U.S. Says It Shot Down Drone That Attacked Fighters in Syria

If Russia develops South Pars it will based on a concession and Iran will take most of the revenue.. That's how its done. Qatar's main gas markets are Spain, Japan, Turkey and Southern Europe.

 

a

Im talking about secular muslim countrys like Iraq, Libya and Syria where Islam was restricted by brutal dictatorial force from being, well, brutal, to women and other religions until The West (America and Europe) 'intervened' and now the brutality is running rampant. Iran is fairly secular as well...

Orthodox Islam is 'mainstream' Islam. It teaches that women are livestock, gays must die and there can only be peace within Islam, so other religions must convert, submit or die.
The true 'moderate' Muslims who are happy to coexist and tolerate are 'fringe,' and are in fact being increasingly targetted as 'heretics' and 'cults' by their orthodoxy in most Muslim regions.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. .. and I'll bet you have never set foot in Iraq, Libya or Syria. Iraq and Syria are Baathist.. meaning socialism, nationalism.. because both were under colonialism and they resent the west.

There are moderate Muslims all over the ME who don't treat women badly or persecute gays.. There is no death penalty for gays in the Koran.

There is NO "orthodoxy" in Islam.

 

Bush screwed up by going in but had a long term plan.

Obama never would have gone in but screwed up the long term plan

Add Assad as a pretty brutal guy, mix thoroughly. let sit for 6 months.

America owns this no matter what side you are there on

Oh and as to the thread.

Good, shoot as many of their drones down as possible over that airspace.

 

Refute me with some evidence.

Not relevent.

Not a refutation to anything i said.

Of course there are. And, as I said, they're being persecuted by the Orthodox Muslims who view them as heretics.

Perhaps not. But there IS in Shariah Law.

As far as the Qu'ran...

" "In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot's people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

The Prophet ... said: "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him. May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did. Lesbianism by women is adultery between them." "

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/06/1...say-about-homosexuality-women-and-no-muslims/

There is an Orthodoxy in EVERY religion.


or·tho·dox·y
ˈôrTHəˌdäksē/
noun

1. 1.
   authorized or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice.
   "monetarist orthodoxy"
   synonyms: doctrine, belief, conviction, creed, dogma, credo, theory, tenet, teaching

 

I would really prefer this thread to be focused on the geopolitical and military moves that are taking place alongside the Syria - Iraq borders. And the US role - under intense neocon/Israeli lobbying - in trying to prevent the pro Assad forces from clearing up the areas under ISIS control to link up with Iraqi shia forces which have done the same the other side of the border.

 

Which school of Islam do you consider "orthodox"? There is no death penalty in Arabia for gays. Do you know the difference between hadith and koran?

PJ media is tabloid trash..

 

I wish this report was true, but I think there is still some ways to go before there is a secure land corridor running from Iran to Syria. But certainly the real focus of US efforts in this area is in preventing what this report suggests has already happened from actually happening. Or, to be more precise, to make sure any such corridor isn't safe and secure enough to be used for traffic to run from Iran to Syria through a land route.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/iran-extends-its-reach-in-syria

 

Corridors should be safe once established. It starts to get sketchy for the US when the PMU(Iraqi shia militias) enters Syria from the northern position they have reached combined with other units entering in the southern position near the al tanf US/Rebel base in the south. It would be risky for us to attack them on they cross for a number of reasons, most of which involves the fact they have direct access to some of our people on the Iraqi side.

https://syria.liveuamap.com/

 

Türkiye is the one and only moderate muslim regime on the planet earth if of course what you meant is "muslim majority" regime.

I agree... These said groups were created by the US but Assad is just "one of the objectives" that are planned to be accomplished in this mess. Dividing Syria into different "sectarian" regions, and tied to that forcing other powers of the region that are behind bunch of different proxies to agree "switching" lands accordingly (demographic manipulation) are the two major targets in Syria such that both have been in play regardless of Assad's position. We can also add to that the good ole depopulation agenda that is to have an outcome out of those two said objectives which can in the close future give birth to a "wild capitalist" and "corporate individualist" society. Parts of Syria and large parts of Iraq have still tribal, therefore "feudal" populations. These people are given only 2 options by the war waged upon them: Either run, migrate to developed urban side, and try to adapt to the modernity the west requires, OR, simply die at the hands of ISIS or US.

 

Interesting post - it has not much to do with the thread and nothing to do with the post you are responding to but .. interesting never the less.

 

Sunni Wahhabism is the 'Orthodox' Islam, from the perspective of non-Muslims, being that the VAST majority of Muslims are Sunni and that the predominant State sponsored form of Islam is Wahhabism out of Saudi Arabia.

Wahhabism is the primarily ideological source of Islamic terrorism.

Both Sunni and Shia muslim practitioners commonly view Wahhabism as a 'vile, satanic sect', but it is the one with the most political and financial 'authority' being sponsored, such as it is, by the house of Saud, and Saudi Arabia is essentially 'The Vatican' of Islam.

It might help to compare it to the Roman Catholic Church prior to the renaisance. Most of its subjects still had relatively fresh ties to paganism, knew it was full of shiz and largely a political machine masquerading as spirituality and could plainly see all the glaring contradictions within it... but it had the money, the influence, and the backing of the militaries and enforcers of the rulers of europe. It was the Orthodox Christianity. If you wanted to succeed in business or politics, you cuddled up to the Roman Catholic Church.

Its the same with Sunni Wahhabism. While it lacks the moral majority of its believers, it has more influencial power than all the other 'schools' of Islam combined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

'Arabia' is a large region, encompassing many Shariah-based govts that execute gays. Perhaps you meant 'Saudi Arabia'? (it doesnt really matter since Saudi Arabia is in 'Arabia' and you're provably wrong either way...)

"LGBT rights are not recognized by the government of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi social mores and laws are heavily influenced by Arab tribal customs and ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam. Homosexuality and transgenderism are widely seen as immoral and indecent activities, and the law punishes acts of homosexuality or cross-dressing with execution, imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment, or whipping/flogging."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Yup. "Hadith- a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad that, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran.

'As far as the Qu'ran-' was incorrect of me to say. I should have said 'As far as the Hadith, a major basis for Islamic practice and Law- "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him. May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did. Lesbianism by women is adultery between them." '

Thank you for pointing out the error.

Sure, attack my source and ignore my sources source- Islamic doctral text.

Textbook deflection.

 

Most Americans are REALLY ignorant about Wahhabis.. And most of the Muslims who call themselves Wahhabis aren't.

They even think that Baathists, and AQ, the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood are Wahhabi. LOLOL

Gays aren't condemned to death In Arabia unless they rape children.

I spent 20 years there and have been back several times to visit. Plus there are 40,000 American living in KSA and they would laugh at this BS you're selling.

 

What part(s) of 'Arabia' are you refferring to?

Islam, in both its social and legal manifestations, is extremely diverse. 'Arabia' is far to general (wide) of a region for any particular debate.

 

I lived in the Eastern province, but I have traveled over the whole country from Damman to Jubail to Asir, Riyadh to Jedda and back again.

 

Ok, so you are talking about Saudi Arabia. Thx for the clarification.

Sources-ad-nauseum indicate the following:

Wahhabism as supported by the House of Saud is the predominant ideological source of terrorism and terrorist groups in Islam.

Saudi Arabia severely punishes public displays of homosexuality, cross dressing, transgerderism and any non-private expression of LBGTQ's in general, reserves the legal power of execution for them, and has even gone so far as to surveil social media to find and persecute those that otherwise keep their 'sexual immorality' out of the public commons.

Which of this is 'BS' that I (and a bipartisan selection of respected media and pedia) am 'Selling'?

 

Isn't Syria a sovereign nation, so what the Americans are doing is an act of war. First of all they have no right to be there, and if the Syrians want to shoot them for invading their territory, they have every right to do so. I mean come on, a little logic here.

As for Assad, yeah he is brutal if you believe American propaganda ...but in reality, it's doubtful... except maybe to the terrorists. Frankly I think they deserve it. Let's not forget it wasn't Assad's men that beheaded a 12 year old boy, it was the 'moderate' terrorists we support.

 

Sources ad nauseum quote each other

Sources ad nauseum quote each other and it s been pretty comical watching them since they learned the word Wahhabi. None of them have been to Saudi Arabia or ever met with the Sudeiri Seven or any Saudi leadership.

King Fahd's legacy was to donate mosques world wide to existing Muslim communities... He didn't hire or pay the clerics.

Heterosexuals also don't put on public displays of affection. There are homosexual communities in all the big cities, but like the US in the 1950s, they are invisible.

I have to go out for 30 minutes, but there's more.

 

Ignorant just like Pres. Bush was before succumbing to the neocon force which surrounded him, Wolfawitz and Cheney, to name a couple. Pres. Bush looks to have only known that his family has close ties and loyalty to the House of Saud. Our relationship with the Saudis date back to at least the time Western oil companies wanted access to the vast oil fields in that part of the world. This relationship has colored our foreign policy towards the Saudis.

In regards to general American ignorance, if they thought AQ and ISIS was related to Wahhabism, they would be correct. AQ nor ISIS would have the foundation if not for the radically conservative Wahhabism...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

Wahhabism and its children are a pox on Islam, and responsible for most of the barbarism you see in Islam. The Saudis have spent billions in spreading this virus. This nation is a problem, as we also are a problem in the middle east.

 

Oh you shouldn't expect any sense beyond a limited perception.

 

Western oil companies negotiated the Arabian oil concession. The US government had NOTHING to do with that.. and ARAMCO worked very hard to keep the US government out if it.

No Bush didn't have close ties to the Royal Family.. That's more pundit BS. He knew Bandar from school and borrowed money for an oil deal, which he lost.

Wahhabi came about to rid Saudi Arabia of the innovations introduced by the Ottoman Empire and to rid the Arabian peninsula of the Turks. Its a simple, conservative Islam which is NOT nationalistic because KSA was never a colony of the French or British... and it is NON violent.

Boko Haram rejects western education.. The Saudis do not. Al Qaeda is Deobandi with Muslim Brotherhood influences. The Taliban are Pashtun.. NOT Wahhabi. ISIS is Baathist which, like the MB, is rejected by the Saudis.

Alastair Crooke doesn't know anything about KSA, but the amateurs and the Pundits all quote each other and NONE of them get it right. Its how they earn a living and what their audience wants to hear.

 

At its core, and properly understood, Wahhabism is in fact a form of Bedouin Arab "nationalism": it is about the sidelined culture of the Bedouin Arabs trying to reclaim its lost position and seeking a return to the "pristine Islam" during early years of the religion. The Islam before it was supposedly corrupted under "Persian influence" as existed before the Golden Age of Islam under the Abbasid caliphate, before the Shu-ubbiya movement which turned Islam from Bedouin Arab religion to a universal religion, and before any of the other influences from various "Persianate" states (including the Ottomans but also others such as the Seljuks before them, the Mughals in India, and of course especially the Shia so-called 'heretics' as represented by the Safavid dynasty in Iran and all the other regimes which have been in power in Iran). The Islam which also saw these Bedouin Arabs hold political power, and not any Turkish sultan or Persian shah. Or not even an Arab caliph who had mixed and mingled with non-Arabs and who relied principally on Persian administrators and viziers to rule the caliphate.

After the rise of westernization, the fact that Wahhabi ideology is inherently reactionary, you also had a clear rejection of westernization and its influences as well. The latter, something that isn't unique to the Wahhabis, except they are so backward in their thinking and so reactionary, that even simple technological innovations have been a hard sell for them. Indeed, so pervasive and silly is the focus of that rejection that a good deal of Wahhabi "intellectual effort" was spent by Wahhabi clerics to outlaw things like television broadcasts in Wahhabi Arabia.

The base of power of the Taliban were the Pashtun ethnic group in that country, while the "northern Alliance" supported by Iran derived its powers from the Tajik (Persian speaking) community in Afghanistan. But the ethnic background of most of the Taleban members has little to do with their ideology, which was heavily influenced by the Wahhabi nonsense peddled through hundreds of millions of dollars of Wahhabi money spent in that country to spread this ideology.

In any case, ideology aside, the Taleban were supported by the Saudis, who were one of only 3 countries in the world to recognize (the others being the UAE and Pakistan) the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. The Saudis broke relations with the Taleban only after September 11. Indeed, 5 days after September 11.

As for ISIS, its ideology is derived from wahhabi Islam. Its membership rolls include a host of people including some former Baathist officers. But even if ISIS was "Baathist" (which is preposterous, as the Baathists were a secular Arab nationalist-socialist group, while ISIS is an avowedly so-called "religious" jihadist group), billions of Saudi aid to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war shows that the Saudis have no compulsion helping out anyone who fights Iran! Indeed, for the Saudis, ISIS (before it showed itself out of control) was exactly the kind of group that "Prince" Bandar had boasted being extremists who the Saudis have created and which could be controlled by them to "throw bombs" at pro Iranian targets.

 

The US is, in practice, and contrary to the claims of the Pentagon, working in this region of Syria primarily to stop the advance of pro Assad forces against ISIS. Which is an odd way of "fighting ISIS". To be sure, and not to imply the US wants to necessarily help out ISIS, the US is also supporting other rebel/terrorist groups fighting ISIS who are trying to beat the pro Assad forces in defeating and clearing up the area from ISIS forces. But the real focus of the US actions in this area isn't ISIS since the pro Syrian forces could do the job effectively without the US, even if as this report highlights, the Pentagon is trying to make sure it doesn't openly go to war against the forces supported by Iran in Syria.

The source, I should mention, is from right wing media organ that wants the US to openly do what it is doing rather quietly and more discreetly.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...it-shot-down-an-iranian-drone/article/2625504
Pentagon dances around whether it shot down an Iranian drone