Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

If you get into an argument with a Wahhabi ...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Didn't take long for people to draw the link between these videos and what's happening with the Gulf states, see comments to the video below:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

...

Having resided in the States for many years, and as a keen observer of politics, I have also noticed that many “conservative” Zionists support Israel because they oppose “woke” anti-Zionism. For example, they see that BLM et al. often support anti-Zionist positions alongside “woke” ideology, so they reflexively identify with the “white” Ashkenazi settlers in Israel against “coloured” pseudo-popular movements. The irony is that Jewish Zionists control both “conservative” and “liberal” positions in the West. If you oppose Israel, for instance, the Zionist PTB force you to vote for “woke” quasi-Marxian ideological packaging, but if you want socially conservative and/or traditionalist viewpoints on other issues, you are forced to vote for “right-wing” Zionists who overtly advocate nuclear war on behalf of Israel. There is no room, say, for religious opposition to Zionism, as everything is reduced to the level of popular mass “culture,” that is, whoever has access to big government, finance, etc.

While I am certainly not enamoured of “woke” liberalism and its ilk, I find that religiously driven racial bigotry, à la Christian Zionism, is at least as harmful, if not more so. In many ways Christian Zionism is like a “white” version of BLM, with a superficially “conservative” mien. I think that many white Americans look at the comparative success and behaviour of wealthy Jews, associate material success with divine favour, and also contrast that with the undesirable behaviours common in “minority” communities, i.e., drug abuse, and also view Jews and Zionism as a kind of bulwark against anti-white “woke” radicalism of the type espoused by BLM et al. Whites view Zionists as culturally conservative. It also doesn’t help that Iran often seems to be sympathetic toward BLM, viewing it as some kind of fraternal, organic, “anti-imperialist” and “anti-Zionist” movement (as opposed to “white-supremacist” Zionism), without actually doing any research about its actual backers and agenda(s).

So white Americans feel existentially threatened by the “woke” minority underclass, are naturally opposed to big government’s intrusion into the worlds of small business and family structure, and thus somehow empathise with the successfully integrated Jewish elites. After all, most Jews are considered to be “white,” particularly Ashkenazi Jews, who tend to be pro-Zionist at the highest levels. I think the problem is that these Jewish Zionists have perfected “herding” techniques, and have long mobilised white Americans and Westerners into doing their bidding, regardless of whether they support “conservative” or “liberal” groups and/or parties. Personally, I do think that Trump performed a valuable service for the world by discrediting the pro-Western factions within Iran; had Trump not assassinated General Soleimani, Iran might still be entering into fruitless JCPOA-related “negotiations” with the Democrats in the U.S. Even Israel ultimately backstabbed Trump by supporting the DNC’s coup.

If you look at online discussions involving white Americans, particularly from the Deep South, you will tend to notice the following pro-Israel claims:

  • Democrats are supposedly in love with the Palestinians and hate America. After all, the Dems support blacks and “nonwhites” vs. whites, and Marxists tend to be anti-white and/or anti-capitalist, so therefore the pro-BLM Dems must also support Palestinian “terrorists” vs. white Americans and Israelis. This is quite a common sentiment. Many “conservative” whites in the U.S. believe that Biden, like Obama, is betraying Israel over to Iran because he is beholden to his “anti-white,” pro-Marxist ideology, and is being funded by Communist China. So one must oppose the Palestinians and other nonwhites to “defend” the West.
  • Channeling Golda Meir: the Palestinian identity is supposedly fabricated and is a modern construct. There was no official “Palestinian” state in the past. Moreover, the word “Palestine” is etymologically related to the word “Philistine,” and the ancient Philistines are portrayed negatively in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). White Americans thus naturally associate the Palestinians with historical heathens, similarly to American Indians, and the European Ashkenazi settlers are merely acting out white America’s own “Manifest Destiny” in settling and claiming territory from a “barbarous” and “ungodly” people.
  • The Jews, however insignificant in terms of their actual numbers, have throughout history always managed to survive and thrive despite severe persecution. Therefore, God is on their side, and to go against them would be foolhardy, if not blasphemous. This claim is ubiquitous among both Jewish and Christian Zionists. These groups do not deny that Jews have been expelled and persecuted throughout history, but note that Jews have always wielded disproportionate influence relative to their numbers, and somehow have always managed to avoid outright extermination.

These issues are actually rather complex in relation to Islam. Human beings are naturally, innately tribal. Studies have shown that people tend to prefer and mate with their racial kinsmen. Islam, at least as officially proclaimed by Iran, is opposed to racial discrimination. Yet if discrimination, at least to some extent, is part of mankind’s own genetic makeup and fitrah, it poses a bit of a problem for the universalistic perspective. People naturally struggle to empathise with distant groups or power structures; indeed, distrust often reigns. People naturally tend to cluster in small, extended kinship networks, and cousin marriage is historically common. This is why enforced diversity by government fiat usually does not work. People prefer to live, work, and die in their own immediate environs, among their racial kindred. One cannot force, say, Swedes to mate with Nigerians, or vice versa. Population transfers have proven disastrous for genetically isolated populations, as the experience of American Indians with imported smallpox illustrated.

“Woke” ideology likes to pretend that race isn’t real, or that race and IQ (and hence one’s capacity for moral reasoning) are not linked, even though some reputable researchers (see Richard Lynn) say otherwise. “Woke” proponents even like to claim that “whites” are guilty for categorising people by race, since race supposedly does not exist! Because of political correctness, discussions about race and IQ are censored by virtually the entire Western Establishment, “liberal” and “conservative” alike. The West has colonised the world and in the process brought whites and nonwhites into contact via globalisation. But one may rightly question whether such enforced integration was ever beneficial in the first place, except for a minuscule, oligarchic, monopolistic elite. “Diversity,” along with imperialistic globalisation, merely creates more conflicts and leads to genocidal wars along religious, ethnic, and racial lines. I am sorry if I may seem to be a bit cynical about universalism, even religious, but years of experience and research have led me toward a more skeptical view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

What I always find to be disturbing is how the woke left is always trying to co-opt Islam and Muslims in order to push their anti-white agenda of "inclusivity" without realizing that Islam is not a religion that is tied to skin color, as there are indigenous communities of white Muslims in Eastern Europe that have been there for centuries. It is your typical Maoist tactic dressed up with a fresh coat of paint: the white bourgeoisie will never move in favor of socialist revolution, so it falls to the "oppressed brown people" to do it... and some Muslims are falling for it; completely unaware that after the woke left succeeds in finishing off Christianity in the West, that they will then move to undermine, denigrate, and ultimately destroy Islam because it is not "inclusive" to alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality, "open" marriages for women, and the transgender ideology of there being 75+ custom genders that middle class woke white kids who want a spot on the oppression hierarchy can claim. The left is already trying to push something now called "progressive Islam" and trots out their "queer Muslims of color" every chance that they get to trot them out for the secularist mainstream media that is against traditionalism and pro-family values due to the majority of employees in the media practicing some sort of alternative lifestyle.

Like I said, everything with the woke left eventually circles back around to unrestrained, unnatural sexuality. They have made sexuality their idol and they worship it as God. The "right" to have any sort of sex you want , the more degenerate and unnatural, the better; is their number one priority and it is because of the limits that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity put on human sexual expression that the woke left seeks to undermine and destroy traditional Abrahamic monotheistic religion and replace it with pagan reconstructionism such as "Wicca" and other "feminist, inclusive, goddess-based" cults. I really hope and pray that Islam never succumbs to what these people are trying to do to it & that Muslims will take a stand against them with direct action if and when it becomes necessary.

As far as Iran supporting BLM, I was not aware that they did, but BLM also at the end of the day, stands for alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality, feminism, and transgenderism and is at it's core, a Maoist revolutionary group that is using rioting and looting to create terror and cow White America into accepting "The Revolution" by calling them "racist" if they stand against it. The other thing that woke groups like to say is "Get On The Right Side of History™" which is an attempt to bully people into submission by suggesting that they are the same as Nazis, the Southern Confederacy, etc for not acting in support of BLM's goals (including the final normalization of alternative lifestyles). They incorrectly view brown people as being "inherently revolutionary" and whites as being "the oppressor class" which represents religion and thus, restraints on human sexuality despite the attitudes of black and Latino populations often being much more disapproving of alternative lifestyles/sexualities than the average white liberal. It's a real problem because at the end of the day, BLM is just another organ to push for godless socialism where religion and faith will make one a second-class citizen.

Edited by Abdul-Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

As far as Iran supporting BLM, I was not aware that they did,

ABNA, PressTV, Tasnim, and other Iranian or pro-Iranian news agencies have been consistently pushing exclusively pro-BLM coverage, or nearly so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Northwest said:

ABNA, PressTV, Tasnim, and other Iranian or pro-Iranian news agencies have been consistently pushing exclusively pro-BLM coverage, or nearly so.

Well the statement "Black lives matter" is not the thing that I disagree with. I agree with the statement that black lives DO matter and generally believe that black people are treated unfairly in America because of racial profiling, systemic incarceration of young black males for victimless crimes, and institutional racism.

HOWEVER--

I have done the research into what BLM the organization is about, and I do not like it. It is a Maoist movement based in critical race theory which teaches that there is something "fundamentally oppressive and bourgeois" about having white skin, and it seeks to push for so-called "socialist" revolution in the USA and make Whites second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors built (I say their rather than mine because my family was not here until 1922 from Ukraine). Because it is a Maoist movement, it is also fundamentally atheist at it's core and thus pushes against religion, most specifically Christianity which used to be the majority religion in the US because it equates Christianity with traditionalism and all Maoists seek to destroy tradition so that they can set The Party up as the final authority on all questions rather than Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) being the final authority. So as a Muslim, I support the statement "black lives matter" but do not support the organization BLM due to their aggressively secularist and socialist/atheist goals because I know that eventually, they will come to infiltrate and wreck Islam with bid'ah relating to alternative lifestyles, feminism, destruction of the nuclear family (one of their stated goals), so on and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

Well the statement "Black lives matter" is not the thing that I disagree with. I agree with the statement that black lives DO matter and generally believe that black people are treated unfairly in America because of racial profiling, systemic incarceration of young black males for victimless crimes, and institutional racism.

Personally, having lived in the U.S. for most of my life, I think that blacks are often their own worst enemies. In many inner-city communities adopting white “bourgeois” behaviours, practices, and values is frowned upon by the “ghetto”-type blacks. There have been many attempts to integrate blacks into white society since the late nineteenth century, yet despite all the affirmative action, financial assistance, policing, reform, etc., blacks have consistently lagged behind other ethnic and racial groups in terms of purchasing power, education, health, IQ, and so on. Attributing all of this to systematic racism effectively concedes to BLM the notion that white society is somehow to blame for the state of the black man. Plenty of other groups were similarly disadvantaged, but managed to overcome their circumstances over time. BLM, as a movement, also seeks to reduce everything to systematic racism.

For most of my life I used to give blacks the proverbial benefit of the doubt, and held a positive, “colour-blind” view of meritocracy and self-improvement—that is, with the right effort, self-discipline, and opportunity, anyone could achieve the “American Dream”—but having observed blacks over a long period of time I have come to reject some of my “liberal” notions. For example, the Flynn effect has failed to fully account for IQ differences among racial groups. Moreover, studies have shown a correlation between religiosity, fertility, and ethnocentrism. Also, defining a “victimless crime” is notoriously subjective; many cultural Marxists have used this notion to argue for all sorts of perversion, including consensual adultery.

Aside from whites, probably no other racial group has done more to “atone” for its actual and alleged sins against another group, up to and including “taking the knee” and other forms of genuflection. Western whites, alongside other groups such as the Persians and Chinese, have contributed so much to civilisation: science, mathematics, economics, religion, ethics, and so on. Blacks have contributed comparatively little; most “African” contributions have hailed from the “whiter” parts of the Dark Continent, i.e., North Africa (St. Augustine of Hippo’s homeland). Compared to white churches, black churches, even the most conservative, have always been far more charismatic and sensuous, as has black music.

There is a reason as to why “white,” in general, is universally recognised as a positive connotation and “black” a negative. Most historical ruling classes have been fairer-skinned than the masses, in part due to their withdrawal from hard labour outdoors. So whiteness is still seen as a sign of socio-economic status and righteousness, hence the popularity of skin-lightening techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think I understand what you mean. I had a black coworker, a girl, who both her parents were lawyers, they had a gorgeous house and she used to tell me that other black people made fun of her and her parents because they "act white". Now I'm not sure what "acting white" means, but I think it's because they spoke proper English, had professional careers, and had a nice house. This is obviously wrong on the part of the black people who were making fun of her and it's also inherently racist for them to suggest that "only white people can speak properly, have good careers and material comforts". Asian Americans and Arab Americans have been two of the most wildly successful racial groups in America in terms of careers and material comforts, and their communities do not accuse them of "acting white". For some reason, the notion of "acting white" when one is successful is something that it seems that only American blacks push and I do not understand this, probably because I am not black.

 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

Attributing all of this to systematic racism effectively concedes to BLM the notion that white society is somehow to blame for the state of the black man

I don't attribute all of it to systemic racism, as I definitely believe that there are fundamental flaws in black American culture. I say this because I lived with a black person for almost three years and I saw that there is a marked difference in how black people treat their own property, raise their children, practice their religion, as well as their habits. These differences are not objectively good, and when you try to say something to them like "Hey you shouldn't put so much sugar in the Kool-Aid, it's bad for your health" they say that you're just "white and don't understand"... which is the same excuse that this person gave me for not taking care of their dog, not performing maintenance tasks or repairs on the house, so on and so forth.

What I do think is systemic racism though, is the assumption by police that every black person they pull over probably has weed in the car or a warrant out for their arrest. Because when we would ride together in the car, we would frequently get pulled over because police see a black and white person in a car and assume that something illegal is going on. When I speak of victimless crimes, I'm really just talking about possession of drugs, particularly marijuana. Being a Muslim, I do not use drugs or drink alcohol, but I don't exactly care if other adults choose to do so. They aren't hurting anyone aside from themselves by putting alcohol or drugs into their own bodies. This is what I mean by victimless crimes, and young black men do get locked up for inordinate amounts of time simply for possessing marijuana. I can't say that I know anything about disparities between blacks and other races in regard to IQ, purchasing power or anything but I do generally know that black people are in worse overall health than other ethnic groups and a lot of this comes back to personal choices that they make such as smoking cigarettes and pouring a quarter of a pound of sugar into their Kool-Aid, refusing to drink water, eating high fat and cholesterol foods at every meal, etc. So unfortunately I can't speak on anything other than the fact that their health tends to be worse than other racial or ethnic groups, but I blame this on their personal choices and poverty level rather than "systemic racism" because I also know a lot of tremendously unhealthy white people and part of me thinks that it's a poverty issue rather than an inherent racial one.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

Aside from whites, probably no other racial group has done more to “atone” for its actual and alleged sins against another group, up to and including “taking the knee” and other forms of genuflection.

I actually agree with this statement and I am not one of the whites who "takes the knee" or "raises my fist in solidarity" because like I stated: my family had nothing to do with slavery and has never been in the position to be able to oppress people because of their color. We were Ukrainian immigrants that came here in 1922 and have never been landlords, employers, or anything of that nature and as a result of this, I personally don't feel guilty about being white. It's just how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) created me, so I'm not going to apologize for it nor will I atone for the actions of people who happen to share a skin color with me. That's where I draw the line and that also happens to be one of the major areas where I disagree with BLM the organization. It is a lot like the stupid trope that arose in during the George W Bush era that "All Muslims are terrorists at heart and follow a violent, barbaric religion" and this narrative propagated by white evangelicals and white conservatives, so to say that I'm not on their side either would be accurate.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

Western whites, alongside other groups such as the Persians and Chinese, have contributed so much to civilisation: science, mathematics, economics, religion, ethics, and so on

The Islamic world actually contributed a great deal to science, mathematics, and of course religion. Modern Astronomy and math would not exist if it wasn't for Arabs inventing it while my ancestors were still living in mud huts during the European dark ages, killing each other over basically nothing. The problem is that the woke left is pushing the narrative now that Islam is inherently a "black" religion because Arabs oftentimes have darker skin than most Europeans. You can see it in America where many blacks claim to be "Muslims" but do not follow any of the Islamic dietary laws, codes of dress, rulings on purity, etc. I do not know how or when this started, but I know that the Nation of Islam has about as much to do with being a Muslim as the KKK has to do with Christianity, but still I have been told by blacks who see me with a beard and my kufi out in public that I am "culturally appropriating and trying to take away from black people what they invented". I reject this notion wholeheartedly because Islam is a faith for all mankind and there are communities of White Muslims that have been in Eastern Europe for centuries. Come to think of it, it's one of the claims of "cultural appropriation" that actually bothers me, because I practice Islam out of sincerity and belief, not because I'm trying to "appropriate culture" or get myself some sort of points on the woke oppression hierarchy. This is what I believe to sincerely be truth and it hurts me when people suggest that I practice Islam to try and "take something away" from other people.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

Blacks have contributed comparatively little; most “African” contributions have hailed from the “whiter” parts of the Dark Continent, i.e., North Africa (St. Augustine of Hippo’s homeland). Compared to white churches, black churches, even the most conservative, have always been far more charismatic and sensuous, as has black music.

I know that blacks have created some things, the Fairchild Channel F video game system that predates the Nintendo Entertainment System was created by a black guy named Jerry Lawson. But do you think that this is because black people have largely been persecuted in the Western world starting with slavery and then European colonialism? Supposedly black people invented things like the traffic light, refrigerated trucks, and the central heating furnace but I do not know how reliable this information is or whether it's just woke people attributing white inventions to black people since they're keen on rewriting history to push a specific narrative about race. Blacks also did have civilizations of their own, like the Nubian civilization and the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) empire, which was a Christian civilization. I can agree that black music and religion has been more charismatic and sensuous though, as blacks invented rock n roll, hip hop, jazz, and pretty much all popular music that people listen to in the modern era. I have only been to one black church in my life and there was a lot of yelling, faith healing, people falling on the floor and shaking, etc. However at the Masjid I sometimes go to, there are black brothers but they are in the minority compared to the Arab and Pakistani brothers and I as a white man am in the extreme minority because most whites around here are either irreligious or go to evangelical churches.

 

 

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

There is a reason as to why “white,” in general, is universally recognised as a positive connotation and “black” a negative.

Do you not think that this is a byproduct of systemic racism? I mean not in America but human society as a whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/17/2021 at 8:46 PM, Northwest said:

ABNA, PressTV, Tasnim, and other Iranian or pro-Iranian news agencies have been consistently pushing exclusively pro-BLM coverage, or nearly so.

Hi these channels are doing this mostly for oppsing American government & Iran anti oppression agenda which none of these channels are mentioning the agendas BLM group which only portray BLM as racial dicreminated children of black slaves whom want justice but in contrast these channels don't mention anything about the other agendas likewise LGBT & etc.

On 6/17/2021 at 10:27 PM, Abdul-Hadi said:

my family had nothing to do with slavery and has never been in the position to be able to oppress people because of their color.

Anyway the common mindset of officials & some group of people  at Iran is just seeing Americans as descendants of evil whites  and  oppressed black slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi these channels are doing this mostly for oppsing American government & Iran anti oppression agenda which none of these channels are mentioning the agendas BLM group which only portray BLM as racial dicreminated children of black slaves whom want justice but in contrast these channels don't mention anything about the other agendas likewise LGBT & etc.

Anyway the common mindset of officials & some group of people at Iran is just seeing Americans as descendants of evil whites and oppressed black slaves.

This is precisely the crux of the matter. If Islam teaches people to investigate matters thoroughly and impartially, as I believe it does, then the “Shia” Iranians who promote this simplistic, anti-white narrative, mindlessly parroting information from the likes of George Soros and his fellow anti-white globalists, simply have not taken the time to think critically about the matter and conduct further research—almost as though their experience with American imperialism has induced them to dwell on victimhood and seeing themselves in other “victims,” thus becoming ripe for emotional manipulation by Western “woke” globalists, who by definition are as anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic as they are anti-white. (This is due to the enormous and debilitating influence of Western globalist media inside Iran.)

Otherwise, their behaviour, rightly or wrongly, does not reflect well on Shia Muslims, and only drives a wedge between conservative, white Christians and orthodox Muslims. Becoming the religion of “woke” will not earn Shia Muslims empathy from white Westerners. Globalists are already portraying Islam as an “anti-black” Deen and will soon be marshalling Sunni blacks to wage a regime-change war on Iran. In a similar vein, a lot of the Iranian public is mindlessly anti-Trump, even though Trump wanted to avoid conflict with Iran (even the IRGC has admitted this!), but was forced by the neocon/neoliberal hawks, both pro-Establishment Democrats and Republicans, to assassinate General Soleimani, only to be blamed for taking action that the Establishment would have condoned in any event.

At every step of the way Trump tried to withdraw America from involvement in foreign conflicts, from the Ukraine to Syria, North Korea, and China, even going so far as to share classified information about Israel’s support for Daesh with Putin, but the Zionists, “woke” Democrats, and neocon Republicans screamed about “traitor Trump” and “Putin’s puppet.” Never mind that the entire RussiaGate hoax was engineered by Zionist “Russian” oligarchs and their financial friends within the U.S. military-industrial complex. Virtually all of Trump’s civilian and military advisers sabotaged his every move from start to finish, including members of his own family such as Kushner, Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, General Mathis, et al. Virtually all the Republican kingmakers sided with Democrats against the President’s foreign and domestic policies. Even Republicans who voted against impeachment never concealed their distaste for Trump.

In the end, Biden has ended up being far more pro-Israel and militaristic than Trump, and even doubled down on Trump’s actions in regard to Palestine, China, and elsewhere. Yet Trump gets blamed for sabotaging the Democrats’ efforts to sweet-talk Iran into surrender. By assassinating General Soleimani, Trump greatly weakened the pro-Western factions inside Iran and strengthened the pro-Islamic and pro-sovereignty elements. Trump’s rhetoric also did more than that of any other politician to expose the nature of the Western-led NWO. I believe Trump did this purposefully, as part of his “fifth-dimensional chess,” so to speak, in order to discredit the Establishment from within.

Therefore, Trump is blamed for hindering American “diplomacy” and undermining the Western-led globalist hegemony, just as he did by criticising the WHO, refusing to promote mandatory vaccination, advocating withdrawal of U.S. forces from overseas conflicts, stymying open borders and inequitable trade deals such as NAFTA, going against “woke” ideology, correctly blaming the U.S. for invading Iraq, Libya, et al., chastising neocons/neoliberals (Zionists) such as Obama/Clinton for creating Daesh, praising foreign leaders such as Kim Jong-un, Putin, and Xi Jinping...along with sundry other actions that the globalist NWO deemed unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
19 hours ago, Northwest said:

In a similar vein, a lot of the Iranian public is mindlessly anti-Trump, even though Trump wanted to avoid conflict with Iran (even the IRGC has admitted this!), but was forced by the neocon/neoliberal hawks, both pro-Establishment Democrats and Republicans, to assassinate General Soleimani, only to be blamed for taking action that the Establishment would have condoned in any event.

 

Trump's focus on Iran goes way back to the election debates with Hilary Clinton. In one of them he spends a whole 3 minutes just talking about Iran.

I agree that at a personal level he may well not have been able to tell you where Iran is on a map, but he was certainly shrewd enough to realise that this focus would get him support where it mattered. 

The same motivation drove his movement of the American embassy to Jerusalem and the pressure he put on Gulf Arabs to recognise Israel. The warm relationship between him and Netanyahu compared to the very frosty one between Netanyahu and Obama tells you all you need to know about how much more accommodating he was.

Heck they even named infrastructure after Trump in Israel.

The same calculus is driving Mike Pompeo who obviously believes that taking an even more extremist position in support of Israel (and against Iran) is his route to the White House in a few years' time.

As I see it one group of Americans (like Obama) want to control the Middle East, another group (Trump/Pompeo) want to handover control to the Israelis. So, yes, Trump is less of an interventionist, but I'd prefer American intervention to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 6/20/2021 at 10:41 AM, Haji 2003 said:

The warm relationship between him and Netanyahu compared to the very frosty one between Netanyahu and Obama tells you all you need to know about how much more accommodating he was. ...

As I see it one group of Americans (like Obama) want to control the Middle East, another group (Trump/Pompeo) want to handover control to the Israelis. So, yes, Trump is less of an interventionist, but I'd prefer American intervention to be honest.

This is MSM disinformation and part of the Zionist Establishment’s usual Democrat/Republican, left/right PSYOPs. The facts say otherwise, and the “right-wing” GOP Zionists who criticised the “left-wing” Zionist Obama for allegedly being “anti-Israel” know this. Support for Israel has always been bipartisan. Now for the fact and truth of the matter: under Obama the U.S. handed Netanyahu’s regime Israel’s largest military-aid package to date in its entire history, including Israel’s first-ever “bunker-buster” bombs. (Of course that record was subsequently eclipsed by Trump’s even larger “gift” to Israel, but prior to Trump, Obama, even during Netanyahu’s “reign,” was Israel’s most pro-Zionist American benefactor on record—surpassing even Truman, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43, among others.) According to Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak, under Obama military-intelligence ties between the U.S. and Israel reached their “highest level” on record. In fact, the Iron Dome system was lavishly financed by the Obama administration, not the Clinton, Bush, or Trump administrations. Conversely, a number of Republican administrations were prone to anti-Zionist, pro-isolationist influences, particularly of the traditionalist Right (the root of the Depression-era “America First Committee”), including Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. This impediment, by contrast, has never hobbled the liberal wing of the pro-Zionist Establishment, which was and is far more influential and powerful. Most, if not all, of the Jewish Zionist elite is solidly liberal and pro-globalist, which is unsurprising, given that “Jewish” Zionism has always been a secularist, quasi-fascist, anti-religious ideology. Excerpted from the second link:

Quote

Not only did George W. Bush refuse to stand with Israel on promoting Iron Dome and selling bunker-buster bombs, but in 2005 he also froze nearly all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects. And, just before Bush left office, the U.S. abstained rather than veto a one-sided UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. joined a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and, despite Israel’s strong objections, undermined the Jewish state's qualitative military edge by selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Dwight Eisenhower threated to isolate Israel during the Suez war; and George H.W. Bush opposed loan guarantees to Israel.

There is no question that Obama is committed, both in word and deed, to the safety and security of Israel — and in many ways is more committed than his Republican predecessors.

@Celtic Twilight @Silas

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 6/17/2021 at 1:39 PM, Haji 2003 said:

 

Screenshot 2021-06-17 at 09.37.03.png

Screenshot 2021-06-17 at 09.37.23.png

 

 

 

This nation underwent the unfathomable horrors of the holocaust at the hands of a racist political party in a country that was not theirs, and they still mourn and are irrevocably scarred by that experience that none, before or after WW2, is capable of feeling.

Let that sink in. Could the two be the same people? Common sense says nope. And if they are not those refugees from Europe then why the heck did the West arm, feed and unleash them upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/20/2021 at 9:41 AM, Haji 2003 said:

 

Trump's focus on Iran goes way back to the election debates with Hilary Clinton. In one of them he spends a whole 3 minutes just talking about Iran.

I agree that at a personal level he may well not have been able to tell you where Iran is on a map, but he was certainly shrewd enough to realise that this focus would get him support where it mattered. 

The same motivation drove his movement of the American embassy to Jerusalem and the pressure he put on Gulf Arabs to recognise Israel. The warm relationship between him and Netanyahu compared to the very frosty one between Netanyahu and Obama tells you all you need to know about how much more accommodating he was.

Heck they even named infrastructure after Trump in Israel.

The same calculus is driving Mike Pompeo who obviously believes that taking an even more extremist position in support of Israel (and against Iran) is his route to the White House in a few years' time.

As I see it one group of Americans (like Obama) want to control the Middle East, another group (Trump/Pompeo) want to handover control to the Israelis. So, yes, Trump is less of an interventionist, but I'd prefer American intervention to be honest.

I typed out a long reply to this but I lost it. I might repost all the points I made. However serious things- Trump let go the Kurdish nacro-terrorists which was seen as a major blow across the Zionist spectrum, from people who have a sincere struggle between their humanism and their tribalism to the outright cold blooded genocidal. They all freaked out.  Yes you had non-Zionist Jews in Palestine opening champagne bottles over this, or at least a lot of them, however as things stand they have zero power in the West and there is even the start of attempts to knock them out of academia in the UK for of all things "anti-Semitism". Trump murdered though the person who really defeated ISIL- that should never be forgotten. 

Obama until the very end gave more to the Settler Colonial project in Palestine than any other US President. In fact he buried actual "Liberal Zionism" (which was probably for the best ultimately though the human cost paid by the indigenous population was horrific, really nasty stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/17/2021 at 4:58 PM, Abdul-Hadi said:

What I always find to be disturbing is how the woke left is always trying to co-opt Islam and Muslims in order to push their anti-white agenda of "inclusivity" without realizing that Islam is not a religion that is tied to skin color, 

What exactly does anti-White mean??  Serious question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

What exactly does anti-White mean??

It's pretty simple: White people are uniquely evil and responsible for every evil thing that has ever taken place on the earth in history and thus, not being White automatically makes someone virtuous and their opinion worth more than that of a White person, regardless of how mistaken or erroneous it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

In fact he buried actual "Liberal Zionism" (which was probably for the best ultimately though the human cost paid by the indigenous population was horrific, really nasty stuff).

Hi we don't  agree with any type of Zionism which is supporting by Israel even so called "Liberal Zionism" or any type of Zionism which is supporting by Israel & evangelists .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi we don't  agree with any type of Zionism which is supporting by Israel even so called "Liberal Zionism" or any type of Zionism which is supporting by Israel & evangelists .

I know. I don't either. I think ultimately it's collapse is a positive thing- however I still don't like to see increased suffering inflicted on indigenous Palestinians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Screenshot 2021-06-27 at 08.54.23.png

 

GW Bush's stance on Israel.

At the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (against which there were protests around the world, but which was supported by the Israelis), there had been a claim that once Iraq was sorted out the Israel/Palestine issue would be addressed - for example, that claim was made in the UK Parliament to overcome objections for war.

In 2005, at a time when coalition forces were fully engaged in Iraq there had to be some Western demonstration of even-handedness in the Israel/Pal issue, if only to ensure the safety of Western troops in Iraq.

 

Obama

Whatever he did, remember that Syria had been set up for an invasion by the U.S. under his watch, and he point blank refused. If he gave the Israelis iron dome etc. in return for not invading Syria, that's a pretty good deal in my opinion.

If the U.S. had attacked Syria the result would have been either a failed state like Libya or an Israeli satellite like Jordan. It would have effectively marked the end of Hizbollah and provided a template for an attack on Iran.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/susan-rice-how-obama-found-least-bad-syria-policy/599296/

Talking of Libya, he's also on record as regretting his adventurism in Libya. Contrition for wrecking Muslim societies is not something American presidents are prone to do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

 

Trump

Some useful details about how Trump created more chaos than disengagement.

https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-trump-military-withdraw-afghanistan-5717012a-d55d-4819-a79f-805d5eb3c6e2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...