>complain about 9/11, London subway bombing, Madrid train

you have to go back.

>>66106578
But it was Islam who started shit in the eigth century.
And England rightfully took control of the land that would later be Israel after the Ottoman empire was defeated in WW1.
Start shit, get hit.

My your logic there should be a 9/11 in the US every other month.

>Americans and Brits drill for oil in the Middle East, lead wars together with the French and Australia left and right
>Europe has to accept muslims
>Britbongs say they're full
>Burgers say they're full
>Baguettes say they're full

File: images.png (6KB, 232x217px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 232x217px

>>66106578
>Zionist colonization of Muslim land
I support.

OP is Emirati Arab.

OP is completely correct
The reason muslims are so angry is because after the countless wars fought between the muslims and the christians, the christians won
And now we infidels can just carve out a piece of muslim land and say "this belongs to the jews now"
How could that possibly be allah's will?
And since allah isn't smiting the fuck out of us westerners the only logical explanation is that he wants his servants to do it for him

good thing no one gives enough of a fuck about us

File: 9373776.jpg (12KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x320px

>>66107067
>of us westerners
Feels good to be eastern.

I agree.
Name a reason why western armies should remain in the arab world.
Let them figure their own shit out, and obviously exterminate the Jewish parasites in Israel.

>>66106578
Yeah because Abdul the terrorist in his tower hamlet is *totally* affected and oppressed by the Israelis am i right ?

Oh wait no he doesn't, he doesn't even have anything to do with it, he's just a nigger searching for an excuse to be violent
(and some white people actually buy it, lol)

You have to go back.

>>66107186
[Bulldozing intensifies]

>>66106578
>Western countries never do consider that all this
was their secret servises dids

>>66106578
>without their prior acts of aggression on the Islamic world
Hmmm yes I remember how the invasion of Iberia and the Balkans were the result of Christian aggression.

>>66106803
Well most of those people aren't refugees and we have enough economic burden already. Besides the surge is from Groß Mutti's stupid mouth.

>>66107713
>we bombed Iraq because of some tribal invasions 1000 years ago

righto you yankee cunt

>>66107125
>Let them figure their own shit out, and obviously exterminate the Jewish parasites in Israel.
They've proven to be grossly incompetent when it comes to fighting Jews.

>>66106578
>Zionist
Well, most of opposition to Zionism among Arabs was a left wing before 80s. The main idiocy of the West was supporting rightists all over the world to oppose soviet influence. It has lead to a cannibal regimes in Latin America and rise of political Islam among Arabs. The latter borrowed terrorism from Arab left wingers and started shit. Good job, West. You have restored fascism by your own hands. The only way to fight is to destroy political Islam ideology. You need to purge Syria and have another one Nurnberg with deislamistization next.

>>66107612
Pretty sure France didn't get Palestinians.

>>66106578
Build the wall.

>>66107125
leb

>>66106578
muslim please die

>>66107776
Implying we bombed Iraq because they were Muslim. If that was the case we would have killed them all. We invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11. Muslims have never stopped trying to fuck with the west (and yes I'm aware the Ottomans were just the Turks).

>>66107067
>countless wars fought between the muslims and the christians
There is not a thing like that.
I had noticed long before that westerners don't understand MENA at all, don't know a shit about region history. Christian minorities still exist in most of MENA countries for a last thousand years, and the only serious wars on religious basis between Muslims and Christians were crusades, and they were leaded by Catholics.
Shit with political Islam we have now have been a thing of the last 30-40 years only. Islamists had no political influence before it. Arab nationalism and socialism were the major ideologies among Arabs before it. Islam, except salafi sect (which is analogue of protestants in western Christianity) is actually just another abrahamic religion very similar to Christianity and Judaism (especially to the latter).
What's happened was the defeat Arab nationalists suffered in 6 day war, and the fact they fucked up economies of Arab countries. It has lead to the rise of political Islam as an alternative, well nurtured by the West both directly and through their Saudi puppets. They have borrowed terrorism from various Arab leftists movements, who had used it a lot. Than Afghanistan and other shit happened, they obtained trained and armed men, Al quaeda appeared. First they have attacked Maghreb countries, but Algeria and Tunisia were too westernized and educated countries for them, and they fought it successfully. Islamists didn't got major support of societies there (radical ones; Islamic conservators are a thing there, but they do not blow anyone and pretty similar to Christian democracy parties in Europe). Then they turned to Mashriq countries (Arabs to the West of Egypt), and at this time Bush destroyed Iraq. They have obtained even more weapons and people, poverty, war and lack of education in these countries made political Islam even more popular there. Than Arab spring happened.

>>66107801
Political Islam came mostly because of the Iranian Revolution which actually removed a key US ally.

>>66108160
Islam is political at its core. Year 0 of Islam is when Muhammad took over a municipality (Yathrib).

Ok, so why did ISIS fuck with Japan?

We have diddly shit to do with that region.

>>66108090
Those uprising were mostly started by liberals with iPhones who wanted to live like the West, but chaos followed and Islamists who had trained men appeared and took over the rebellions. In artificial countries like Syria it has lead to a civil wars, because sleeping conflicts were awaken by chaos. In Egypt people got tired of Islamists quickly and started second rebellion which was supported by military and ended by coup. In Lybia civil war between liberals and Islamists started (well, it's more a war of different political clans than ideologies), in Yemen it has lead to a confict between Saudi (hence the West) and Iran backed governments, in Syria and Iraq - I guess everyone knows.
>>66107713
Oh god, how people can be that retarded. It was 1000 years ago and those wars were mot religiously driven. Those were feudal wars waged to have more land. Religion was only cover, and often these cover was absolutely obvious. Only really religious conflict were crusades, and only first crusade actually. Later crusades were about landless knights of Europe looking for feuds in Palestine.
t. Expert on MENA affairs.

>>66108090
t.knower

>>66108160
And that was because of an idiot named Jimmy Carter, but then way before that, the British also allied with Wahabist Arabs in WWI.

The Islamic world is for the most part at war with it self.
Westerners do pick sides as does Russia and China.
However blaming the eternal conflict on outsiders is nothing short of comedy, when Muslims are more than eager to kill each other.
If anything the west is trying to calm things down so they can by your oil without all the drama.

>>66108160
No, it has started way before Iranian revolution. In fact, Iran was the exception. Most of Islamists worldwide were controlled by the West. Their popularity has started to grow since early 70s, after fail in 6 day war.
>>66108211
We should than call Christianity political too because medieval times. Or any other religion. Religion and politics has always been together, concept of secularism appeared only in French revolution. It's retarded. If you learn more about MENA history, you would understand that political Islam is distinct ideology which became popular not so long time ago.

>>66108362
>No, it has started way before Iranian revolution
As I said, you can trace it back to WWI when the British allied with Arabs to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and so unleashed Wahabism which Constantinople had long suppressed.

>>66108326
>Wahabist Arabs in WWI.
Well, it's more complicated. Yes, Brits supported Saudis but only as a part of Arab rebellion. They supported Arab nationalists as well - and the latter are traditionally secular (which is reasonable because of huge religious diversity of Arabs. They kill each other that much partly because of their religious divisions, which became a thing because of fail of nationalism).
>Jimmy Carter
Not really, it has been politics of USA all along the Cold War era: support reactionary right wingers all over the world to oppose soviets. Afghanistan is a brilliant example and it was mostly during Reagan rule.

File: trash.jpg (394KB, 778x1018px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 778x1018px

>>66108453
>support reactionary right wingers all over the world to oppose soviets

>using the term "reactionary" unironically

Arab nationalism was ultimately a fail idea because they're a tribal culture that cannot into statehood. The rise of Islamofascism from the 1970s onward has as much to do with the fact that the failure of secular nationalists to defeat Israel had discredited the entire thing.

>>66108420
Yet for almost 50 years salafism had been pretty unpopular. It existed, but was not a thing before 70s:
1) Nationalists became unpopular because of failed economies and failed war
2) Western support, especially through Saudi Arabia which became very rich at that time because of oil crisis.
>>66108359
Current situation benefits the West.
1) Arabs kill each other. They can't gather together fuck Israel boipucci.
2) Poor unstable countries are a good resource of workforce; you can also drain them almost for free. When they don't need more people they stop le humanism and close the borders, leaving Arabs to sink in blood. Have you noticed that refugee hype has started and ended in 2015?
3) The whole situation holds back these countries. West doesn't want another China nearby. If Arabs stopped fighting and started development, they would be a competitors in a global market.
4) Western jihadists go to Syria and die there.

Of course it gives some disadvantages. Terrorism is one, but it's a meme, they can allow for a hundred or two of their citizens to be killed in exchange, it's way less than car accident deaths. Ethnic tensions are another one, but people tend to be assimilated eventually in a few generations so they don't care too.

>>66106578
OP is a faggot

>>66108647
Saudi Arabia was comparatively secular before the Iranian Revolution. The seizure of the Grand Mosque and Khomeni's remarks that they were unfit to guard Islam's holiest sites threw a huge scare into them.

>>66106578
>Western countries

You mean anglos, right?

>>66108647
>3) The whole situation holds back these countries. West doesn't want another China nearby. If Arabs stopped fighting and started development, they would be a competitors in a global market.

They would not. There are many factors of history, geography, and culture that will prevent Arab countries from ever amounting to jack.

>>66108502
It's good therm actually.
>>66108529
>was ultimately a fail idea because they're a tribal culture that cannot into statehood
Not really. MENA is a birthplace of idea of statehood from ancient Egypt to Babylon. Things you say are true only for Gulf Arabs. It could be a good idea, but nationalism has failed due to failed war and economies.
Now I think about liberals and leftists as a future alternative for political Islam in MENA 2bh. They are close to Europe and have big diaspora there. West has a big influence on all the world, but it's a special thing for MENA. Arab Spring has started by liberals. I think they would be more and more a big thing with urbanization and spread of internet and education there.

>>66108709
>Saudi Arabia was comparatively secular
It was not, lol. But the rise of a political Islam and seizure made them more retarded. But it existed before.
>>66108723
No, we actually have examples. Before China, in 70s, Maghreb was a place where western companies, French ones especially, moved their industries to. It boosted them a lot. Geographically they are centre between Europe, Asia, CIS and Africa. Historically - they are retarded due to Mongol invasion. But we are retarded too, yet we was superpower, same goes to China etc. It's more difficult to rise a retarded country to decent state but we have examples. Culture is a consequence of economy, it's tangible thing (and they are part if big abrahamic family so there is nothing really incompatible there).

>>66108090
Explain to me what thr conquest of christian lands with fire and sword were and why Karl Margell had to beat the invading hordes back.

I know the west triggered this, but muslim agression and priacy triggered the crusades.

Allow me to post this amusing excerpt from Brezhnev's memoirs. (^:

"We tried to talk them (the Arab states) into making peace with Israel, but they insisted on war. So we gave them everything, the latest. Even things that Vietnam did not have. They had double superiority in aircraft and triple superiority in artillery. Sadat called me on the phone at 1:00 AM three times screaming for me to save him. I said no, this is ridiculous. We weren't going to die for them!"

>>66108999
>conquest of christian lands with fire and sword were and why Karl Margell had to beat the invading hordes back.
It's a meme of romantism era. There were no real hordes, just a usual feudal wars waged by maghreb feudals. And crusades had no links to these wars. Pope didn't mentioned in his speeches. It was religious fanatic in first crusade and knights who wanted land in the next crusades. In fourth crusade religious part was a meme: they destroyed Byzantium, lol.

>>66109103
Read memories of soviet leaders about Afghanistan communists, Taraki, Amin.
>we will pass the soviet way in 5 years LMAO
>10 years later we will be fully communist country

>>66109103
Why are Arabs so fucking terrible at war?

>>66106578
I half agree with you. Many of our actions and interventions in the Middle East during the Cold war period probably have a lot to do with why a lot of Islamic countries resent the west today however I think at this point we are in too deep.

Even if we pulled out entirely and just kind of ignored the Middle East they'd still be over there chanting death to America. We've already done too much damage and can't really unscrew ourselves.

Not saying that Islam would be a better religion if we never got involved in the Middle East but rather the anti-western sentiment would be non-existent and radical Islam may never have taken hold to begin with.

I don't honestly know what's right anymore. Pulling out doesn't solve the problem in the short term though after a few generations of leaving the middle east alone its likely they would warm up to the west somewhat. Continuing our offensive might stabilize things but in all likelihood we're just digging ourselves a deeper hole. Bombing the shit out of the middle east and wiping out as many of them as possible would solve our short term problems but genocide tends to have huge international consequences and is generally considered to be morally wrong.

>>66109490
Pisslam has been at war with the West for 1400 years, dude.

>>66109130
Isis also kills fellow muslims, feels like the muslims fuck shit up this time as crusaders.

Also the seljuk summer campaigns were done for religious and monetary reasons...so quite similar as well.

Its ridiculous how people can complain about jews getting their shit back or setting foot on their holiest site, the temple mount when arabs conquered it and the christian patriachates before.

>Its only evil when the others do it.

We westerners have at least the balls to admit the crusades and imperialism were shit, but to muslims conquering everything that surrounded them is totally ok.

For example, the us had to lead their first war outside the americas against the barbary pirates who when asked why they did it saod that it was their religious duty to fuck unbelievers.

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

But no, omly westerners are evil and lets forget that muslims were the biggest slavers in history.

>>66109529
I'm not counting religious conflicts like the Crusades where both sides were at war on religious grounds.

Modern conflicts in the middle east are very different in nature and while it's still a holy war in some sense for the middle east it's primarily an economic and strategic one for the western powers.

>>66109529

Keep worshipping your Jewish overlords, you Jewcuck.

File: muslim slave trade.png (113KB, 721x600px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 721x600px

>>66106578

>get bombed to oblivion and Jews steal your land
>Muslim countries never consider the invasion of Byzantine, Coptic Egypt, and Christian Syrian lands, nor the enslavement of Europeans in the Balkans (see janissaries)

Start shit get hit

>>66109709
Exactly!

How is this different from western imperialism?

Just look at the Balkans, thats the fucked up zones of the ottomans creation.

>>66106803
>Europe has to accept muslims

This is where your chain of logic should stop.

No one is forcing you to accept anyone, my friend. Thousands of wars have been waged all across the globe for thousands of years, and in 99.9% of them Austria was not forced at gunpoint to accept refugees. The Syrian War (or Arab Spring, however wide you want to analyze it) does not have to be any different.

>>66109286
They barely have military traditions. During ottoman rule only a very minor groups of Arabs served in army.
>>66109490
Political Islam is just another kind of fascism. Methods should be the same. Military victory over it and court to judge Islamists. Than forcible dejihadization and Marshall plan for MENA.

>>66109749
No one is declaring that Ottoman empire was not colonial empire, lol. It has holded back Arabs same way European colonialism holded back others. But saying
>Muslims
Is total idiocy. Those were ottomans, and it was not about religion.
>>66109709
>invasion of Byzantine, Coptic Egypt, and Christian Syrian lands
Well, there are no Muslim countries claiming they are successors of Righteous Caliphate except the ISIS, lol. And it would be wrong to call it conquest, especially in Syria. People were tired of endless wars with Parthia and Christian sectarian violence and welcomed Islam as the more liberal alternative, lol. Also there were no forcible convertion mostly. Mashriq countries have big Christian diasporas nowadays, half of our orthodox saints are Arabs, especially from Syria. St. Ioann Damascin was a Grand vizir of Caliphate. There barely were christian/muslim conflicts among Arabs before rise of Islamism. Baath party was founded by Christian arab, for example. Of course, there always were tensions but not a real hatred.

>>66110251
But christians keep getting treated like second class citizens and worse.

I am just tired of getting lumped in with "the west" and crusades all the while germans and swedes treat muslims betterntzan they treat christians and other minorities.

And what do they do here in europe?
Being the worst immigrants by far even though africans and a lot of asian countries got treated worse in colonialsim and cknstantly play the victim while allowing a climate in their community that breeds suicide bombeds.

In that we are not faultless, but THEY want to live here ...

File: pepedour.png (24KB, 492x475px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 492x475px

>>66108090
>and they were leaded by Catholics.

And the first Crusade was begun due to the Seljuks attacking Byzantium. The Christians didn't wake up one day and say "yeah let's just dogpile the hell out of this region that we barely know how to reach by ship." Seljuk aggression began in 1075 when they invaded and annexed a couple Byzantine cities, and it took 20 years of groveling by Emperor Komnenos to the rest of Christendom to come to their aid. The First Crusade began in 1095.

If Christians were bloodthirsty assholes who wanted an excuse to jump down the Islam world's throat, they sure took a long time to do so

-t. atheist

>>66110529
>But christians keep getting treated like second class citizens and worse
Only with rise of political Islam. Christians there always were educated class.
>And what do they do here in europe?
I don't think you should lump Arabs, Turks, Bosnians etc in one group. Situation differs from country to country and from class to class. There are beureuttes in France and arab intellectuals, decent people, politicians among Arabs in Germany, etc. Jihadists are breeded by a minority of very poor and religious Muslims, while, for example, only 20% of Muslim in France are practicing.
Also no one reasonable would remember crusaders or Saracens from middle ages, it's like looking at problems between Greece and Germany through the prism of relationships between barbarians and city states of ancient Greece.

>>66110708
>Jihadists are breeded by a minority of very poor and religious Muslims,

All of the 9/11 attackers came from educated and rich backgrounds.

Clearly they were not driven by socioeconomic conditions. They had access to every luxury this planet could offer, but they chose death in the name of their religion regardless.

>>66110708
>Only with rise of political Islam. Christians there always were educated class

Bull. Crap. In the Ottoman Empire, Christians were untermensch who didn't have full citizenship or protection of the law.

>>66110708
I know enough cool muslims, but the percentage of them that is the equivalent to our neo-nazis is to high.

This Russian poster sure smacks of churka shitskin.

>>66110772
>Christians were untermensch who didn't have full citizenship or protection of the law.

not to mention they turned little boys into eunuchs to fight for them as janissaries

and also the fact that, for a period of time, Cordoba and Baghdad were far more scientifically advanced compared to European hovels due to having access to the Greek classics. so the claim that Christians were educated is a bit of a stretch since Christians were fairly backwards until the crusades rolled in and allowed them to pillage the knowledge back.

although I do believe Irish monks had some of the classics stored in monasteries, but it doesn't help that Scandinavians were busy raping the fuck out of them endlessly.

>>66110772
As an orthodox I know it better m8. Relationships between Christians and ottomans were different from sultan to sultan but among ordinary people they were pretty chill usually.
>>66110745
General picture is different. As any other fascist ideology, political Islam attracts mostly uneducated people of village descent. There were intellectuals in Mussolini party too.

>>66110893
>>66110772

They were the educated class in the former christian centers in the middle east.
They were similar to jews in that regard, that they kept the old shot and knowledge.

>>66110862
Of course anyone educated enough to not accept pol ideology smacks black dicks.

>>66110984
This, Christians of MENA are pretty good analogue to Jews in Europe. Also what's funny, Jews in MENA were less educated and rich usually than Christians.