rome put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. The Romans named the area Palaestina, in (A.D. 600's), Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 A.D.

seems to me that blaming the crusades for the islam shit we have today is kinda off centre

until you remember that Bush called his war on terror a crusade

so, what exactly is this thread supposed to be about anyway?

Quashing ignorance

Captain Mazda wrote: I show my ignorance making statements that I don't have any clue about....

Fuck off homo. You know nothing about me and your ignorance is staggering.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:lol nice m.o.

nice try misrepresenting what i said in this thread but reread and you see what i've said fits perfectly. meanwhile you ignore your earlier claims that the U.S. had no involvement in a coup which of course is utter bullshit and you are just another lying apologist.

gg true amurican

You can eat shit too you anti-american dolt.

My whole argument was proving your statement below incorrect, which I did. I said there was no COUP that put the Shah into power which is correct. There was a royalist coup against the PM years after the Shah was in power. Your half-truths is what's bullshit here and thats typical blabbering from someone who really doesn't have a grasp on the big picture or reality.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Do people like Riffraff and busetibi know that Iran had a democratically elected government several decades ago until the USA imposed the Shah as leader?