Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Breaking Up Syria
Here's something else to add to the turmoil of the M. East, and I have addressed it on this thread concerning the eventual breakup of Syria.  

Beck was on this morning, and he made a pretty good analysis as to what is going on between the two main players there, and what to look for in this upcoming struggle over who controls the area.  And while the Saudis may have a major influence there, it is not they are are the movers and shakers in this drama.  Rather it will be Iran against Turkey.  

But I'll let him describe this at this location here via video.

I pretty much agree with Beck here.  He doesn't mention the arms deal with SA, but Trump is trying to buttress up that part of the Gulf area in order to keep Iran and Turkey out of there.  In fact, he is talking nice to Erdogan, and then turning around and helping to thwart Erdogan's long term oil interests.

Syria and Iraq are going to look like a jig saw eventually, over all this action, and it is one of the reasons why the US and Israel are helping the Iraqi Kurds with training and arms.  This way, if Erdogan moves en mass through Syria, he is going to have to wade through the Syrian Kurds, rather than the Iraqi Kurds.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
20-30 years from now, the area will look vastly different, and may be actually civilized - but getting there is the crux of the problem. Right now, like Beck said, Turkey and Iran are looking to lead the Caliphate. Some strategies just want to play them off against each other. The long view is the shrinking of the world due to the internet and the spread of knowledge that melds people together. Iran has many pro-Western people, as does Turkey - but the rulers are intransigent to ignore them. I don't think they can indefinitely.
Reply
The world would immediately improve if any state or group of states took over Saudi Arabia and Mecca.
No people group on earth is more destructive to humanity than Saudi Arabia. No state is more responsible for their success at spreading wahabbi Islam than the good ole USA.
Reply
In 30 years from now they will still kill each others.
Palladin, you can nuke Ryhad it won't change the fact that at least a dozen other nations are pretending to head the Cahlifate right now.
Even if the Saudis disapeared tomorrow, Islam would as strong as today.
Reply
Fred,

Being a secularist yourself, you simply cannot "get" that religious people of the same faith are not all the same. John, Yak, Ron ( to my knowledge) and myself have professed a belief in and worship of Jesus right here.

We have huge theological and lifestyle differences.

John, Ron and probably Yak( which is perfectly understandable to me) think I am an official nut at this point. Ron thinks I am dishonest and make up things. John thinks I am a sanctimonious, self righteous asshole.

I don't see anymore what they see, I see something different. Muslims are the same.

If you knew the differences between a southern Baptist American's view of humanity and the role of the USA( which unfortunately is partially shared by lots of non SBC Americans, including atheists) compared to an Orthodox Christian/Anglican Catholic/Lutheran's view anywhere on earth BUT the USA you'd be stunned.

Some of our theology over here is not in consonance with a lot of church history. We're unique in this respect and in a bad way, IMO.

Check Islamic states in 1960. Simply not what has happened since 1990. The USA and Saudi Arabia have a large role in this new desert version of Islam spreading. Decent Muslims are fighting it and my country is on the wrong side of the fight.

Concerning a caliphate, of course they all want that Fred. That's an Islamic notion, but, most don't want American/Saudi versions leading their lives as we see every time a terrorist rules an area.

Catholics have an = and I don't oppose that. It's part and parcel of Catholic doctrine.

Orthodox have their own governing body as do Methodists and Anglicans as did the earliest church. Most famous martyrs of the first 3 centuries were bishops of various large cities.

Islam would be less dangerous if they were centrally governed by someone like the Turks who crushed the HELL out of Wahhabis in their era. Go read about Ottoman fights with these nuts. Unlike the USA, they fought them, they did not put Wahhabi Islam on steroids. BTW, years ago Stratfor posted an article stating back then it was USA strategic policy to help Turkey return to caliphate rule for this logic.

I think we've decide to try Saudi Arabia instead myself.
Reply
(06-19-2017, 12:48 PM)Palladin Wrote: ...John, Ron and probably Yak( which is perfectly understandable to me) think I am an official nut at this point. Ron thinks I am dishonest and make up things. John thinks I am a sanctimonious, self righteous asshole.
I don't think so - but my opinion is more unflattering, but at least is something you can change if you really want to.

I've depicted so many times in this forum how the psychological mechanism called "Religious Conversion" works. This mechanism is NOT about faith. It is about human reactions to stress and how that is susceptible to induced belief systems backed up with reinforcement. I've also discussed how getting brainwashed with this mechanism can be overcome so long as you understand what is happening, and actively resist it.

This trait has been discovered many times. Socialism is largely based on the "Idiot Moron" who believes the big lie. Jonathon Edwards discovered it and made a career out of Evangelism, using the parameters of this mechanism, to recruit followers. Charles Manson and any number of charismatic loonie have entrapped many into murder/suicide.

What I'm saying is, you believe lies and disinformation - and instead of vetting your own beliefs, work super hard to prove what you think is so. Counter arguments just roll off your armor. I, and others here have tried, but you resist.
Reply
Oh, I was into your arguments back when I saw the world through the lenses of what is essentially an ancient pagan religious view.

Uncle Sam and the flag = the goofy faces on a totem poll. I saw the USA as special, thought God always backed our play, if the US did it, it was right, etc.

Anymore, I see through the lenses of Christ. He doesn't back the play of anyone(not even Uncle Sam) seeking power via coercion and death, Sam and the flag do.

I didn't convert to Christ, I've been His since the 1960s, I just started paying more attention to Jesus and less to this dishonorable government we live under( all of them are). I guess I got brainwashed by Jesus after more serious attention to the biblical narrative.

I had divided loyalty and most to Sam. That's not the case now nor ever will be again. I'm ashamed it ever was.
Reply
You don't understand. The mechanism expresses itself by making a belief that is believed even without proof. I said it has nothing to do with religion and I meant it. The hard fact is that if someone was told that a chair was God, and did it while in a plastic state, brought on by trauma of some sort, and reinforced with a scientific schedule of reinforcement, then that person does not think a chair is God - that person knows a chair is God. Logic and argument doesn't dispel that belief. Like a psychosomatic illness, like blindness or being lame when no physical cause is present, often the only way to treat it is with the laying on of hands. But as the mechanism has been decoded, the person must be brought into a plastic state once again, for the cure to work. ...And even then, the cure must be reinforced correctly for it to take.

If a person is aware that he/she is in a state in which such brainwashing can occur - then it is harder for the mechanism to work. Most Left-wing wackos believe utter nonsense with religious fervor. No amount of reason seems to reach them. Pick a zealot. No matter what the idea is, the person believes it utterly and resists questioning it. That's the way we are built. Fighting this mechanism is like in Dune when the Bene Gesserit Mother Superior tells Paul Atreides that the Gom jabbar isn't used to call him an animal - but to prove that he might be human.

All I'm saying is to always have second thoughts, because carrying around untrue beliefs is a normal state, but can be remedied. There is no such reliable concept such as surety by faith, because we know that faith can be induced artificially and be wrong, yet the person so altered believes it without doubt. Since that is how God built us, give Him the respect to always doubt what we think is unchallengeable.
Reply
William,

I wish I did have faith in Christ "without doubt". That's just not possible for a thinking person in this era. I've had faith challenges since I was 21 years old.

I don't know how I would characterize it. I guess like this, "the preponderance of evidence to me is that Jesus of biblical fame lived when the gospel accounts say, was executed on a cross under the authority of Pontius Pilate while Tiberius was Emperor and the people that knew Him believed He was resurrected and many were murdered for it, so I share that belief".

There are objective more reasons for it, but, I have doubts. I don't see how a thinking human cannot have doubts.

My views now just dropped Uncle Sam as a competitor with Christ. States operate in self interests and the calling of Christ to His people is higher than that. That's all. Whereas I did see the USA as "God's agent" so to speak. Had the USA messed up theologically with the church honestly, it's the way many fundies are taught here.

If I were a Russian or Chinaman I'd say the same stuff I do as an American.
Reply
Palladin, I don't agree with you.
Wahhabism is certainly the most radical sect of Islam, but frankly, looking at it from the moon, IMO, it doesn't make much difference. A woman clad in a niqab is a woman clad in a niqab no matter her imam is turk, saudi or pakistani. They all share the same Coran and the same retard mentality.
You Wrote:The USA and Saudi Arabia have a large role in this new desert version of Islam spreading.
That's ridiculous because Islam is itself a Saudi religion. You don't have non-saudi version of Islam. Even Shiisme is saudi. Irans would make Mecca, not Tehran their capital if they could. They share 95% of their religous DNA with the saudis.
The desert version of Islam was spread in the 7th and 8th Centuries AD, not in the 90's.

The difference with christianism is that there is only one version of Islam and it's called Islam.
Only useful idiots believ that there are many forms of Islam.

If you told me tomorrow Islam is going to be led by Turkey instead of SA, I wouldn't give a damn because it would still be the same damn sh*t.
Reply
Fred,

This is nonsense. Millions of Europeans, Canadians and Americans vacation in Turkey( my own big sister has) and many Jews own nice ocean front property in Turkey. Christians and Jews right now live voluntarily in Iran, not so Saudi Arabia.

To say their versions of Islam are no different than Saudi Arabia's is anti intellectual.

You've fallen victim to John's "they're all the same" nonsense.

Yes, the USA is helping spread the desert version of Islam via our global role and inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in it.

Go search for 1960s pics of Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. Modern version of Islamic culture before the US gave the desert version steroids in 1980-2017.

You Europeans ought to be a little more worldly than we red neck Americans who see everything black and white.
Reply
Palladin, it's exactely the same version everywhere, except that you have had governements which didn't the same policies toward christians, jews and foreigners.
Also not everybody is practicing Islam at 100% everywhere but all those who do practice Islam at 100% are doing the exact same things at the exact same time in the exact same position.
And there is not a single word of difference between a Coran in a Stockholm's suburb, in Ryahd or in Jakarta.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has excatly the same version of Islam as the Saudi do, ± some local customs we don't even notice from our western point of view.
Iran and SA ar practicaly at war with each others, but they all follow the same religion point by point.

That some Christians and Jews are living in Iran volontarily doesn't change anything.
Banning Christians and Jews is a governance policy, not part of Islam. In Islam you over-tax them, you don't kill or deport them. But you still get 1000 lashes for blasphemy, regardless whether jews or christians are willing to live in the country.
See my point?
Reply
It's interpretation that makes the differences. You can see it right here Fred.

Ron would have me in jail for drinking beer, I think pot should be legalized.

Both Christians, same bible, etc.

John, Ron and Yak are USA patriots who support our global role, I am not and do not support it. All Christians, same bible.
Reply
(06-23-2017, 05:25 PM)Palladin Wrote: ... Ron would have me in jail for drinking beer, I think pot should be legalized.

Both Christians, same bible, etc.

Except that Ron would not have you arrested for drinking beer. Jesus drank wine. Your head is messed up.

What the Bible does is allow free will and encourages all people to learn the physical laws of the Universe and how great everything was designed. What a person does with what that person learns is on his/her own hands. No one would lock you up for choosing stupid stuff - but don't get on your high horse because everyone laughs at you for doing it. Yes, we do judge. We do all the time. What we don't do is condemn.
Reply
Once you get locked into the mode of condemning, as Palladin has, then you lose all discrimination, and condemn all the time, especially those who are on the side of Good, because you lose the ability to tell the difference between Good and Evil. Why? Because it is only the Spirit of God who enables us to have valid moral discernment, informed by the Bible which He inspired; and when we begin practicing Satan's way of hateful thinking (which is what habitual condemning is), we drive the Holy Spirit from us, and come to view the Bible with hostility, since it contradicts and reproves our hatefulness. It is Evil that we should hate, not everyone and everything else.

The solution to misusing the Bible to support private views is to allow the Bible to interpret itself, using sound methods of interpretation, and honestly allowing the chips to fall as they may. Palladin would have us toss out the Bible entirely, just because many people misuse it. That is exactly what the enemy of God and Man wants, since it is the Bible that God has provided to unmask the enemy's deceptions, and provide the foundations for valid faith--the faith that defeats Satan.
Reply
Ron,

You personally stated here years ago you'd make it illegal to possess liquor. I defended you at that time stating "Ron's joking guys" and you immediately retorted with one of your sermons stating it is no joke and you meant it. I've made this comment repeatedly in the past and you've never claimed otherwise until now.


I don't consider that "condemning" people, it's just stating facts. God's OK with that, too. You could be right, it's God's call to condemn, just repeating your stuff. I figured you were proud of it.

On the thread topic, here's info that the anti Qatar move has more to do with Iran, Turkey and the Muslim brotherhood than it does terrorism, which almost all our Sunni Muslim allies partake in at times.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/23/qa...d-arrival/
Reply
Well Ron?
Reply
I have maintained all along, without variance, ever, that the repeal of Prohibition was a very bad thing. Prohibition saved many lives and families. It prevailed for 13 years, despite all the false propaganda and twisting of the facts put out by those who wanted free access to liquor (mainly so they could sell it). The only reason Prohibition was repealed was apathy--opponents had tried unsuccessfully year after year to get it repealed, and most people took it for granted that it would fail once again to be repealed. So they did not vote.

Those who think Prohibition was unsuccessful are ignorant of the actual facts of history, perhaps willfully.

And throughout history, there has been a long evident bias on the part of many to distort and mistranslate the Bible to give the impression that some use of some kinds of alcoholic beverages were approved by the Bible. Translators frequently translated the Greek word oinos as the alcoholic beverage we today call wine, because they wanted to excuse their own wine-drinking. But in most cases where the word is used in the New Testament, sound scholarship has shown that it simply meant "grape juice." Vino (juice of the vine), not wine. The Bible scholar, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, wrote at length on this subject. See: http://www.anym.org/pdf/wine_in_the_Bibl...iocchi.pdf

He points out that in New Testament times, grape juice was not preserved by allowing it to ferment and turn alcoholic; grape juice was preserved by boiling it, so it would not ferment or spoil. The same thing is done today when making grape jelly or jam.

In my church, we require as a condition of membership, that we refrain from any use of alcoholic beverages. We set this as an example before the general population, and no one can dispute that Seventh-day Adventists are the healthiest and longest-lived people on earth. We are not trying to spoil the fun of people who love booze. We are showing the way to have more fun, longer! We believe that God never takes anything away from us, even by asking us to give up something, without giving us something better in its place. Sobriety is better than drunkenness, and health and long life are better than living sickly, short lives. And by eschewing use of alcoholic beverages, we avoid all the calamitous effects of alcohol addiction, including financial ruin and destruction of families.

There are some people who claim that alcoholic beverages taste good to them (though I suspect that most people, if honest about it, would admit that it was an acquired taste). But even if that were true, just because something tastes good does not mean it is good for us. It is believed by medical researches who have examined the remains of Ludwig Von Beethoven, that his decline in health, loss of hearing (a disaster for a composer!) and early death were the result of lead poisoning. It is known that Beethoven had a favorite lead mug from which he preferred to drink his wine. Some people claim that drinking from a lead mug would somehow make the wine taste sweeter. Perhaps Beethoven would have lived to produce many more great symphonies, had he not destroyed his liver with lead poisoning--because it tasted good. Perhaps he would have been able to hear his own ninth symphony, which some hail as the greatest work of music ever produced by a human being. (At the conclusion of the first performance, the first violinist had to go to Beethoven, who had conducted it, and turn him around, so he could see the people standing and cheering and even leaping in jubilant celebration. He was stone deaf by that point. He had conducted from memory, prompted only by the feeling of vibrations conducted through the floor.) Then again I need only mention the multitudes of children who have been brain-damaged for life by eating the fragments of peeling lead paint, because it tastes sweet to them. We might also consider the history of the drink called absinthe. It used to be laced with additives that made it hallucinogenic and lethally poisonous, in addition to its high alcoholic content--but the fact remains that it was the beverage of choice for many famous people, including Vincent Van Gogh, who died at the age of 37, and Oscar Wilde, who died at the age of 46.
Reply
Well, why did you berate me above for saying what you believed about alcohol legality? If prohibition of alcohol is in effect, I'm in jail, right?

I knew what your views were from years back when Biker dude and Ahkenanten posted here.

I didn't repeat that to make you mad, just showing Fred how we can worship Christ and read the bible and interpret it differently, which is what Muslims do with their writings as well.
Reply
Palladin Wrote:It's interpretation that makes the differences.
All the muslims all around the world interpretate Islam the same way:
- Pray 5x a day
- Do the Ramadan
- No sex before marriage
- The Coran is the law because it's the words of Allah

Try to find a muslim who don't believe these things.

But everywhere in the world, you will find muslims who don't care about religion as much as following all the rules of their religion.
It doesn't mean their Islam is different, it only means they think more rationaly.

you Wrote:Ron would have me in jail for drinking beer, I think pot should be legalized.
Both Christians, same bible, etc.
These topics have nothing to do with the christian religion. It's written nowhere in the Bible that you can't drink beer or smok pot.
You can be both 100% compliant with your religion and still have opposite views on these questions.

Muslims however don't have this luxury. The Coran doesn't let you drink alcohol and that's final, no matter what sect of Islam you pretend to be from.
A muslim who do drink alcohol is not respecting his own religion. It doesn't have another interpretation of Islam.

I admire poeple who never allow themselves to drink alcohol. But telling that they do so because they are inspired by the Bible is pure BS.


Palladin Wrote:On the thread topic, here's info that the anti Qatar move has more to do with Iran, Turkey and the Muslim brotherhood than it does terrorism
Please explain how you dissociate intellectualy Iran, Turkey and the Muslim brotherhood and terrorism.

Maybe not ISIS but there are other forms of terror to force Islam onto the poeple to gain power.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)