Another OBL thread

[hill160881]

I will let the report speak for itself.

Have fun

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/19-Aug-2011/Stratfor-disputes-OBL-killing-in-Abbottabad

Lets just ask SEAL team 6 what really happened.

[Ando]

Pfft...Good luck with that...

[Frizzle Fry]

"Let the region solve it's own problems..."

Yeah, that's worked for the last few thousand years

[Frizzle Fry]

P.S. the comments are like a grammarless collection of every cockamamie liberal fairytale of the last 6 years

[OPBN]

I can't take any "article" seriously with that many typos or grammatical errors.

[cockerpunk]

"Let the region solve it's own problems..."

Yeah, that's worked for the last few thousand years

actually, before the colonial powers got involved ... it did work pretty well.

[Frizzle Fry]

actually, before the colonial powers got involved ... it did work pretty well.

Actually, it didn't.

[cockerpunk]

Actually, it didn't.

yeah it did ....

besides the crusades and the colonial empires, that region of the world has more or less been able to look after itself.

[Frizzle Fry]

Cockerpunk, you're so full of it man! Can you ever admit that you don't know what you're talking about? You couldn't be more wrong, man.

Shia and Sunni factions were formed out of the chaos in the 630s after the death of Muhammad, when followers were unable to decide whether his successor should be a family member (cousin Ali) or a disciple (adviser Abu). The group that would come to be known as Sunnis won out in the long run and the first Caliph was Abu Bakr, while Muhammads descendants were the original Shi'ite imams (that is to say, chosen ones, not to be confused with Sunni Imams who are clerics). This began the Ridda Wars, in which various tribes and factions attempted to claim their leaders were various prophets or incarnations of prophets, and several major Shi'ite spiritual leaders emerged to do battle with the Sunni regime.

Sunni and Shia sects played sharks and jets for centuries with a very basic level of constant conflict, while the more centralized Sunni sect expanding to control the Muslim state that occupied most of what we now know as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and expanded north and east defeating separatist and apostasic sects as they went. On a very basic level, Twelver Islam is less structured than Sunni belief when it comes to clerical organization, which put Shi'ites at a disadvantage. There was a brief period of relative religious peace under caliph Umar, who was a violent expansionist but at least allowed non-Muslims to live in his empire and did not crack down on Shia groups with the same fervor as caliph Bakr, but he was assassinated by a Persian slave (the Persians and Byzantines had been brutally conquered by Bakrs armies). It wasn't until the early 600s that Shi'ite forces were able to kill the a caliph Uthmun, which put and end the Rashidan Caliphate but cemented Sunni support for the Seljuk Empire and lead to what is known as the "Golden Age of Islam" - a period marked by proper treatment of non-Muslim conquered peoples in North Africa and the Mediterranean, but great internal conflict between Muslim sects.

That's just a brief history up to the 7th century, and frankly sitting here with maybe a tenth of the texts I had available when I studied these conflicts, and only the notes I have left from my the portfolio I used to write my senior dissertation, there's PLENTY I left out. Much of the low-level tribal warfare has not been recorded in any depth, for obvious reasons there were much better records of conquered peoples and empires than internal religious conflict, but records do exist of entire tribes and factions being wiped out.

Now, factor the Mongols traveling to the region with conquest in mind, the remnants of the Persian Empire, the rebel groups who survived the conquest of Byzantine Egypt and moved throughout North Africa... And that's all pre-Ottoman, nevermind the Crusades.

So seriously, are you going to keep spitting out buzzwords and NPR propaganda or do a little research?

[cockerpunk]

Cockerpunk, you're so full of it man! Can you ever admit that you don't know what you're talking about? You couldn't be more wrong, man.

Shia and Sunni factions were formed out of the chaos in the 630s after the death of Muhammad, when followers were unable to decide whether his successor should be a family member (cousin Ali) or a disciple (adviser Abu). The group that would come to be known as Sunnis won out in the long run and the first Caliph was Abu Bakr, while Muhammads descendants were the original Shi'ite imams (that is to say, chosen ones, not to be confused with Sunni Imams who are clerics). This began the Ridda Wars, in which various tribes and factions attempted to claim their leaders were various prophets or incarnations of prophets, and several major Shi'ite spiritual leaders emerged to do battle with the Sunni regime.

Sunni and Shia sects played sharks and jets for centuries with a very basic level of constant conflict, while the more centralized Sunni sect expanding to control the Muslim state that occupied most of what we now know as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and expanded north and east defeating separatist and apostasic sects as they went. On a very basic level, Twelver Islam is less structured than Sunni belief when it comes to clerical organization, which put Shi'ites at a disadvantage. There was a brief period of relative religious peace under caliph Umar, who was a violent expansionist but at least allowed non-Muslims to live in his empire and did not crack down on Shia groups with the same fervor as caliph Bakr, but he was assassinated by a Persian slave (the Persians and Byzantines had been brutally conquered by Bakrs armies). It wasn't until the early 600s that Shi'ite forces were able to kill the a caliph Uthmun, which put and end the Rashidan Caliphate but cemented Sunni support for the Seljuk Empire and lead to what is known as the "Golden Age of Islam" - a period marked by proper treatment of non-Muslim conquered peoples in North Africa and the Mediterranean, but great internal conflict between Muslim sects.

That's just a brief history up to the 7th century, and frankly sitting here with maybe a tenth of the texts I had available when I studied these conflicts, and only the notes I have left from my the portfolio I used to write my senior dissertation, there's PLENTY I left out. Much of the low-level tribal warfare has not been recorded in any depth, for obvious reasons there were much better records of conquered peoples and empires than internal religious conflict, but records do exist of entire tribes and factions being wiped out.

Now, factor the Mongols traveling to the region with conquest in mind, the remnants of the Persian Empire, the rebel groups who survived the conquest of Byzantine Egypt and moved throughout North Africa... And that's all pre-Ottoman, nevermind the Crusades.

So seriously, are you going to keep spitting out buzzwords and NPR propaganda or do a little research?

did any of this effect europe or the other western cultures?

nope.

when did it effect us?

when we stuck our noses in it. alla the crusades and colonialism.


and yes, i very much am familar with the history of islam. its a story the christians should take to heart and be very familar with the power of mixing chruch and state.

[Frizzle Fry]

Yes, it did effect "Western Culture" because 1) it is "the west" and 2) there were Islamic soldiers marching into Spain under the Umayyad Caliphate, and with the establishment of the Caliphate of Cordoba late 700s began to branch from what is now Spain into France. What about the advancement of Seljuk armies into the Balkans? Or the trade routes that had begun to branch from that area?

The "Middle East" consists of the most western bit of Asia, but is mostly Eastern European and North African countries. Being that the two mingle so closely at the Mediterranean it would extremely ignorant to pretend that your so called "Western Cultures" were not born of and intrinsically tied to not just to the early civilizations in the Fertile Crescent but the great empires that existed in that area in first millennium; just take a look at the religious influence you speak of, and where it stems from, or the societies in Italy and Macedonia which effectively created the form for so much of modern Europe... Those civilizations WERE European, and had as much contact with North Africa and the area that is now Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabi and Iraq as they did with Britannia and Gaulia.

The term "Middle East" was was only really brought into common use by the military in the early 1900s to describe specifically the peninsula that is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Europe. The term has changed over the years, since the 1950s has lumps in parts of the "Near East" (Mediterranean Europe/Balkans) with North Africa and snippets of Western Asia.


You're wrong. You won't admit it, but you clearly have very little knowledge of the subject, as it seems do most casual protesters of the current US involvement in the Middle East. I'm not a total euro-centrist, nor am I a big support of continued or extended action in Iraq, but at least I get my facts right. European and western cultures have been effected by these conflicts for centuries, and have felt the effects since well before the Crusades or modern colonialism...

[cockerpunk]

Yes, it did effect "Western Culture" because 1) it is "the west" and 2) there were Islamic soldiers marching into Spain under the Umayyad Caliphate, and with the establishment of the Caliphate of Cordoba late 700s began to branch from what is now Spain into France. What about the advancement of Seljuk armies into the Balkans? Or the trade routes that had begun to branch from that area?

The "Middle East" consists of the most western bit of Asia, but is mostly Eastern European and North African countries. Being that the two mingle so closely at the Mediterranean it would extremely ignorant to pretend that your so called "Western Cultures" were not born of and intrinsically tied to not just to the early civilizations in the Fertile Crescent but the great empires that existed in that area in first millennium; just take a look at the religious influence you speak of, and where it stems from, or the societies in Italy and Macedonia which effectively created the form for so much of modern Europe... Those civilizations WERE European, and had as much contact with North Africa and the area that is now Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabi and Iraq as they did with Britannia and Gaulia.

The term "Middle East" was was only really brought into common use by the military in the early 1900s to describe specifically the peninsula that is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Europe. The term has changed over the years, since the 1950s has lumps in parts of the "Near East" (Mediterranean Europe/Balkans) with North Africa and snippets of Western Asia.


You're wrong. You won't admit it, but you clearly have very little knowledge of the subject, as it seems do most casual protesters of the current US involvement in the Middle East. I'm not a total euro-centrist, nor am I a big support of continued or extended action in Iraq, but at least I get my facts right. European and western cultures have been effected by these conflicts for centuries, and have felt the effects since well before the Crusades or modern colonialism...

from an anthropomorphic point of view, europe IS the middle east. this is well know and established. europe is a byproduct of the middle east, not the other way around. we know that say farming was not invented by the europeans, it was spread there from the middle east.

its pretty obivous the only difference in our opinions is not the facts they are based on, its the relivency of the term "look after themselves"

i for one am very happy that islam conqured large parts of spain, and the most of the eastern romans, now called byzentines ... the christians were fast destorying all scientific records and killing all intellectuals as heritics, it was the muslims that preserved the knowledge of the romans, which links us all back to our greek roots, not the chrsitians. thankfully, many libraries were captured from islam before islam was taken over by ultra conservative religous types who then starting destorying knowledge and killing intellectuals, and plunged islam into a religous dark age they have not yet come out of.

turns out, in war, science is a good thing, it allows you to win. the arabs won there empire with it against the romans, and then lost it once they turned against science. a lesson from history ANY student should be aware of.

in terms of looking after themselves instead of historical mental masterbation though ... poeple tend to look after themselves and not get to messed us untill some outsiders go and poke them with a stick. which, we are VERY guilty of doing. one can only imagine the amout of ed up that poeple 80 years in our future are going to have to deal with due to the incompetence in forgien policy of just the last decade.

[RogueFactor]

Frizzle

[SCpoloRicker]

I can't take any "article" seriously with that many typos or grammatical errors.

I'm pretty sure this is a translation of a Pakistani news outlet. I know what you mean, but remember that not everyone speaks Queen's.

This is, however, not a high quality source. I still think we should have taken him alive if possible, and we definitely should make forensic evidence public.

/Incidentally, where are all the "show the birth certificate!" truth warriors? Just sayin'.

[DevilMan]

I find it funny that the comments take on the attack of a person posting a news article and take it to a personal level and all of this is done by people who constantly seem to think that they are the end all be all of all that is right in the world and seem to know everything.

These people can't seem to discuss ANY points in the matter and only fill the thread with dribble and snide remarks that offer nothing to the discussion and are a DIRECT attack on a person.

ALL of which is "against the rules" as stated.

And you still think that you are better than everyone else...

DM