[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
It is, and the minute you include the diaspora, which can vote, still have a property in the country, still participate in the country economically with a third of the economy based on the diaspora, and still have Lebanese nationalities, (like me for example) the number goes down to around 20% of the population.

Oh well then you can count them in I guess.

I was just emphasizing that the Lebanese that I quoted live in Lebanon and their opinions are shaped by that fact.

I'm not saying Lebanese diaspora aren't Lebanese, they can be whatever they want it's up to them, but when you're making the claim that most Lebanese don't identify as Arab you're going to want domestic opinions.

I have several pages of evidence and statements from Lebanese living in Lebanon that say that most of them identify as Arab and anyone saying anything is just a minority position. Many of them have never seen someone say they're Phoenician or non-Arab in real life.

Israeli invasion was first welcomed, then the hostilities began latter on.

You just moved goalposts from saying "everyone liked the Israeli invasion" to "everyone liked it until later on".

Every source, everyone who lived through it, everyone who fought in the civil war, etc knows this.

Well then you're going to have to talk to the Lebanese who said otherwise because they disagree.

You're wrong. Saying "yes it is" isn't an argument.

Heck the issue is so well known that the Arab world still dislikes Lebanese Shias and Christians for inviting Israel.

I've never seen Arabs outside of Lebanon even know Israel was invited so that's BS too.

This isn't a debatable subject, it's simply a fact.

It's not a fact because Lebanese people disagree. Actual Lebanese people who live in Lebanon and aren't diaspora.

Saying it's a fact won't make it so no matter how many times you say it.

The hostilities began at the late 80s and early 90s, not in the early 80s.

Ok?

Really ? Go ask them what were the manifestos of the participating factions? And what are the 2 sides usually called.

I just posted the reddit post and quotes of people's thoughts on Israel and invasion. I'm not going to post it again.

You just need to bother reading it.

[Quotw]
You haven't talked to any Lebanese people who know the civil war, nor have you even read any of their work, which is obvious by the fact that you don't know the very basic distinction between the 2 main sides of the war. [/quote]

Read the reddit posts I've posted. They are from Lebanese people who wrote about the subject. If I was lying, you can easily prove it by reading the reddit posts.

And honestly you're dodging the point that you think anyone who identifies as Arab is an Arab nationalist.

Your, and their, opinions are irrelevant to the facts on the ground.

What facts? You haven't given any. Here's a list of what I've offered:

1. A full list of every single person who identified as Arab in Lebanon from the 11th to 20th century.

2. Quotes from other real Lebanese people who've either experienced or had relatives who've experienced the war.

3. Quotes from other real life Lebanese people who identify as Arab and have never seen a Lebanese in real life claim they weren't Arab.

4. A historical academic work detailing the creation of the idea of Lebanon which comes from the 1920s and not from thousands of years ago.

5. Evidence that Arabs were in Lebanon since the Ancient Greeks.

You have:

1. A vague quote CIA report that you refuse to give me the origins of

2. One person's account of the Israeli invasion compared to the dozens of accounts I've given.

You have no facts. You're the only one here spreading opinions and lies.

Heck, the factions that don't identify as Arab or are anti Arab are even having fucking majorities in the parliament.

Name them please

You continuoing to parrot the bullshit line about how "Lebanese people disagree with you" when on the ground, the facts are contrary and support my position.

In a discussion about what Lebanese people identify as, the opinions of actual Lebanese people are very important.

You have no facts on the ground. None.

The constitution was written as non-Arab.
The national pact was written as non-Arab.

So was the US constitution but the US still has a majority white population.

Also the Lebanese constitution is tolerant and secular of other ethnic groups, not "non" or "anti" Arab.

The civil war was fought between Lebanese nationalists and Arab nationalists.

Just because you identify as Arab doesn't mean you're an Arab nationalist.

The current divide in the government is between Pro-Arab and Anti-Arab factions.

I want articles that specifically say "pro-Arab" and "anti-Arab". Islamism isn't a pro-Arab faction btw.

And you come here to quote a bunch of randos and say they're representative of a majority.

They're better than just one person making unsubstantiated claims like you.

They're better evidence than anything you could pull up. It's obvious why it took you so long to give me polls or solid evidence of Lebanese people not identifying as Arab other than roundabout statement and unbacked claims.

You have posted a short list of people who lived in Lebanon and identified as Arabs.
That's a shitty source because I can easily find a list of people in England identifying as non English, in France identifying as non-French, in Rome identifying as non-Roman, in Russia identifying as non-Russian, and that would sure as hell wont make these nations less of who they are, no matter how many centuries the list covers.

It's from the r/lebanon subreddit. It's like the second largest place (outside of WhatsApp) that Lebanese people gather in.

I'm not talking about a niche place, this is a general place of discussion we're talking about. They're just regular people who don't even care about politics and they casually identify as Arab.

Your argument doesn't hold up.

We all know Arabs migrated all over the place, just like everyone else. That doesn't make anything they touch Arab.

You know what does? Identifying as an Arab.

The constitution and the national pact were made specifically to appease the population to ensure no conflict would arise.
Because the Sunnis overwhelmingly identified as Arabs and the Maronites refused to let the constitution say Lebanon was an Arab country, the Shias on the other hand were divided between the two. So the constitution named it a multi cultural and multi ethnic country, and the national pact specified these ethnic and cultural groups.
I've already posted a source from the AUB several times so far detailing the manner and citing everything.

I'm pretty sure that Maronites also mostly identify as Arab based on my discussions with Lebanese and their reddit posts.

Just like a America's constitution. It's neutral. That doesn't mean most people don't identify as Arab.

If you had the "actual thoughts of Lebanese", then the constitution would be different, the national pact wouldn't exist, the civil war wouldn't have happened, and the Lebanese government and parliament today would be very different.

Yeah well America is majority white despite the constitution not saying America is a white country.

You don't have any academic articles on your side, so far all you posted were red herrings that didn't give any actual evidence of anything, which is why I simply ignore them.

How were they red herrings? Tell me.

If they did, Lebanon and all of its history would be very different.

No it wouldn't. Identifying as Arab doesn't change anything. You just mistakenly think identifying as Arab means something because you also retardedly think that religion or ethnicity determines behavior over socio economic conditions or culture.

Read the quote you wrote this to.

I have.

This is known as a strawman, you've used it several dozen times constantly changing the topic in your response to a quote to make it seem as another argument was being used. It doesn't work.

Prove it.

The civil war, the main Lebanese factions were split into two sides, Lebanese nationalists and Arab nationalists.

Give me proof that's what they were called.

We can indeed go on sheer numbers.
Lebanese people are overwhelmingly sided or counted in with factions. The factions holding my views are the larger ones and comprise much of the population.

I'm not sure your factions align with your views as much as you would think.

A white nationalist may vote Republican but that doesn't mean the Republican Party is white nationalist.

They do, especially nowadays.

Yeah ok, I'm not trusting anything you say.

Also, you accuse me of lying (Which I either saw here or in the other thread, but it appears you edited out by the time I came back to respond, next time I'll take a screenshot, no worries) while everything you say about your self is clearly false and easily provable.

I didn't edit anything so I guess you don't know how to read.

And what about myself? Are conflating me with Arabs?

You can go around in my history on this forum or see anyone familiar with me, I give lots of personal information and anyone who feels they want to come around, meet me, and verify anything be it about me, my community, etc are free to do so. I even gave my address several times.

That's not what I meant by lying.

You on the other hand, it's obvious you're lying about who you are, atleast the fact that you "live in Syria" and "15 years old". Bitch, I know what Syria is like nowadays.
You aren't living in Syria if you're on at this time.

You don't have to believe me. I don't care.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

You just moved goalposts from saying "everyone liked the Israeli invasion" to "everyone liked it until later on".

No, I didn't. I stated from my very first post at page one that the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon began latter on, specifically due to the actions of the south Lebanon army.
At the start, the Israelis were invited in.

Well then you're going to have to talk to the Lebanese who said otherwise because they disagree.

You're wrong. Saying "yes it is" isn't an argument.

The ones who didn't like it are the ones which the Israelis were invited to fight.
How the fuck are you not getting this yet?

I've never seen Arabs outside of Lebanon even know Israel was invited so that's BS too.

It's not a fact because Lebanese people disagree. Actual Lebanese people who live in Lebanon and aren't diaspora.

Saying it's a fact won't make it so no matter how many times you say it.

Really? You seem to go around social media alot, you never came across Arabs attacking Lebanese people for welcoming the Israelis with flowers and rice?
You never came across the meme of Lebanese people throwing flowers at Israelis as a bash to Lebanese people?
You're an Arab who lives in the middle east, but you never ever came across a major cultural mark.

An article from the period
https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0806/080644.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/08/worl ... anese.html
And many many more easily found.
Israel went in to remove the PLO and already was assisting in arms and supplies for a while prior as I have already stated.
The Israeli intervention welcomed by Shias and Christians alike, but despised by Sunnis because they were fighting on the side of the Palestinians.

the Northern Command would embark on a campaign including an invasion of Lebanon, for a threefold purpose – to wipe out the PLO forces, push out the Syrian army and get as far as Beirut to help Israel’s darling, Bashir Gemayel, get elected president.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/wit ... -1.5451086

This is a commonly known fact, everyone who's been there, known someone who've been there, or read the history knows this.
Using a retarded argument like "there are some who didn't like it", ofcourse there is, it was a civil war and Israel was invited to help one side over the other.

I just posted the reddit post and quotes of people's thoughts on Israel and invasion. I'm not going to post it again.

The ones who do mention it talk about the hostilities, not the early days of the intervention.
Thing I've mentioned several times, including in my very first post here.

1. A full list of every single person who identified as Arab in Lebanon from the 11th to 20th century.

Something I already explained, so far 7 times, why is not a prove of anything.

2. Quotes from other real Lebanese people who've either experienced or had relatives who've experienced the war.

Something I already addressed twice, but you don't seem to be capable of understanding.

3. Quotes from other real life Lebanese people who identify as Arab and have never seen a Lebanese in real life claim they weren't Arab.

Something I already addressed several times, and used the real factions and political parties in the country to disprove that it's not the only standpoint nor is the "overwhelming majority" as you claim.

4. A historical academic work detailing the creation of the idea of Lebanon which comes from the 1920s and not from thousands of years ago.

A book that talks about the republic, not the country.

5. Evidence that Arabs were in Lebanon since the Ancient Greeks.

Evidence that there were people who are either Arabs or Aramaeans living in the area alongside other native tribes. In which I responded to by guiding you to the Aramaic church which are the descendants of these semi-nomadic tribes (the Itureans)

2. One person's account of the Israeli invasion compared to the dozens of accounts I've given.

You have no facts. You're the only one here spreading opinions and lies.

I have a common known fact, reported all over the world in international news covering the war, known so much that many Arabs, specifically Palestinians still use to bash Lebanese Christians and Shias with to this very day.
You, on the other hand, brought a few posts about the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, which came years after the invasion.

Name them please

Kata'b, Quwat, Micheal Aoun's groups (mainly Islah wal taghier, but he's connected to multiple), around half the Druze, the Baalbek tribes, Zahleh Maronites, The east Orthodox Church and its followers, the Aramaic church and its followers, and most of the Maronite groups in the mountain and the coastal cities north of Beirut.

In a discussion about what Lebanese people identify as, the opinions of actual Lebanese people are very important.

And the opinion of the Lebanese people can more accurately identified by which faction they follow. Bringing a group of posts on reddit doesn't do the trick, the politics in the country does.

Just because you identify as Arab doesn't mean you're an Arab nationalist.

When you're in an armed militia fighting for Arab nationalism, you are an Arab nationalist.

They're better than just one person making unsubstantiated claims like you.

My unsubstantiated claims that is represented in actual political parties and movements acting in the Lebanese scene as we speak, and are shown clearly with the wars fought in Lebanon in the past decades, the documents and policies inacted, etc.
Very unsubstantiated.

You know what does? Identifying as an Arab.

Some people do, not all, and not a majority.

I'm pretty sure that Maronites also mostly identify as Arab based on my discussions with Lebanese and their reddit posts.

Then I'm sure the current problems in Lebanon happening for this very reason was just a dream and everything is fine in reality.

How were they red herrings? Tell me.

A red herring is:

a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

Your "proofs" are a bunch of posts by random people online meant to lead to the believe that your argument is strongly supported and substantiated even when it goes agaisnt all the historical and present events, policies, conflicts, and documents showing otherwise.
It is meant to distract from the reality of the subject and give a false impression. As such, red herring.

No it wouldn't. Identifying as Arab doesn't change anything. You just mistakenly think identifying as Arab means something because you also retardedly think that religion or ethnicity determines behavior over socio economic conditions or culture.

It surely would mean the civil war wouldn't have happened.
Nor would the 1958 crisis, or the 1960s clashes, nor will the national pact and all the consequent policies would've existed.

Give me proof that's what they were called.

Read any book about the civil war, or any of the manifestos of the parties, it's all over the place.

I'm not sure your factions align with your views as much as you would think.
A white nationalist may vote Republican but that doesn't mean the Republican Party is white nationalist.

Your constant comparisons to the US politics is useless, the US is a two party system while Lebanon is a multi party system.
If the US had a multiparty system, the white nationalists would be their own party, not a subgroup inside one of the two major parties.
Like in the UK for example.

I didn't edit anything so I guess you don't know how to read.

You said I lied multiple times, don't try to deny it.

[Palmyrene]

@anasawad

Yeah ok this is a waste of time. I have a life, things to do, and translations to be writing.

I don't see a point in arguing. Clearly there's no point in convincing you and convincing you won't do anything anyways so I'm not going to bother.

I'm sure that a majority of Lebanese people identify as Arab. I've talked to and have read the posts of Lebanese online and they mostly identify as Arab, don't support Israel, and don't hate Muslims or whatever.

Nothing you say is going to change that.

[Political Interest]

There was remarkably little resistance by Vietnam's majority Buddhist culture either t French colonisation, the Papist elite that took control after France left or the Communists who also sought to destroy Vietnam's traditional culture.

Vietnam was in a weakened state when the French were able to take over.

In the end the Vietnamese people succeeded in throwing off foreign rulers and good on them for doing so.

:lol: They surrendered to the Turks, they surrendered to the British and French and in Syria the Muslim majority has surrendered to the Alawite minority. In Palestine they were thrashed by a smaller number of Jews. No surrendering is one of the few things Muslim Arabs are actually good at. So called Palestine resistance consists of trying to get their kids shot or bombed so as people in the West will feel sorry for them and sympathise with them.

No Muslim Arabs know they are so pathetic that 300 Million of them have got no chance of taking on 6 million Jews.

Well they're still trying.

Anyhow, why do you support Israel? It's cruel to not let a people live in peace in their own land.

[skinster]

Anyhow, why do you support Israel? It's cruel to not let a people live in peace in their own land.

Racism, basically. He's a racist. Anyone who supports Israel is.

[anasawad]

@skinster
Not really, not always.

For some groups in the middle east, Israel is the lesser of two evils. One doesn't need to agree with Israeli policies or support it to take its side.
I for one disagree with most Israeli policies, but as stated prior, if the choice is allying with the various Islamists spread around or Israel, Israel will always be the obvious choice because it's a far lesser evil.

[Palmyrene]

@anasawad

You do know Israel funds Islamists and is allies with Saudi Arabia and the US, which also funds Islamists right?

You're not making any sense. You don't make any sense at all. In fact, fighting Islamists won't get rid of them you have to deal with the reason why people join Islamist groups in the first place.

[anasawad]

@anasawad

You do know Israel funds Islamists and is allies with Saudi Arabia and the US, which also funds Islamists right?

And Iran does arm such groups in countries like Afghanistan, and, occasionally, Somalia, Sudan, And Libya.
That, however, does not mean Iran creates or inspires these groups, nor does Israel for that matter.
Opportunism is expected in a cold war.

In fact, fighting Islamists won't get rid of them you have to deal with the reason why people join Islamist groups in the first place.

Poor socio-economic conditions radicalizes people. However, the form of radicalism is not pre-defined.
Islamists are not all "poor", many, if not most, are middle or upper classes.
To eliminate Islamism, Islam must be neutered.
to eliminate radicalism, cultural reforms.

And no, improving the economic conditions in the middle east won't cure radicalism; To cure radicalism, the root causes causing it along with causing the poor economic conditions must be addressed, which is the culture that exists.

You're not making any sense. You don't make any sense at all.

It makes absolute sense, and anyone with a thorough look can see it.
You simply don't know much, if at all, about the middle east, nor geopolitics or wartime politics and economics; Which is why you have troubles understanding it.

[skinster]

Not really, not always.

Yes really, yes always. Israel is racist towards Palestinians by either forcing them to live under military occupation or inside a concentration camp, simply for race-based reasons. Apartheid is a racist system of law that denies Palestinians the equal rights with Jews in Palestine simply for who they are and right after their country was stolen from them to the present day. It was racist under South Africa and it's racist under Israeli rule. How is Israel not racist? Citation needed.

For some groups in the middle east, Israel is the lesser of two evils.

Who? And that excuses their ongoing brutality on Palestinians?

One doesn't need to agree with Israeli policies or support it to take its side.

If you don't oppose it you support Israel, whether through your silence or otherwise. Although here you've shared how you do support Israel in certain scenarios, who knows what they are...

I for one disagree with most Israeli policies, but as stated prior, if the choice is allying with the various Islamists spread around or Israel, Israel will always be the obvious choice because it's a far lesser evil.

Which Islamists in Palestine or elsewhere are you talking about?

And as stated above, Israel allies with Islamists. We saw that very recently when they were arming and treating Al-Qaeda offshoot Al-Nusra Front in Golan, before sending them back to fight the Syrian army. Perhaps this is one of the scenarios where you support Israel over the Syrian army and people, but uh, I thought you were opposed to Islamists.

[Palmyrene]

And Iran does arm such groups in countries like Afghanistan, and, occasionally, Somalia, Sudan, And Libya.
That, however, does not mean Iran creates or inspires these groups, nor does Israel for that matter.
Opportunism is expected in a cold war.

1. Then why are you complaining about Islamists if you're fine with countries funding them?

2. You really don't get it. They are funding the Islamists which I am under the impression you dislike.

Poor socio-economic conditions radicalizes people. However, the form of radicalism is not pre-defined.
Islamists are not all "poor", many, if not most, are middle or upper classes.

Not quite. The leaders are of upper class given you need alot of wealth to initially fund a terrorist group.

However what contributes to a great deal of their membership are lower classes.

In fact, given the clandestine nature of these groups, most terrorist cells are autonomous and independently run by mostly lower classes who only associate with the leadership.

Remember ISIS was started by a low life criminal who was too radical for Al Qaeda and formed his own group.

To eliminate Islamism, Islam must be neutered.
to eliminate radicalism, cultural reforms.

That's how lead to more radicalism. For someone who lives in Lebanon and has all these ties to Islamic countries, you seem to have so little understanding on what most people think or believe in.

Whatever, if you do become a politician or something and usurp power in Lebanon, I'll take advantage of the discontent which results from your rule.

And no, improving the economic conditions in the middle east won't cure radicalism; To cure radicalism, the root causes causing it along with causing the poor economic conditions must be addressed, which is the culture that exists.

Culture adapts to environmental and economic conditions. This because humans are economic animals. Our societies are based on our relationships with each other and these relationships shift depending on the environment.

It makes absolute sense, and anyone with a thorough look can see it.
You simply don't know much, if at all, about the middle east, nor geopolitics or wartime politics and economics; Which is why you have troubles understanding it.

No. I don't have trouble understanding. I've went through that "Islam is the root of all bad! Atheism rocks!" phase and I've just grown up and realized how childish that is.

You haven't.

[Hindsite]

@Palmyrene

As anasawad pointed out, in our world of evil it has become necessary to pick the lesser of evils to support. And also you must have heard the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The USA considers Iran a greater enemy and therefore we support Saudi Arabia because they are a good ally against Iran. That is also why Israel supports Saudi Arabia because they at least don't refer to the USA and Israel as the big and little Satans. The support for Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with supporting the Islamic religion, but is strictly for strategic safety reasons for the region.

Saudi Arabia has also been changing and giving their women more freedom in their government, but it takes time to change like it did for the USA to give our women the right to vote. I had an uncle that had a work contract in Saudi Arabia for awhile and he told me that he lived like a king and loved it over there. I believe Iran would have had him in prison accused of spying or something.

I don't know of anyone in my family that does not supports Israel, because we are not anti-Semitic.
Praise the Lord.

[Palmyrene]

@Hindsite , Saudi Arabians hate America just as much as Iranians do. The only difference is that Saudi Arabia is an American puppet so they can't show it.

Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran on the topic of women's rights. They're not even allowed to drive! In Islam women are allowed to drive! They're so extremists they don't even follow Islam!

[Palmyrene]

@anasawad

If you get Hindsite agreeing with you on something related to the Middle East you know you fucked something up.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

1. Then why are you complaining about Islamists if you're fine with countries funding them?

The only reason some countries can take use of these groups to further their interests is that these groups already exist.

However what contributes to a great deal of their membership are lower classes.

Actually no, there are tons of members joining these groups who are anything but lower classes. And there are entire countries with massive wealth with populations that holds these exact believes.
Not sure if you heard of them before.

That's how lead to more radicalism.

Cultural reforms leads to more radicalism ?

For someone who lives in Lebanon and has all these ties to Islamic countries, you seem to have so little understanding on what most people think or believe in.

I know exactly what common mentalities there exists in these communities as I've lived among them for most of my life, and I know for a fact with full certainty that poverty is not the lead cause of Islamic radicalism since most of the people joining these groups are middle and upper working class people, not lower classes.
In Jordan, the most place of recruitment for ISIS was the Bani Sakher tribe in the south, to a point of raising ISIS flags all over Ma'an. Bani Sakher tribe is a bedouin tribe with significant wealth and owns large portions of the mining projects in the south with a welfare system better than that of Kuwait.
Yet most of ISIS's recruits came from them, not from the dead poor areas in Amman or the east. Because the people on the very bottom of the chain are the most risk averse.

That, for example, is why North Korea doesn't have a revolution yet. People are too poor to risk it, give them some basic living standards and turn them to upper-working class or lower-middle class, and you'll get protests and revolts in no time.

Whatever, if you do become a politician or something and usurp power in Lebanon, I'll take advantage of the discontent which results from your rule.

Culture adapts to environmental and economic conditions

It's a two way street.

This because humans are economic animals.

Social Animals.

No. I don't have trouble understanding. I've went through that "Islam is the root of all bad! Atheism rocks!" phase and I've just grown up and realized how childish that is.

You haven't.

I'm agnostic, and I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with one very specific school of thought in one specific sect in one specific religion.

That school of thought is the root of much of the problems in the middle east at the moment.

@skinster

Yes really, yes always. Israel is racist towards Palestinians by either forcing them to live under military occupation or inside a concentration camp, simply for race-based reasons. Apartheid is a racist system of law that denies Palestinians the equal rights with Jews in Palestine simply for who they are and right after their country was stolen from them to the present day. It was racist under South Africa and it's racist under Israeli rule. How is Israel not racist? Citation needed.

Israel being racist doesn't mean that others stopped being racists as well.
It's not all black and white. Both sides can be shit.

And in the middle east, especially now and in the times to come things will get much worse in the coming years, you won't have the luxury to point fingers at others, you either choose the least bad ally you can get or prepare to for your end.
As I've said many times on this forum before, the big wars are just starting in the middle east, the water wars are on their way as droughts are spreading, and the cold war is just starting to heat up.
From the perspective of Lebanon and Lebanese people, Israel is infact the safest option because Israel is the least bad of our options, since all the other options are ones who not only believe we're a bunch of infidels, heretics, and apostates but are willing to act on it.
Israel is right next to us, we share resources, and we have the closest thing to a socially liberal culture so we can get along in the right circumstances. That can not be said for the rest.

Even with Syria, the Syrian crimes in Lebanon have already sat in and they wont be forgotten by anyone in Lebanon for a long time since the people who experienced them are still now in their 30s and 40s. So not only Syria is split between Islamists who wouldn't mind killing us because we're infidels and fascists who wouldn't mind killing us because we don't submit or "ideologically impure", it's already an established enemy.

Who? And that excuses their ongoing brutality on Palestinians?

It doesn't, but I can assure you, if you think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is bad and horrible, you probably would want to stay clear of the news in the coming years.
Heck, in some spots, the news is already horrible right now and far worse than in Palestine.

If you don't oppose it you support Israel, whether through your silence or otherwise. Although here you've shared how you do support Israel in certain scenarios, who knows what they are...

Not all countries or groups have that luxury. Sometimes you have to skip morality and focus on pragmatism to ensure your survival. Even if it meant dealing with the devil.

Which Islamists in Palestine or elsewhere are you talking about?

In Palestine, we can easily point the finger to Hamas, which was started by members of the Muslim brotherhood, which itself had a branch called Al-Jama'a Al-Islamiyah in the Levant. I'm sure you can read on these guys' history.

In the wider region, just throw a dart on the map, and you'll probably hit a location where they exist. The radical Hanbali school of thought with its manifestations like the Wahabis, the Salafists, the Deobandi, etc are effectively everywhere right now and still spreading.

And as stated above, Israel allies with Islamists. We saw that very recently when they were arming and treating Al-Qaeda offshoot Al-Nusra Front in Golan, before sending them back to fight the Syrian army. Perhaps this is one of the scenarios where you support Israel over the Syrian army and people, but uh, I thought you were opposed to Islamists.

And as I stated above, opportunism doesn't mean creation.
Israel did support some of these groups, and so did Iran, and so did some arms merchants in my own neighborhood in Sharawneh in Baalbek.
Primarily because we're enemies with the fascist Syrian government that we spent decades at war with, and saw it as an opportunity to weaken the Baathists and potentially destroy them as they, without a doubt, committed far more crimes and massacres than Israel ever did, and not just against us.

That, however, does not mean those Islamists suddenly became allies. The minute they came close to the borders we started killing them, and I was there not just heard about it since I served in the defense patrols on the borders.



edit:
@Palmyrene
Everything in his first paragraph is correct. US support for Saudi Arabia is primarily geopolitics at play.
It was formed during the cold war, and now continues in the new cold war.

That's how geopolitics during cold wars are, opportunism rules the day and it would idiotic and hypocritical to single out one side for it and leave the others out.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
The only reason some countries can take use of these groups to further their interests is that these groups already exist.

Considering the amount of Islamist groups with Saudi soldiers or conscripts in them, I'm going to have to say no.

And supporting Islamists is still bad. Why would you want to be allied with a country that supports Islamists?

Actually no, there are tons of members joining these groups who are anything but lower classes.

The amount of wealthy foreign fighters are very low I know this for a fact. Wealthy people tend to not want to risk their lives lest they lose what they have.

And there are entire countries with massive wealth with populations that holds these exact believes.

The Gulf is an exception and one that is very hypocritical.

They're like the Victorian England of the Middle East.

Not you heard of them before.

Is this supposed to be English?

Cultural reforms leads to more radicalism ?

Every attempt at westernization in the Middle East has failed. Turkey tried it but then ended up with Erdogan and the resurgence of Islamism.

I know exactly what common mentalities there exists in these communities as I've lived among them for most of my life, and I know for a fact with full certainty that poverty is not the lead cause of Islamic radicalism since most of the people joining these groups are middle and upper working class people, not lower classes.

That's certainly not the case where I live.

In Jordan, the most place of recruitment for ISIS was the Bani Sakher tribe in the south, to a point of raising ISIS flags all over Ma'an. Bani Sakher tribe is a bedouin tribe with significant wealth and owns large portions of the mining projects in the south with a welfare system better than that of Kuwait.
Yet most of ISIS's recruits came from them, not from the dead poor areas in Amman or the east. Because the people on the very bottom of the chain are the most risk averse.

And apparently not the wealthy who have money to hoard?

Do you have evidence that Bani Saker makes up a vast majority of ISIS fighters? Because I'm under the impression that they consist of predominantly foreigners from Morocco or Saudi Arabia.

That, for example, is why North Korea doesn't have a revolution yet. People are too poor to risk it, give them some basic living standards and turn them to upper-working class or lower-middle class, and you'll get protests and revolts in no time.

Yeah no. North Korea doesn't have a revolution because the government is so oppressive they can't even think about it. I've read a book about life in North Korea and the author who lived there had no thought of rebellion and just escaped to China because he heard there's more food.

Revolutions are done by the lower class or support from the lower class because they're the ones with nothing to lose. I know this fron experience. Only when things are bad do people rebel.

A fifth grader can understand this.

Why is it when people don't have a response they just post emojis? SSDR does it too.

It's a two way street.

People are effected more by their environment than by their culture. Culture is a set if values and traditons. These values and traditions are formed due to your environment. A person living in the desert will have a different mentality to someone in the Artic.

Social Animals.

I know what I said.

I'm agnostic, and I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with one very specific school of thought in one specific sect in one specific religion.

I'm assuming we are talking about the same thing.

In which case, yeah I do too by my solution isn't to fucking annihilate all Muslims.

That school of thought is the root of much of the problems in the middle east at the moment.

It isn't.

People adhere to ideologies that conform to their experiences and personal ideas.

Wahhabism is symbolic to the violence, poverty, and regression that the Middle East is currently in. And thus, it is attractive to frustrated unemployed young men who are becoming increasingly depressed.

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite , Saudi Arabians hate America just as much as Iranians do. The only difference is that Saudi Arabia is an American puppet so they can't show it.

Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran on the topic of women's rights. They're not even allowed to drive! In Islam women are allowed to drive! They're so extremists they don't even follow Islam!

You are really behind on the news. Women in Saudi Arabia have been able to drive for over a year. Let me help educate you.

Saudi Arabia grants women right to obtain own passports, travel without male guardian

Just over a year since women were granted the historical right to drive, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has now passed another monumental reform to enable females to finally obtain passports and travel alone.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-ara ... men-travel

[Palmyrene]

Everything in his first paragraph is correct. US support for Saudi Arabia is primarily geopolitics at play.
It was formed during the cold war, and now continues in the new cold war.

That's how geopolitics during cold wars are, opportunism rules the day and it would idiotic and hypocritical to single out one side for it and leave the others out.

I don't single anyone out. Yeah geopolitics and opportunitism rule but Hindsite likes to pretend the US is on the right side always. Why else would he talk about how great Saudi Arabia is when clearly isn't.

If you want to know my actually beliefs all these countries should be dismantled and repurposed.

[Palmyrene]

You are really behind on the news. Women in Saudi Arabia have been able to drive for over a year. Let me help educate you.

Saudi Arabia grants women right to obtain own passports, travel without male guardian

Just over a year since women were granted the historical right to drive, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has now passed another monumental reform to enable females to finally obtain passports and travel alone.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-ara ... men-travel

Yeah, after 200 years they finally did it.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Considering the amount of Islamist groups with Saudi soldiers or conscripts in them, I'm going to have to say no.

What does this has to do with the part you quoted?

Countries like Iran, or Israel, or even us, don't create those groups. The only reason we, and many others, can use them to serve their interests is that those groups are already there.

And supporting Islamists is still bad. Why would you want to be allied with a country that supports Islamists?

Well, we can take Syria for example.
Islamists are bad, but if we can get Islamists and fascists to fight it to the death, it's even better.
2 birds with one stone.

The amount of wealthy foreign fighters are very low I know this for a fact. Wealthy people tend to not want to risk their lives lest they lose what they have.

And poor people tend to avoid risks in general.
Revolutions are started by upper-working class (since you misread it the first time, upper class =/= upper working class) and lower middle class people.

Is this supposed to be English?

Typo, and edited it after.
Let's not go down to pointing out yet un-edited typos since you have dozens of them.

Every attempt at westernization in the Middle East has failed. Turkey tried it but then ended up with Erdogan and the resurgence of Islamism.

Cultural reforms doesn't mean or need to be a process of westernization. Fixing the bad parts is needed and if you think that's bad, then...well.

That's certainly not the case where I live.

1- You don't live in Syria.
2- The Syrian war started with a coup, not a revolution.
3- Most of the Syrian lower classes left Syria and those who couldn't fled internally.
The people who populate the ideological fighting factions are the upper-working-class and the lower-middle-class. Since the middle and upper classes have also mainly left. You can know this by looking at which areas had the most fighters.
While there are many fighters who were forced to join the fight for survival, that sure doesn't say anything about the groups in the early stages of the war.

Do you have evidence that Bani Saker makes up a vast majority of ISIS fighters? Because I'm under the impression that they consist of predominantly foreigners from Morocco or Saudi Arabia.

How the hell did you come up with "vast majority of ISIS fighters" part?

And many Bani Sakher tribal members did join ISIS, it was on the news several times for a while and the Jordanian army went down to Ma'an with tanks.

However, the majority (not vast, but still) of ISIS fighters are Iraqis.

Yeah no. North Korea doesn't have a revolution because the government is so oppressive they can't even think about it. I've read a book about life in North Korea and the author who lived there had no thought of rebellion and just escaped to China because he heard there's more fo

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Revolutions are done by the lower class or support from the lower class because they're the ones with nothing to lose.

They're not.
Uprisings rarely turn to revolutions.

I know this fron experience.

You don't.

Only when things are bad do people rebel.

No it's not.
People rebel when they reach a stage where they've fulfilled their basic needs and want more liberties and fulfillment.

Why is it when people don't have a response they just post emojis? SSDR does it too.

When you make a ridiculous claim, it's not worth more than that.

In which case, yeah I do too by my solution isn't to fucking annihilate all Muslims.

I never suggested annihilating all Muslims, that would include some of my own family. So I'm going to add this to the long list of strawmans you've made.

And, I don't need to even annihilate that specific school of thought (The Hanbalis), as long as it's away from me and my country, or is neutered and can't do any harm. Then anyone who wants to follow them is free to do so, but as long as it's armed and rampaging around, it needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

Wahhabism is symbolic to the violence, poverty, and regression that the Middle East is currently in. And thus, it is attractive to frustrated unemployed young men who are becoming increasingly depressed.

Wahabism traces its roots back to the Hanbali movement, the Hanbali movement began in the one of the most prosperous ages of the middle east and during the golden age of the Abbasid empire.

It was not born out of desperation or poverty, nor is it now the result of desperation or poverty. Quite the opposite, I would say its policies and the ideas these schools of thought perpetuate are one of the main reason poverty is so wide spread.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

What does this has to do with the part you quoted?

Saudi Arabia creates Islamist groups as well.

Countries like Iran, or Israel, or even us, don't create those groups. The only reason we, and many others, can use them to serve their interests is that those groups are already there.

1. Whose "we"? I didn't want any of this.

2. Why are you complaining about Islamists if you're fine with people funding them?

Well, we can take Syria for example.
Islamists are bad, but if we can get Islamists and fascists to fight it to the death, it's even better.

Not for the people that get caught in the fight. They have no voice or autonomy. To fascists and Islamists, they're just resources. And this violence and poverty begates more violence and poverty. It's a cycle and funding proxies won't end it.

Also this is irrelevant. Israel does not support Islamists because it hates fascism. Islamism is fascism and Israel is fascist in many ways. It's because they need countries surrounding them to be unstable so that they're more secure.

2 birds with one stone

You're hitting alot more birds with that stone.

And poor people tend to avoid risks in general.
Revolutions are started by upper-working class (since you misread it the first time, upper class =/= upper working class) and lower middle class people.

No, they aren't. Revolutions only happen when things are bad and there's not much bad stuff happening to the upper class. You're not fooling anyone by saying this.

Also there's no such thing as a wealthy working class otherwise they wouldn't be working.

Typo, and edited it after.
Let's not go down to pointing out yet un-edited typos since you have dozens of them.

Well if you told me about them I would've corrected them.

Cultural reforms doesn't mean or need to be a process of westernization. Fixing the bad parts is needed and if you think that's bad, then...well.

It does. They're both attempts at changing culture, what they change it into is irrelevant. Also a state imposing itself upon culture will just lead to a greater backlash in said culture. I don't have to talk about the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran do I?

1- You don't live in Syria.

That's your opinion.

2- The Syrian war started with a coup, not a revolution.

No it didn't. Unless you think the Syrian Arab Army spliting up and joining the protesters is a "coup". You have a very skewed way of looking at things.

3- Most of the Syrian lower classes left Syria and those who couldn't fled internally.

This has to do with who started the revolution, not the result.

And define "fled internally".

The people who populate the ideological fighting factions are the upper-working-class and the lower-middle-class.

No. They aren't. I know this for a fact because several of my friends went to join the rebels and they were all downtrodden and lower class.

Since the middle and upper classes have also mainly left. You can know this by looking at which areas had the most fighters.

They're the ones who left first. The upper class that remains are parts of tribes.

While there are many fighters who were forced to join the fight for survival, that sure doesn't say anything about the groups in the early stages of the war.

It says alot about whether Islam or the environment is the cause of this.

How the hell did you come up with "vast majority of ISIS fighters" part?

Oh I didn't process the "in Jordan" part.

And many Bani Sakher tribal members did join ISIS, it was on the news several times for a while and the Jordanian army went down to Ma'an with tanks.

I didn't dispute that.

However, the majority (not vast, but still) of ISIS fighters are Iraqis.

Foreign fighters make up the plurality of ISIS recruits.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

If you can't get your basic needs conventionally you're going to fight for them. That's how humans survived this long. And in a modern sense this translates to revolution.

They're not.
Uprisings rarely turn to revolutions.

It's like you haven't heard of the French or Russian Revolution. Insurrection is a very good way of doing things.

You don't.

I do.

No it's not.
People rebel when they reach a stage where they've fulfilled their basic needs and want more liberties and fulfillment.

That's never the case. Are people rebelling in Singapore? Are the mainland Chinese rebelling against the government? Why hasn't there been a revolution in Saudi Arabia? Why hasn't there been one in Morocco? Hell why hasn't there been a revolution in America? Some parts of America are so bad and corrupt it's like Egypt in there.

People only revolt when things are bad. If they're already content economically, they aren't going to complain about liberties because they don't want to lose what they already have. The protests in Syria happened after the a series droughts from 2006 to 2011 struck it. In fact it was the worst drought in 900 years. That's what started this, not the upper class.

When you make a ridiculous claim, it's not worth more than that.

I guess I should just post emojis whenever you say that most Lebanese don't identify as Arab.

I never suggested annihilating all Muslims, that would include some of my own family. So I'm going to add this to the long list of strawmans you've made.

If you seriously think you can have a cultural revolution without bloodshed you're kidding.

And, I don't need to even annihilate that specific school of thought (The Hanbalis), as long as it's away from me and my country, or is neutered and can't do any harm. Then anyone who wants to follow them is free to do so, but as long as it's armed and rampaging around, it needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

How do you propose stopping it without outlawing it and punishing people who believe in it?

Wahabism traces its roots back to the Hanbali movement, the Hanbali movement began in the one of the most prosperous ages of the middle east and during the golden age of the Abbasid empire.

So? What the Hanbali movement was is not what it is now and the nature of the time period it was created in doesn't indicate anything.

It was not born out of desperation or poverty, nor is it now the result of desperation or poverty. Quite the opposite, I would say its policies and the ideas these schools of thought perpetuate are one of the main reason poverty is so wide spread.

No. They aren't. Just because poor people join Islamist groups doesn't mean Islamism makes people poor. That's retarded.