Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'

[Demosthenes11]

ahahah i hoped i was just misunderstanding. firas is pretty brainwashed lol

brb blaming canada for the US' problems

[Cadsuane]

Hay, thanks for replying with a bunch of specious (and largely reactionist) bullshit amounting to a red herring. See:

Making fun of you and the pro-arab anti-jew anti-west scriptural literalist viewpoint that you so thoroughly represent doesn't make me a Zionist or an advocate for American imperialism

you're a bigot... even if it's due to your arab victim complex

Also, condemning my ignorance of the middle east doesn't work when you thought the capital city of Canada was in the United States you half wit hypocrite.

[Cadsuane]

your hip prediction of the future of a young arab is gained from the people you've seen in your homeland, the puny number of arabs that you had the honor to meet.

Also, had to reply to this comment. Although I generally like the middle eastern students I've met at Carleton (they tend to be pleasantly polite), I find it hilarious how many of them lapse into serious drug habits. Those guys don't hold their shit together any better than anyone else which became particularly apparent to me one day when I met a friend of mine talking with his Jordanian buddies in front of the dorm, them having just smoked a joint and one of them ostensibly hopped up on coke. At that point one of these kids' millionaire oil rich father calls him up on his cell after having flown into Canada, tells him he's on campus and that he needs to see him right away. Should have seen that motherfucker blanche. Honestly, no man, not that I was disgusted or anything, but I can't say I was particularly fucking honoured to have met that bunch.

[Faris]

WHAT THE FUCK

[Kuya]

Perhaps an analogy to a secluded and tightly guarded child being released into a very free and libertine atmosphere is in order.

[Cadsuane]

Horse shit. I refuse to be characterized as a libertine. Hedonism is permitted here but not endorsed.

[Kuya]

Okay. How about liberal?

[Cadsuane]

Sure.

[Faris]

so there is not involvement in the middle east from the u.s government? this shit has been going on since world war I. read fucking history.

since world war I

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa..._east_01.shtml
General Allenby with Iraq's King Feisal I, c 1920 © The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralysed by foreign intervention and civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. The resulting settlement, which fostered an instability that continues to be a source of conflict today, generated much controversy at the time and has continued to do so ever since.


They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance.
Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and promises of Arab independence, the British had encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916 against the Turks. Although the Hashemite Arabs were rewarded with considerable territory, they and other Arab nationalists believed that they had been 'robbed' when the British did not fully deliver on their pledges of independence. They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance, drawing borders and creating nations with little or no regard for the wishes of the local inhabitants.

The fate of Palestine, occupied by the British, especially provoked Arab frustration and anger. (In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, had supported a Jewish home in Palestine.)

But in important respects the Arab view of the peace settlement (which is supported by many western historians) is a caricature of what actually happened. In a revisionist work, Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh have made a convincing argument that many forces, both local and foreign, were at work at the time the settlement was agreed. In their words, 'even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War and its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of predatory imperial powers, but active participants in the restructuring of their region.'


And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination'...it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area.
They argue, for example, that Iraq and Trans-Jordan were not simply British inventions, but owed their existence to a compromise between Hashemite imperial greed and well-intended British efforts to meet local needs and allay the fears and suspicions of their allies.

It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead.

and the most recent, the U.S is "preserving its security" through deployment of military bases in the gulf, commercial relationship, international ties with gulf countries.
Since the disocovery of oil, cultural conflicts, and the "safety" of the U.S citizens are among the priorities of the U.S governments; they have inhereted what was done in World War I by the birtish and the allied forces.
actually this goes back even pre-World War I but this is what i have grasped so far.

There has been a defensiveness among them from the moment that they grouped together in May 1981, he said, as they have tried to rationalize their adherence to a seemingly arcane, anachronistic, and out-of-sync political system. And yet, there is a resilience among almost all six of them that has stood them through the years. Their demise has been predicted since the 1950s - people have expected them to topple as happened in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere, but they have not. On the contrary, said Anthony, the case could be made that four of them (UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait) are stronger now than before, adding that even Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, who are facing some internal unrest, can survive with wise leadership.

Secondly, they are all oil producers, ranging from very large producers to very small. Saudi Arabia produces 8,500,000 barrels a day, which gets from fewer than 900 wells (by contrast, the United States produces a comparable 7,500,000 barrels a day from 650,000 wells; the average production for an American wells is 14 barrels a day, the average production of a Saudi Arabian well is 12,000 barrels a day). Saudi Arabia has 51 oil fields, but it has never pumped from more than 31. It also has 10 gas fields. Bahrain, on the other hand, pumps 40,000 barrels a day, which equals the output of barely three Saudi Arabian wells.

Thirdly, all of the countries have been reasonably comfortable living under a Western strategic umbrella for a very long time, and increasingly under American protection. This is fundamentally different and an exception to the rest of the Arab world in that there have been no independence movements from Kuwait to Oman. Thus, despite the facile generalizations that we make about colonialism and imperialism, the fact remains that for nearly 400 years the norm has been for peace and security in the region to be protected by outside Western countries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013001477.html
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs....mplate=opinion
one of many articles evident to such involvements


is this all misinterpreted too?

again, your encounter with some rich arab kids does not project the image of the whole arab/islamic youth. you're narrow minded and an imbecile.

[Cadsuane]

Are you even reading my posts? Did you even read the article you posted? Do you know how to read?

[Faris]

ok bro. im crazy, you got it all figured out from where you are, you know more about us than we do.

[Cadsuane]

Don't whine and be a little bitch about it. Address the issues I've brought up instead of using them as a pretext to quote articles that don't even support your shitty opinions that have nothing to do with what I've written, or shut the fuck up, admit defeat, and let this thread die.

[Faris]

oh please dont hurt me;;

i love it when people act macho on the internet, haha.

you didnt bring jack, you mentioned some bullshit prediction about some arab kids, and some encounters with some arab kids...those were the highlights of your latest posts.

when you call people names on forums, do you feel it validates your point, or make you look like badass? haha.

wrapping it all up, u.s has major interests in the region, they want to wipe out any fundamental islamic ideaology, they want to "secure" the area by manipulating any fundemental islamic source in the region, because they believe this is the source where extremism comes from. the area with its great economy, the u.s anchors all its big businesses there, fast food chains, hollywood bullshit, the whole culture/lifestyle.

so make money and imperialize a region. is it really hard to believe that the holy u.s government is trying to do in the region?

[Cadsuane]

Thanks for confirming your complete lack of understanding of anything that was said in this thread.

[Elvis]

What is the debate between Cad/Firas about?

Wha the hell is 'Arab victim complex'?

[Faris]

i really dont know.

but please cadsuane dont let my lack of understanding stop you from mentioning why my accusations(!) are a fallacy.

im not posting to win your illusionary battle of the forums, sharing opinions and information is my purpose, e-thuggin isnt in my agenda bro.

[Howard Roark]

Hay, thanks for replying with a bunch of specious (and largely reactionist) bullshit amounting to a red herring. See:





Also, condemning my ignorance of the middle east doesn't work when you thought the capital city of Canada was in the United States you half wit hypocrite.

well I had to look that one up

spe·cious   /ˈspiʃəs/ Show Spelled[spee-shuhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1.apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2.pleasing to the eye but deceptive.
3.Obsolete. pleasing to the eye; fair.

does anyone actually say this? I thought I was well read

[Blarg]

Would you have preferred the word spurious?

[ZarakiKujata]

What is the debate between Cad/Firas about?

Wha the hell is 'Arab victim complex'?

I forget how it started and too lazy to look but basically Cad brought up bourgeoisie arabs studying abroad who get 'corrupted' by the west and then feel the need to spew reactionary hate when they get back home. Firas responded with hatred toward the west was the wests fault and discussed how repressive middle eastern oil dictatorships are and blamed that on the west too and its pretty much digressed from there.

[Kuya]

Well Firas is not exactly wrong, but i don't see what that has to do with born-again-muslims.