Post: #1

Is there a "nationalist" solution to the ISIS problem? Basically Iraq was a Sunni minority ruling over a Shia majority until Saddam was overthrown. Syria is a Shia Alawi minority ruling over a Sunni majority, now in civil war. The problem is the Sunnis have no representation, so ISIS fills that vacuum. Possible solution: a new state needs to be created, along with an independent Kurdistan. What do you think?

Post: #2

Question: Should western intervention be used in an attempt to solve the century long tribal conflicts of primitive douchebags?

Answer: No. Never. Not ever. No no no no no.

ISIS is a manufactured problem that the globalists pretend to fight. And if you drew new borders you would simply be establishing new battle lines for these guys to drive shitty old toyotas filled with homicidal incels across.

Post: #3

Like Leonard said no no no,,, he is 100% correct. Historically look what happened. British MP George Galloway bemoans how the west drew borders in a room right by his office years ago. Look at the results of what happened to these countries. Yugoslavia is one example, Iraq is another. The list goes on.

A few very powerful and rich people will benefit from the drawings while the majority will suffer.nation building doesn't work. Afghanistan is still a mess. let them sort it out.

Post: #4

Obama scored political points by withdrawing troops in Iraq and created ISIS in the process. We are no further along in ridding global terrorism than we were on September 12, 2001. What a clusterfuck. Everywhere ISIS pops up the area should be nuked from orbit. Eventually they will quit popping up.

Post: #5

Partition means years of war over the boundaries. It is not like everyone will agree over places like Kirkuk and Baghdad.

This has been a neocon / Israeli proposal for years. PNAC, the Oded Plan. Create chaos in the Arab nation states.

OP, are you a professional or an amateur hasbara propagandist?

Seems like a lot of your threads follow the neocon / Israeli propaganda line.

As a former government propagandist myself, I wonder.

Post: #6

No, Syria and Iraq need Baath governments back. They worked. Everything else so far doesn't

Post: #7

Some details about the Oded Yinon Plan Sp5 mentioned above, for those not familiar with it:





http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-isr...st/5324815

Basically, neocons running foreign policy and the media in the US (people like Judith Miller, Bernard Lewis, Kagan, Krauthammer, Frum,...) have manipulated post-9/11 public opinion into investing $ trillions and thousands of US lives into the invasion and destruction of stable, secular, multi-confessional arab nation-states, spawning and financing the rise of islamic terror groups that would be used to keep feeding the "war on terror". The goal is to balkanize Israel's neighbors and foment civil wars along ethnic and religious lines, using US resources.

They've been very successful.

Post: #8

Actually, part of the reason I was thinking about this came from here:
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what...s.html?m=1

Vox Day Wrote:The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Even if the US "bombs the hell out of ISIS", some other problem with a different name will develop in that vacuum among the Sunni Arabs left by overthrowing Saddam. It's obvious that Assad won't lose now, thanks to the Russian help, but he's too weak to win.

Post: #9

Sykes-Picot has done a lot of damage, but there's probably no better way to fix it for the very far future.

Orion is right. The only thing that has really been shown to function are Baathist governments.

Post: #10

My understanding of middle east politics is quite limited. That said:

There needs to be a collective effort to have a "gloves off" war mentality towards ISIS and ANY organization/faction (Saudi Arabia) that supports radical Islamist extremists; regardless of what country they are in. We have tried "gloves on" war-fighting since 9/11 with very little success. It's time for a new approach.

Post: #11

In my humble opinion...partition is the better solution in the long run for multi ethnic states like Iraq. And to far less extent, Syria (Syrian Kurds should be granted independence, or autonomy).


And...speaking of strongmen...they are just a temporary solution, especially in that part of the world. Yes, they will keep order in their countries, but...what will happen when they die? Destabilization, followed by disintegration and eventually - war. A good example is Yugoslavia...after Tito died, the country started to fracture along ethnic lines, which ended in war.


It is much better to let Shiites and Sunnis go their separate ways (they always hated each other), than keeping than in a state with unnatural borders like Iraq (Sykes Picot borders), under a stongman of some sort.

Post: #12

Neo-con plan or not, there is no rhyme or reason to the current states in the middle east built on carving up the Ottoman empire. Personally I'd like a shift away from Sunni allies to Shia, which means embracing Iran and sanctioning Saudi.

Post: #13

I don't care what those people do in their strange countries, they love to kill each other. Not my issue. I just don't want them in Europe.

Post: #14

(09-10-2016 01:42 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  In my humble opinion...partition is the better solution in the long run for multi ethnic states like Iraq. And to far less extent, Syria (Syrian Kurds should be granted independence, or autonomy).


And...speaking of strongmen...they are just a temporary solution, especially in that part of the world. Yes, they will keep order in their countries, but...what will happen when they die? Destabilization, followed by disintegration and eventually - war. A good example is Yugoslavia...after Tito died, the country started to fracture along ethnic lines, which ended in war.


It is much better to let Shiites and Sunnis go their separate ways (they always hated each other), than keeping than in a state with unnatural borders like Iraq (Sykes Picot borders), under a stongman of some sort.

But they are not Mulit-Ethnic that much at all. There is a total of 2 ethnicities in both states, Arabs and Kurds.

Druze, Ismaili, Christians, Shia, Sunni - they are all Arabs. Even if some of them consider themselves to be Syrian (implying non-Arab origin), they still all speak Arab, the most powerful organizing principle.

As for Kurds, they could maybe get their state, but if they want to get it peacefully, they need to scale down their demands. They ask for too much territory where Arabs are majority.

Post: #15

(09-10-2016 03:43 PM)Parzival Wrote:  I don't care what those people do in their strange countries, they love to kill each other. Not my issue. I just don't want them in Europe.

Exactly right. I couldn't care less how that region in general is ordered anymore, so long as they're not in our countries and not attacking our countries. Western-engineered "solutions" have caused enough damage as it is.

Post: #16

What sticks in my mind is, why is this multi ethnic point something that kind of excuse the killing in that area? First of all those people are very close to each other ethical speaking and second they are by their culture. Its not that you have Chinese next to Brazilians. And even when you have, only those people there kill each other. Ethnic minorities can live next to each other and so can cultural ones. The only ones that can't do is them.

I did not chose the borders for my country either and some parts of my family had to leave their homes, Germany lost soil as well. Do I go out and beat up the next Polish, American or Chinese? No. Those people are so fucked up, it's beyond every scale and I wonder is it really Islam or is it something genetic? I read that Arabs in general tend to be higher aggressive or at least lose their control more easy. Mix people that have short temper with a short temper, fanatical killing ideology and you have the middle east. I wonder what would be if Islam was founded in India and Buddhism in the middle east.

Post: #17

I have spent considerable time in the Middle East and I have learned Arabs have a penchant for drama.

Post: #18

(09-10-2016 05:07 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(09-10-2016 01:42 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  In my humble opinion...partition is the better solution in the long run for multi ethnic states like Iraq. And to far less extent, Syria (Syrian Kurds should be granted independence, or autonomy).


And...speaking of strongmen...they are just a temporary solution, especially in that part of the world. Yes, they will keep order in their countries, but...what will happen when they die? Destabilization, followed by disintegration and eventually - war. A good example is Yugoslavia...after Tito died, the country started to fracture along ethnic lines, which ended in war.


It is much better to let Shiites and Sunnis go their separate ways (they always hated each other), than keeping than in a state with unnatural borders like Iraq (Sykes Picot borders), under a stongman of some sort.

But they are not Mulit-Ethnic that much at all. There is a total of 2 ethnicities in both states, Arabs and Kurds.

Druze, Ismaili, Christians, Shia, Sunni - they are all Arabs. Even if some of them consider themselves to be Syrian (implying non-Arab origin), they still all speak Arab, the most powerful organizing principle.

As for Kurds, they could maybe get their state, but if they want to get it peacefully, they need to scale down their demands. They ask for too much territory where Arabs are majority.

Syria isn't multi ethnic like Iraq, but still, some ethnic groups, like the Druze, for example, have a territory in which they are the majority of the population. They even had their own state there, not too long ago.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_Druze_State


If Syria gets divided (an extremely unlikely scenario), it is safe to presume that they would recreate something like that. Kurds did that already with Rojava. Other,smaller ethnic groups, like Christians, would not get any territory, because they aren't the majority in any area in Syria. They had their chance, and they, unfortunately, missed it.


And, speaking of Arab unity...that means nothing in that part of the world. Religion and clan affiliation play a much bigger role. For example, when Saddam invaded Iran (Khuzestan, which is populated by Shiite Arabs), he expected that they (Shiite Arabs, that is), would welcome him with open arms and assist him in the war, because...he is leading an Arab army. They didn't, and fought against him instead. And that is one of the reasons the Iraqi invasion of Iran failed. To these Arabs, their religion (and clans) mattered more than some Arab brotherhood.