Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Iran has geopolitical conflict with the West, but it's a false equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Iran is a theocracy trying to control a population that growingly wants to be secular. Women in Iran go to university at higher rates than men, can drive, hold office, and vote. Life in Iran for a women is not perfect but is heaven compared to Saudi Arabia.
Iranian sponsored militias like hezbollah are in geopolitical conflicts as Iran wants more regional influence. They want regional islam. They are not trying to establish a global Shiite islamic state.
Like most things it comes down to money and power. Saudi plays ball with America economic hegemony and Iran does not. So rather than allying with the more moderate/educated nation with huge potential to be progressive, we ally with the one that is best for big business and willing to cede military control of the region to us.
The Iranian theocracy is fucked, don't get me wrong. But we really have our priorities in a mess.
Iran held US personnel as hostages for a year and imprisons our visitors. They are also sworn enemies to US Allies like Israel.
Iran is "bad" because they are our enemy. And they see the US as "bad" because we've been their enemy in the past.
There is absolutely nothing strange about the hate-filled relationship between Iran and the US. It is simple politics and history.
American was at war with Japan and Germany not to long before as well. Now we are best buddies. Things can change if the money's right.
Neither of those solutions was 'all good' so at some point the people will say 'enough'. It can take a while.
The purpose of the Guardian Council [0] is precisely to prevent such a turnaround.
All countries (or other groups) can find reasons to hate or love each other. Look at France and Germany, close allies now but plenty of opportunity for hate. All it takes is an effective political leader to manipulate the public in whatever way suits them.
The beginning of Mohammad Reza's reign was in 1941 and had nothing to do with the US. The coup (by both the US and UK) was about reversing the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, not about installing Mohammad Reza as king. Britain and the Soviet Union did that in WWII.
What is your reasoning behind this claim?
They will eventually transform into a relatively free society if we don't interfere.
I just comment on the fact that there is obviously a conflict between the well educated masses in Iran and the strict religious laws.
Can't just imagine your society will still be cutting of hands of thieves and hanging homosexuals publicly in 50 years.
Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult me. -- A non-nationalist guy
As for being a slave to credit card companies and banks: that's optional where I live.
I'm not claiming other nations are completely free, they're not. But Iran is free? Not even close.
you know why? Because they are only threat to nature of this unbeatable regime(which have money manpower and religion).but west politicians keep ignoring this fact.Iran society is way ahead of its regime.Maybe far better than turkey in term of progressiveness And regime knows perfectly. Not Isis.not USA.not Israel.non of them is serious threat for them in long term.but a huge young population with secular believes is THE most threat for regime nature.people who use internet and spend time behind porn sites and don't give fuck about Islam is the most threat (and lose) for Iran regime.
You want change middle east . change their fucking -stupid- culture with internet, with porn.
This notion from an etiquette guide to foreign culture I think is relevant.
2. It's the same here in the U.S. With all the nagging cost of education is not that high. I'm paying for my wife college.
3. You are attacking me for no reason. Once you called me dumb. But you know how the entry exam works, it is certainly not the best system for pickup up the most talented people. I'm not saying I'm talented or anything but your basis of judgment is wrong
Back to your original point in which you suggested we have decent education for cheap of free in Iran. I still disagree with you. There is only a handful of schools (Sharif and maybe Tehran) with decent teachers and some decade old equipments, other than that most of schools in Iran are inefficient and I consider them a waste of time. Azad university is more like a religious school than an art and science college. So no, we don't have "free or cheap" "decent education" "for everyone". If we had we wouldn't have such terrible society. You went to a "decent" school and living in Canada. You're considered "elite" or counted in brain drain stats! Yet, you are attacking people on internet for no reason. That's why I'm saying we have a terrible society.
To be a good contributor to this site it's best to make sure you've read the following:
We don't want to ban you! Your comments indicate a perspective that doesn't often show up here. Diverse perspectives are good for HN. But to participate effectively, you need to learn and follow the local conventions, and also understand that HN has rules, the foremost of which is civility.
I don't think you were intentionally uncivil. I do think you were unintentionally uncivil. That's nowhere near as bad, but still needs correcting.
If you want to change the West's attitude towards Iran, a good first step would be to push for the release of Jason Rezaian, and the end of state support for terrorism.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syr...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-rezaian/
That's not the sort of thing that is easily forgotten and it is one of the cornerstones of West/Islam conflict.
After that it was mostly a downward spiral, with some recent relaxation on both sides of the line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
But that didn't happen in a vacuum either. The U.S. engineered or facilitated the overthrow of a mostly democratic Iranian leader in 1953, and put in his place a mini-dynasty of dictators who brutally oppresssed Iranians, with U.S. support, until that day in 1979. I'm not saying the Iranians should have taken those innocent Americans hostage but they didn't pick the American embassy and take hostages in a random act of violence.
... and I'm sure the 1953 coup didn't happen in a vacuum either.
If you mean "US/Iran resentment" means "US resentment of Iran but not Iranian resentment of the US", I now understand what you intended. Unfortunately, your syntax is undocumented and not defined in the language standard. :)
I personally believe there is no answer to this question other than Iran's own population.
You cannot believe me , but I can see with my own eye. Every time USA or international community interfere in something all people are suspicious and whole community turn to regime supporters (you may know , being against foreign powers in middle east is one of the effective way to stay in power , and Iran's supreme leader does this in extremely effective way).
If you want to fight you can only throw this regime with only academia and liberal people through a push for reform. There is no other alternative.They cleverly managed to stop and destroy every other opposition in country.Even parties which was more than 100 years old.
I will guarantee you other way of fighting against this regime is not effective and will not effective.You want military invasion ? hell no , they will harm your military very badly , they will turn Iran worse than Vietnam and Germany in second WW.Even after changing regime they will remain active force like Al-Quada , suicidal force in society, which can change or throw government very easily.
But the increasing liberal force in Iran want reform more than ever , they pushing even badly. I am not saying it is going to be successful.No , not yet, but I am saying it can be if west does not provoke people against reform and provide platform for free information flow (which is regime nightmare)
Speaking generally, in any such situation the challengers appear to be behaving badly because they are disruptive - they have to disrupt the status quo to bring change. In the end, neither side necessarily has a more legitimate claim to power and both would do the same in the other's shoes.
I'm also not sure either side behaves better. Remember the U.S. played a major role in overthrowing a (mostly) democratic Iranian government in the 1950s, then supported a dictator who brutally oppressed the people of Iran for decades. The U.S. supports insurgent groups in and near Iran, sabotages their infrastructure (the nuclear program), imposes crippling economic sanctions, and very likely participated in the assassination of Iranian scientists. I happen to think the actions against Iran's nuclear weapons program are necessary, and Iran's government is generally a danger to many people's lives in the Mideast, but the West can hardly complain about Iran behaving badly. (And don't forget the U.S. misleading the world and invading a neighboring Mideast country for no good reason.)
US killed a lot more of the American soldiers since. You make it seems like 1000 US soldiers' concerns somehow makes huge difference in the overall geopolitics. That is just propaganda.
Many of those solders were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. Others were sent home traumatized mentally and physically.
> soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq
In general mentioning "killing by proxy" and US in the same comment is not a good idea if it is supposed to support the US position. US has killed by proxy a lot more and supported brutal regimes and dictators for many decades on almost all continents.
I believe they find in each other an enemy that helps with their narrative, without the detriment of having to deal with the danger of an erratic or unreasonable enemy.
Hang on... the USA sent armed forces 9,500 km across the globe to unilaterally invade a country literally across the border from Iran, and you reckon it's Iran's fault they were killed?
Of course Iran was going to take advantage of the situation. It's their backyard, the USA was thrashing around aimlessly and they saw an opportunity to achieve an objective to their benefit. After all they have to live beside the self-imploding remains of Iraq, they can't just climb into C-17s and say it's over.
And how 'bout all the Iranian soldiers killed by our friend and alley, Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq war? We didn't even get upset at Saddam for the USS Stark incident!
The U.S. did not 'set up' the Shah; he was the legitimate ruler of Persia. Nor did the U.S. overthrow a 'democratically-elected leader'; the Shah's legitimate government successfully defeated a coup attempt by his prime minister Mossadegh, who died peacefully under house arrest years later.
Temper runs high and patience is thin when it comes to questions like this, so it's understandable when people boil over—but it also breaks the rules of this site, which are there for good reason. Please don't post comments unless they are civil and substantive.
I'm asking because I don't see any markers indicating that it is and I get this wrong every 3rd comment or so.
If it isn't sarcasm you are somewhat mis-informed. If it is sarcasm then please ignore this comment.
As for the Shah, he was very much there with the support of the oil industry, but that doesn't make him all bad. He wanted to make Persia a modern state and in doing so upset the Mullahs which culminated in the return of banished Ayatollah Khomeini (who resided in Paris, of all places during his exile), and how that ended we probably all already know.
IIRC, he oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and killed people in large numbers, for decades.
An Introduction to the Modern Middle East: History, Religion, Political Economy by David S. Sorenson (Page 202) http://bit.ly/1S9HrTA
The Cold War Museum http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/OperationAjax.asp
If the U.S. didn't overthrow Mossadegh, why did the CIA admit to doing so years later in declassified documents?
The Ahwazi Arabs (Sunni, coincidentally) are stripped of nearly all basic human rights, enclosed in their own state essentially within Iran's borders [1]. Even the Shia in Saudi Arabia are treated better than how Iran handles the Ahwaz region.
Further, Iran loves fighting wars by proxy for some reason. Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard are roaming around Syria like they own it. Hezbollah's hold on Lebanese politics is undeniable. And of course, the funding of Houthis in Yemen who hilariously failed to execute an easy coup, the result of which started a full-blown war.
The region is in turmoil, and both sides are at fault. I personally believe that the US is entirely aware of the troubled sectarian relations in the region, and is using that as a way to get cheap oil and sell arms, which is a valid strategy.
This has to stop. The only lasting solution is dialogue.
I think lessons learned in Iraq changed the calculus for Tehran and Washington. Keeping in mind there are at least 18m Sunni muslims in Iran vulnerable to ISIS message and good number of disaffected Shia, the focus may be on stability now.
So you would rather have ISIS expanding in Syria? That's what the Iranians are fighting there.
Furthermore they were invited by the legitimate and UN recognized Syrian government to help fighting the Sunni extremists.
The hard part will, of course, be Israel's influence on western politics, since the situation is worsening there with the recent spate of stabbings and the new walls going up to protect settlements in the west bank.
With Iran and Lebanon's ties to Hezbollah, Israel will (quite reasonably, all things considered) react badly to inroads made between these countries and Israel's allies.
Source: four generations in the state department. With a majority of my father's familiar peers living in Tehran in the late 60s, fluent in Farsi...
Iranians are amazing people. Fuck that, people are amazing people... Some People are horrid humans.
I have no mercy for said horrid humans...
What people lack is a true measure of what makes a sound or terrible human in an objective way...
I have been following the politics/culture of the region for a while. I totally agree. Two examples of women, of Iranian origin, being in the news in the recent past for the best reasons.
Maryam Mirzakhani[1], who won the fields medal in Math last year. Remember reading an article, where she spoke about the Math culture at her home and College in Iran.
Another one is this US Entrepneur Anousheh Ansari[2], who also went to the ISS, and identifies herself as a dual national.
I would love to know of any examples of women in Arab (or nearby countries) having made similar achievement. Sadly, I suspect, the culture does not allow it.
It's even more insular than it used to be. Saudis used to send their kids to the US to go to college, with Government funding. Now Saudi Arabia has enough educational institutions that they don't do that.
Years ago, I met a Saudi girl finishing Stanford who mentioned she was going to drive to New Orleans. That route meant a long drive through the boring part of the US. She said it was the only time in her life she'd be allowed to drive on a long car trip. That was decades ago, and Saudi Arabia still doesn't let women drive.
Here's a good set of articles by a Saudi expat in Britain: http://muttawa.blogspot.com/
The US southwest is the boring part? You don't get those desert views anywhere else.
Virtual drive: http://www.brianfolts.com/driver/#origin=stanford&destinatio...
Either way, the US southwest desert is quite a bit different than the Saudi Arabian desert.
So no, I don't expect that a non-geologist would find the American southwest so very novel compared to Saudi. But I've never, ever been bored in the American southwest in tens of thousands of hours of travel there.
US southwest vs Saudi Arabia @ same scale http://imgur.com/a/OkRuI
I think at high levels they realize their reliance on oil will be their downfall. And they are making huge investments in education (in my experience mostly for men) and I believe renewables as well.
But the actual people in the Saudi Arabia, the commoner, is very fundamentalist.
It's a dysfunctional country propped up with a deal with the devil. The fundamentalists get most of what they want, while the royal family keeps their money and their land.
It's not an easy fix. If the world turned on the royal family, they'd fall from power and be immediately replaced by fundamentalists. Fundies now backed with the worlds largest supply of oil.
Also, the fundamentalist cancer they spread is now too far gone. Even if Saudi's went back to total poverty like they were in 100 years ago, the roots of radicalization are already in other countries.
Moderate Islam needs an organized response, but there has been none.
The sooner we figure out how to make petroleum irrelevant, the sooner places like Saudi lose their influence. Gas == War.
[1] http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_...
[2] http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MC...
I can't wait, the world can't wait any longer to end our dependence on fossil fuels. The world / middle east will be a better place if we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
May the force be with Elon Musk / Telsa ;)
The best summary I have read so far.
" Indian intelligence says that in India alone, from 2011 to 2013, some 25,000 Saudi clerics arrived bearing more than $250 million to build mosques and universities and hold seminars. "We are talking about thousands and thousands of activist organizations and preachers who are in the Saudi sphere of influence," said Usama Hasan, a researcher in Islamic studies.
These institutions and clerics preach the specifically Saudi version of Sunni Islam, the extreme fundamentalist strain known as Wahhabism or Salafism."
Source: http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-...
- Saudi Arabia has 18 million nationals. The vast majority of which are sunni salafis (the nomenclature preferred to "Wahhabism"). If Wahhabism was driving motivation for ISIS, then ISIS would have been at least 1000 times the size it is now. Which is clearly not the case.
- While ISIS has similar sounding rhetoric to some hardcore Saudi hardliners, it is almost uniformly reviled and regarded by almost everbody in Saudi as an extreme perversion. And not only since they blew up a number of mosques in the country (or since releasing that video of a Saudi ISIS member executing his own cousin who lay begging for mercy in the begining of that fateful video). But their gruesomeness is as repulsive to Saudis as it is to everbody else in the world. And they are seen as one of the biggest obstacles to the ouster of Bashar Al Assad in Syria (who is responsible for a civil war that has killed more than 200,000 people, mostly Sunni).
- The article makes little effort to distinguish between the Saudi people and the Saudi government. It demonizes the saudi populace even though it is at times the first victim of some of the unsavory consequences of the alliance between the monarchy and the "clergy" (a rather inaccurate term since there is no real hierarchy. The closest thing there is a counsel of elder scholars and those are usually selected for being unwaveringly loyal to the government). There is a subtlty to the dynamic of the populace, monarchy, and clergy that few in the west try to understand. I can expand on this later.
- None of this is to deny the existence of an activist, xenophobic, hateful, Quran-thumping segment that is a loud ultra-minority from which Alqaeda and ISIS try to recruit (with Saudi being one of the first places they often like to target). The government have clamped down HARD on the vast majority of this segment ever since the string of terrorist bombings in Riyadh in the early 2000s.
- Like I try to explain Saudi here, I often try to explain the US to people in Saudi. If there's anything you'd like me to clarify about Saudi, AMA.
" The UNHCR counts refugees by noting only those "persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection." Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees, and so through this technicality, they, along with most of their refugees, are excluded from many refugee counting mechanisms."
"With Saudi Arabia's non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi Arabia are classified as "Arab brothers and sisters in distress" instead of refugees covered by UN treaties"
"The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees."
Saudi arabia (along with most gulf states) is not. As a result they are not included in UNHCR statistics.
edit: Weird. The comements above seem different from what i remember. Either they were edited different from what i orginally replied to or i replied to wrong comment
that's just saying that they are aware of the implications, hence those in agreement might know to be quiet and.
2) goto 1
Pretty much covers it I reckon
We just have "Sharia Law" areas in the UK, honour killings in Canada, people getting shot in France and elsewhere because of drawings, etc
And if someone disagrees I'd like to hear your opinion.
No opinions, only censorship.
However: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3tkbpf/man_assaulted_...
Frankly, if a few evangelical Muslims are capable of destroying the secular foundation of your systems, those systems were weak in the first place.
"Evangelical Muslims" might be a misnomer, but I get what you're saying (and I agree mostly)
Honor killings are prohibited Islamically.
Here is an example of ISIS being denounced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ2HlIYRvCM
Ah so is it wrong? Go tell them. Also look at Apostasy and how it's dealt with in the majority of Muslim majority countries
We have proof that it is prohibited, and it is the onus of those claiming otherwise to demonstrate how it isn't. I don't known where you're saying that any Muslim professes that honor killings are allowed.
> Ah so is it wrong? Go tell them.
Many already are, as how I showed in the video I linked in my last post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251787/Muslim-fathe...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/canada-honor-killin...
The fact remains, that both of those incidents you posted are 100% against Islamic teachings. Walk to any mosque in your area and ask if you don't believe me.
We also have abortion clinic bombings, shootings and arsons done by christians. There was one recently in Pullman, WA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_...
Or when the demand for oil diminishes (holding supply constant) as battery-electric transport becomes widespread.
Not only are batteries becoming less expensive every year, but the deployment of autonomous vehicle networks (self driving Ubers) will make battery-electric transport more cost competitive by distributing the high fixed cost of the battery between many users.
As an aside, The Mersault Investigation by Kamel Daoud (author of this article) is a very interesting book. I recommend it to people who have liked The Stranger.
And with the kind of international "attention" it's getting lately, this won't change soon.
This was my old cm:
Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly.
As person who LIVES in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt - but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society should grow.
PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they see Islam against West.
Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding me, mujaheddin khalgh ? Those fucking traitors, no way.
Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR. Give them internet , provide them satellite , Facebook/twitter/YouTube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion.
Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will revive. and turn to into secular place.
and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am saying double standard.
p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something HUGE wrong with west policy in middle east.
It's hard to read, and the all caps are a bit much, but it's nice to get an outside perspective.
What we are seeing is just the result of some bad foreign policy.
about bad foreign policy I completely agree.And that was my whole point . stop killing people and overthrowing regime in Islamic areas and change your policy to show them new way of life. better way and more pleasant way.
I don't know what you were taught in Iran, but this is 100% false.
I don't know what kind of Islam you taught, but holy book is exclusively about sex and relationship as well as 99% fatwa's. You are just stating something without even explaining it . so nice . I would claim it is 100% true. You can study holy book , it almost exclusively about sex and relationship between men and women with stories -unrelated to relation- between them.
Please before giving such ridiculous answer , provide your reasons .
With all due respect, this sentence alone proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.
Fatwas are something completely different from the Quran.
> I would claim it is 100% true.
You can claim anything you want, but without proof, it is worthless.
> You can study holy book , it almost exclusively about sex and relationship between men and women with stories -unrelated to relation- between them.
The Quran does have passages about marriage, divorce, inheritance, and the like. But in no way do those constitute the majority of the Quran like you are saying.
It is sad how Iran is using religion to control the people. They picked parts of what they liked, fabricated some parts, and left out other parts. I had several Iranian colleagues when I was in school, and I could see how some of them were very displeased with the government. Please don't take it out on the religion.
Can I ask you if you were taught by the Iranian government to hate (or at least look down on) Arabs?
Wtf? I taught by Iranian government to hate Arabs? Dude Iranian government is Arab.they dont give fuck about Iran.they spend money for Arab countries more than they do for our own country.they build their whole ideology on this.if any one had clue what is going on Iran , they would understand how much and how deep you are ignorant in term of Iranian government policy.
First of all I don't give fuck about race.then I don't care you are Arab or Jew or anything else.Human are humans, I don't believe in race.we are all some kind of advanced animal.
>With all due respect, this sentence alone proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. Fatwas are something completely different from the Quran.
Did you even read my comment? where did you get that? Fatwa and guran is the same thing? Are fucking kidding me.I compelled to study religon simultaneously with other thing in 12 years. I am not religious scholar , but I have read Quran , and some main text for hadith and sunnat. Have you read guran? I read it.two different translation.very approved and good translation to Persian.Khorasani and Ghomshei.
With respect I feel sorry for you.guran is not about sex? Dude the whole book is about sex and power.
>fabricated some parts
fabricated the religion? The whole religion is about lie and fabrication .
I respect you personally. But I don't give fuck about guran or your religious believe which is lie.
Does that include Rouhani and the Ayatollas? This is something new. Or are you just saying that they are allying with the Arabs?
> I don't care you are Arab or Jew or anything else...
I'm not talking about you, I was just asking about what the Iranian government is teaching its population. One of my Iranian colleagues told me how they taught them that Arabs are backward and barbarics, and that only Islam saved them. I wanted to get another anecdote.
> Have you read guran? I read it.two different translation.very approved and good translation to Persian.Khorasani and Ghomshei.
Yes, I read it in Arabic.
> With respect I feel sorry for you.guran is not about sex? Dude the whole book is about sex and power.
Again, not true. Should I pick out random passages from it to prove you wrong?
> fabricated the religion? The whole religion is about lie and fabrication .
Unfortunately, there are many fabricated stories that exists in the Twelver books. We know this because we have a strict way of classifying which narrations are authentic, which are weak, and which are fabricated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_Hadith
Both. Yes they are Arabs. for example you can search Iraqi people in Iran's regime. or People they call "Seyed".which means they have arab roots.Which is more than 20+ of people.and for specific people in root of power you can search about Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi .(or Mohammad Reza Naqdi or so many others) And second one is true also, They are ripping Iran in favor of Arab countries which Iran's people naturally don't give fuck about them.
They are basically trying to be hero in middle east , because they don't have option other than that, because whole region is dominated by sunni Muslims who basically hate shia.They are trying to be hero in Palestine issue, not because they give fuck about Palestine . because they want impose their hegemony to other countries.and being hero is always best figure.
>I'm not talking about you, I was just asking about what the Iranian government is teaching its population. One of my Iranian colleagues told me how they taught them that Arabs are backward and barbarics, and that only Islam saved them. I wanted to get another anecdote.
Are fucking kidding me ? last time I checked you comment , your sentence was "Can I ask you if you were taught by the Iranian government to hate (or at least look down on) Arabs?"
This only can show how much your claims and statements are stupid and meaningless . When you use "YOU" in your sentence. This means you are pointing to your next person.
>Yes, I read it in Arabic. Then if you don't lie (which I cannot believe), then you should know they only incentive for people for being good is sex and 72 virgin . that's all . the whole stupid religion hinges on that .
>Unfortunately, there are many fabricated stories that exists in the Twelver books. We know this because we have a strict way of classifying which narrations are authentic, which are weak, and which are fabricated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_Hadith
You seem have problem with reading my comment , and with out reading it trying to answer , which most of the time are false.Again , seems you have problem with understanding logical statement (as most of religious people, sadly and respectfully). I did claim simple thing, but you turn it to completely other thing, and your in imaginary world you make an answer up and give it to me.
I should end this conversation . Sadly and respectfully , because as always . religious people. instead seeing simple claim, they turn it to whole another thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani#Early_life_and_...
Where does it say Rouhani is Arab?
> because they want impose their hegemony to other countries.
So you're saying they are trying to take over the region?
> Are fucking kidding me ? last time I checked you comment , your sentence was "Can I ask you if you were taught by the Iranian government to hate (or at least look down on) Arabs?"
I think you're having a hard time understanding what I wrote, maybe I could have phrased it better. You said you don't hate anyone, but that doesn't mean that the Iranian government didn't try to teach you to (and failed).
> Then if you don't lie (which I cannot believe), then you should know they only incentive for people for being good is sex and 72 virgin
Can you show me where it says about the 72 virgins in the Quran?
> I did claim simple thing, but you turn it to completely other thing, and your imaginary world you make an answer up and give it to me.
You said the religion is about fabrication, I responded that no, we don't fabricate our religion, and I showed you proof.
I see where you are coming from, and I am in agreement with this element of your comment. Backward, unproductive ideologies will not stand the test of time and will eventually crumble under the pressure of globalization unless they can bring tremendous force to bear against the rest of the world. I think what you say will be useful in the future, but the question is what do we do right now? Do we sit back and let ISIS attack Europe without responding? Do we let Russia deal with the issue? Are we willing to allow further areas to be destabilized?
Yet they still kill.
In fact if most of the isis fighters do co e from the west, that goes for most of them too.
So imho this explanations doesn't work.
Let middle East alone.West has 50 year of stupid policy history in middle East.invasion a country, are you fucking kidding me.do you want bring democracy with that.yeap,of course invasion will generate Osama bin laden and like those.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
Is this article really appropriate for Hacker News?
I thought the article was interesting too. I just don't like what HN did with it.
This concern is perennial. I recall having the same debate many times with you and davidw years before I ever worked on HN. And I am happy to report that my view has shifted a lot closer to the two of yours since then! But is there reason to believe this has deteriorated recently? An external provocation (ISIS and Paris attacks) has certainly spiked, as happens quarterly or so, but I don't see that the HN-community-system is markedly different.
The difference is that the stories you'd see today are more focused: where before you'd see the occasional Ron Paul story, or something about Israel, or something about the banksters, today you're almost certainly going to see a police misconduct or asset forfeiture story.
What there should be is a clearer guideline. "Don't post stories about politics or religion".
You didn't do anything wrong btw. HN reacts how it reacts. Having a wide range of stimuli is important; a few lead to madness, but it wears off.
The thing to optimize for is story diversity, because that's what serves the site goal of intellectual curiosity. If you (or anyone) really want to up your game of contributing to HN, scour the Internet for out-of-the-way things that readers here haven't heard of and will get all perky and curious in response to. Those are the best posts and there are never enough of them.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/110928687...
Muslims from different all sects can go for Hajj and are not executed for heresy because of their sectarian background.
Saudi Arabia has diplomatic relations and is a signatory to various international agreements.
One of the problems with Daesh is that they seem to be incapable of doing any of these things not because they haven't "made it", but because they are ideologically opposed to it.
Of course, none of this is officially documented, just like how not a dollar its whereabouts, of the 40 billion dollar cash the United States sent to Iraq circa 2004, is documented.
It is no secret the United States have selectively supported "freedom fighters" and militant groups when they deemed that would be more productive for the petrodollar and their Zionist friends than putting their own boots on the ground. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, Gadaffi, ISIS and countless of others have all been supported by the United States and their removal has always been justified either because they turned their back on the United States and their allies (with Zionists being the most prominent) - or because they could be replaced by a better/cheaper/more productive puppet.
--edit: if you are downvoting this reply, consider offering substantial content to the discussion instead of trying to cloak statements which do not strike well with your opinion or observation of geopolitics. Thanks in advance.
Not really. United States sponsored other opponents to Assad, which were then sufficiently marginalized as to be either annihilated or convert to Daesh, but they clearly weren't Daesh at the time.
Here, educate yourself on how wars work: https://www.facebook.com/UniversalFreePress/videos/110928687...
That said, Saudi arabia enjoys healthy support from the west and has done so right from its inception. The country is barely 100yrs old and Britain played an instrumental role in creating the country as well as shaping most of the middle east. That has striking parallels to what is going on with ISIS right now.
Here is a well researched lecture on the subject by Dr Yasir Qadhi:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=659f5wuTgzY
You'll need to watch part 2 as well to get the full picture and if you have time might also want to watch the video on the creation of Israel which is equally damning.
And regards ISIS here's Putin's statement -- that interestingly was not covered by western media -- but is congruent with the lecture and my point above.
Please feel free to do your own independent, balanced research.
The page says "The Opinion Pages"
MSM is full of opinion; I'm just happy when they label it opinion and not "news".
US and Saudis are both funding ISIS, and the latter cannot do it without the permission of the former.
Come again?
hu, secular???
It seems very plausible to me, that he is spot on with the article. Should be plastered all over the billboards and newspapers. Good to read some 'straight talk'.
That is an interesting metaphor.
So ISIS is an illegitimate child of George W Bush then.
Just look at our political debates. All of the talk is dumbed down, feel-good, wishy-washy moral statements about religion, God, pretentious ideologies about "freedom", "being the beacon of the world", etc.
Our leaders came from society. All of this is our collective fault. We all can and need to do better.
Don't get me wrong. I am sure Saudi Arabia is much worse. They don't even allow women to vote and treat them like objects. Well, we were there not that long ago.
So like I said, we're most likely better, but not angels.
Apparently, then the death of dozens of innocent civilians which had no choice other than getting trapped between bombs falling from the sky or ISIS militants controlling the city borders, is justified because "look what happened in Paris!".
And what about France's own colonial and terrorist in Africa that no one wants to talk about?
Ahem, Fox News