Syrian Army Fully Repels ISIS Attack And Recaptures All Positions In Euphrates Valley

‘Tess and Boris’ seem to be way out of their depth. They and others of all parties have pandered to pressure groups and blackmail to support the Neo Liberal (Marxist) ideology of Identity Politics. The results of which we are enduring now. Marxist Gender Politics is the current ‘must have’ of course.

I see……Anyway, as you will agree with me – put aside my sarcasm earlier on – what is often forgotten, in and outside your kingdom – is that the UK is one of the world’s superpowers (in all sense – militarily – in the UNSC etc )…..The stance the UK takes on geopolitics/on global issues is therefore very consequential…..It is important that you get your act together and the house in order – not to blindly follow (us)the USA – especially with the likes of Donald at the helm…..

I agree with all of that . It makes sense :)

There is no chance of them getting their act together, at least not until muslems achive some kind of critical mass. It will take them a couple of decades for that.

Although I haven’t read things that Marx wrote, I am sure he never used term “Gender Politics”, nor wrote about any of the LBGTXXX BS.

Marx of course agitated for political change to include the working classes in the mid to late 19th century. However his thoughts have been the basis for much of the debasement of traditional values that we see today . whether he would have agreed with that is a moot point . He desired change from the servitude to the rich, which arguably is where much of the world is today. As always though the ideas of true revolutionary thought are often hijacked by venal men and women who seek to enslave the minds via the creation of a cult. A cult that primarily serves to empower and enrich the creators, which in a perverse way is a form of capitalism :)

I haven’t seen much feminisim in “communist” countries. Actually, Eastern Europe is the one taking a stand against the debasement of traditional values. Seems to me that “Neo Liberal (Marxist) ideology of Identity Politics” is used by the rich to manipulate the poor, which should make it anything but “Marxist”.

Yea right, Ottomans have been spreading tolerance through Europe for centuries. In recent times, tolerant people from all over the world came to Yugoslavia to spread some more tolerance.

Ottomans started with other Muslims if you didn’t know, more than a century before they set foot in Europe and continued to attack other Muslims to their very end. They attacked Iran from 15th to 20th century. They didn’t discriminate at all.

Ottomans… Should Muslims name Guy de Lusignan as the proof for all Christians’ intolerance?

So you are defending one violent Abrahamic religion by saying that there is another violent Abrahamic religion. If one adds Judaism to the mix, it turns out that all big Abrahamic religions have a lot of blood on their hands, a lot. They are even capable of temporarily reconciling their differences in order to kill some more. Nazis had no problem uniting christians and muslems in their bloodbath, and NATO continues that tradition up to this day. One looking at it from the side could say that those religions are just a tool for manipulating people. If you found yourself in the middle of Yugoslav wars, I wonder who would you shoot at?

I didn’t accuse any other religion. Almost all religions, cultures and civilizations have blood on their hands. In your examples, Ottomans didn’t attack Europe because they were Muslims and Europe was Christian, they did it because they were expansionists and their whole economy was based on looting, they didn’t care about their victims’ religions and it’s apparent because they first attacked Sunni Muslim lands (Levant and northern Africa), then Shi’a lands (Iran) and then Christians (Orthodox in northwestern Iran and Armenia, Greece and Catholic kingdoms). If there was no war for a few years their army would riot and even kill the Sultan which was not interested in war). Serbs and Magyars weren’t the only ones under Ottomans’ constant attacks but unfortunately for them, whenever Ottomans couldn’t invade Iran they turned their attention to west. You wrote it correctly. Religion was and is a tool in the rulers’ hands and they justify their actions with it.

I doubt if I participated in the battle in the former Yugoslavia. If I have to choose, I would probably shoot the ones who attacked me first and attempted to kill me and my loved ones, regardless of their religion. The exact same thing which we did when Iraq attacked us.

What I said about the older times, more than 40 years ago is the truth. If you’re not old enough to see those days please ask the people who lived then. We weren’t identified by religion then but by nationality, Arab or Iranian, unlike today which when people notice someone is a Muslim their interaction automatically will change. Tha’s the gift which the US and Saudis gave all the Muslims.

My example about Guy was meant to confirm we too shouldn’t and can’t count all Christians like Crusaders. They used religion for other goals, from looting to taking Italian boys as slaves 800 years ago. Not really related to a modern day Serb or Irish. Sorry my reply got too long. I hope you could read it all. Thanks.

I know Iran was different before islamic revolution, not to mention before initial islamisation. My point is that Abrahamic religions are intolerant by design. States based on religion are also intolerant by design, and they always have religious justification to do evil things (and the Abrahamic God doesn’t like non believers). People in Southern and Eastern Europe dislike muslims because of centuries of invasions (those in the North didn’t care because they were safe). At the beginning of 20th century it looked like it would end, but it didn’t. Saudis are just continuing same old thing. I am older than 40 and from Yugoslavia. The whole ordeal here was continuation of WWII, not much had changed. Grandsons of butchers took their knives and continued thier “tradition” (even Luftwaffe flew in). The main difference was lack of communists, and the thing that USA switched to German side (which changed the outcome). I don’t know about Irish, but modern day Serb is very much related to things that happened many centuries ago (like Battle of Kosovo). Long struggle is something that shape nation in many ways. That include stuff like love for pork meat, but also the islamisation of some that decided to switch sides. When you add split between Catholic and Orthodox Church to that, you end up in situation where people of the same blood are spilling it in the name some imported God, and in interest of rich people.

You know it’s just limited to Abrahamic religions, it’s almost all religions. Just take a look at Hinduism and the way their believers treat others when they have the upper hand. The things you mentioned is the direct result of being the neighbours of an entity named the Ottoman empire. We too have our share of their attacks. Considering Iran never had a permanent army, it’s almost a miracle various dinasties managed to push them back.

I know a few people here who stock in the past and hate Arabs for Iran’s conversion to Islam 14 centuries ago. So Serbs are just like them, seeing the world through the hardship Ottomans imposed on them centuries ago? And they blame all Muslims for Ottomans’ actions? I don’t know what to say to that. This hatred is not going to fade away, is it?

I talk about Abrahamic religions because they are dominating Europe, and that’s where I am, and what I have knowlege about. I personally think that all organised religions are shit, but can’t present valid proof for the ones I know almost nothing about. I know Iran had problems with invaders (everyone had). Maybe people who hate Arabs for Iran’s conversion to Islam are not being stuck in the past, maybe they are respecting their ancestors, traditions, where they came form and what they are. Giving up your own culture and replacing it with someone elses isn’t a thing to be proud of. Abrahamic religions are all about imposing themselfes on others. End of Ottoman Empire did not ended Ottoman “culture” in Balkans, so those hardships never actually ended (although it looked like so, after the end of WWII when communists marginalised religion). It’s not hatered, not at all. Serbs loved Gaddafi, and connections with Libya were close, up until the war that got him killed. Yugoslavia was a founding memeber of Non-Aligned Movement. On one occasion new bought T-54s for Yugoslav Army were urgently shipped to Egypt cause they needed them for a war. Kuwait bought a bunch of Yugoslav made M-84s, and they are still in use. On the other hand, Ottoman “culture” revival will instantly trigger strong self-preservation reflex.

That’s not what happened in Iran which preserved it’s language, traditions and culture and changed their religion which became so corrupt (or in fact as you wrote, it’s religious institute became so oppressing and corrupt) in it’s last days that it didn’t let the ordinary people to breath (for example according to Sassanid religious laws, sons must follow their father’s occupation and nobody except a few allowed to learn to read and write. Penalty? Death). They’re stuck in the past, believe me. They do nothing except whining and stirring hatred against a whole lot of countries, millions of people, based on what they think happened 1400 years ago.

Whenever and wherever religious institutes gain unchecked power over people’s life and death it becomes a monster.

Excuse me, I’m a bit confused here. This whole argument started because I stated that a few decades ago, there was no religious problems like today and this whole mess of extremist and terrorist “Islamic” groups is a product of US policies and Wahhabism, and you replied with giving an example of Ottomans which if I understand correctly, meant to show the Muslims’ intolerance. Do I understand correctly that “Ottoman culture” is a local phenomenon in the Balkans and Serbs only hate (or dislike if it’s not the right word) Turks because of what they did and hold no hatred or grudge against other Muslims?

Exactly. My claim is that religious problems didn’t start a few decades ago, nor a few centuries ago. They were here all the time (exept maybe where you live). My second claim is that Abrahamic religions were violent/untolerant right from their start, up to this day (just check the news). US is very young coutry, and has gained supremacy only after the WWII. Their policies did not create this mess, but are “only” stirring it up in order to “divide and conquer” or “Balkanize”. Yugoslavia is an obvious example of that. All the countries that have been subject to invasion hold “grudge” against invaders. The biger the damage the biger the “grudge”. The only one who really hates Turks are the Greeks (they still want Constantinople back, not to mention Cyprus).

I think not only in Iran, but in the rest of the world we didn’t have the extremism phenomenon. It’s an artificial problem which didn’t exist before the young US created it. Religious tolerance is the direct result of the ruler’s tolerance because religion was always a tool in the rulers’ hands, just like nationalism.

My guess is that you think like that either because your historical knowlege about the rest of the world is lacking, or your definition of extremism differs (e.g. bunch of people wouldn’t consider an SS unit of nazi muslems to be extreme enough).

Maybe both, maybe neither.

garga,

very good explanation. do you blog that i can read all your writing..?

Are you pulling my poor leg?