George Galloway slams Saudis

[Karachi]

[Karachi]

He speaks more truth then any wahabhi/salafi ever could

[BarakzaiAbdali]

He speaks more truth then any wahabhi/salafi ever could

You just arent getting it. Here is another George Galloway article. He says the same dam-n thing we are saying. I guess if a white man says it you might actually begin to comprehend it.

Here is the article referencing him:

For example during the speech he says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5887298.html

Galloway told MPs that the terrorist group, popularly known as ISIS or ISIL, only controlled so much of Iraq as the population allowed them to do so, angered by previous Western military actions.
"That population is quiescent because of Western policies and Western invasion," he said, adding that the group "could not survive for five minutes if the tribes of Western Iraq rose up against them."

and he DEFINES the popular support

"The only way a force that size could successfully hold the territory they hold is if they have a population acting as the water in which they are swimming."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5887298.html
He goes on to say:

“This will not be solved, every matter will be made worse. Extremism will spread further and deeper around the world just like happened as a result of the last Iraq war. The people outside can see it but the fools in here, who draw a big salary and big expenses, cannot and will not see it like the honourable lady with her asinine intervention.”

and most importantly:

Galloway had begun his speech saying that al-Qaida and Islamist fundamentalists had no place in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

He said: “Millions of ordinary people knew what the expensive talent governing our country did not know, namely that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq and that there was no Islamist fundamentalism in Iraq before Mr Blair – and his mouthpieces who are still here – and Mr Bush invaded and occupied the country. What a tangled web we have woven is abundantly clear to everyone watching this debate.”

He is repeatedly saying the SAME dam-n thing we are you fool. He is saying that these guys did not spring out of the ground. The conditions of war IMPOSED unnecessarily on Iraq took a generally balanced population where secretarianism was not as a big a deal and POLARIZED it so that shiites became hyper shiite joining militiass and sunnis became hypersunni and took refuge in militantism for protective and defensive purposes.

[Karachi]

You just arent getting it. Here is another George Galloway article. He says the same dam-n thing we are saying. I guess if a white man says it you might actually begin to comprehend it.

Here is the article referencing him:

For example during the speech he says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/26/galloway-iraq-war-debate_n_5887298.html

[/COLOR]
and he DEFINES the popular support
[/COLOR]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5887298.html
He goes on to say:
[/COLOR]
and most importantly:


He is repeatedly saying the SAME dam-n thing we are you fool. He is saying that these guys did not spring out of the ground. The conditions of war IMPOSED unnecessarily on Iraq took a generally balanced population where secretarianism was not as a big a deal and POLARIZED it so that shiites became hyper shiite joining militiass and sunnis became hypersunni and took refuge in militantism for protective and defensive purposes.

so you admit that you are a wahabhi? I knew it, always trying to defend wahbhis and Saudis. This thread should be made a sticky.

Also of course there were conditions made by the western invasions, when have I denied that? But ISIS is a creation of your Salafi / Wahhabi ideology, the wahabhis just preyed and recruited from the suffering Iraqis, by brainwashing them. They always use weaker, already suffering people to expand their agendas. This is what happened in Iraq. You can't fool anyone

Also let me know when you wahabhis criticize Saudi Arabia like George Galloway, at least then you morons will have some credibility

[BarakzaiAbdali]

so you admit that you are a wahabhi? I knew it, always trying to defend wahbhis and Saudis. This thread should be made a sticky.

Also of course there were conditions made by the western invasions, when have I denied that? But ISIS is a creation of your Salafi / Wahhabi ideology, the wahabhis just preyed and recruited from the suffering Iraqis, by brainwashing them. They always use weaker, already suffering people to expand their agendas. This is what happened in Iraq. You can't fool anyone

Also let me know when you wahabhis criticize Saudi Arabia like George Galloway, at least then you morons will have some credibility

Ive criticized Saudi many many times on the forum. Shamlawar had an argument with me because I defended people who wanted to preserve the spiritual and ancient sites in Mecca instead of this disgusting Las Vegas style reconstruction.

And where in my response above did I say that I was a Wahhabi? You are going insane man, seeing Wahhabis in your food, on your toast, and on your walls.

I also never said that the ideology/support doesn't come from Saudi as George says. But I also said its a lot more complex than that. For example in Egypt, Morsi and Co were MB and the Nour Party is Salafi and supported the military which in turn killed 1000s of MB members... and Saudi supported the military and Sisi and the Nour Party.

However, in most recent wars in the last century, war has been often grossly asymmetric... it isn't even like the WWII days where super powers or nearly equivalent powers fought each other. Most of the wars we see now a days are a very powerful nation (e.g. Britain) smacking around a smaller nation (e.g. Argentina regarding Falklands) or other examples are China, Russia, and America's other wars in places like Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cuba etc.

In each of these instances, war is very very darwinistic when it is assymetric. The toughest and most fierce and dedicated fighters who have experience often survive. Some of the Marxists in Cuba executed thousands of people (but in reality that idiot Batista that preceded them was also a brutal American backed tyrant). The same happened in Vietnam. The Marxist Vietcong were HARDCORE and killed many many villagers as well. But they were dedicated, armed, and tough and won the Vietnam war for that reason. They outlasted or incorporated all the other resistance movements.

So all I am saying is that even when you look across the way to Syria where there are moderates and the hard core ISIS style guys, all groups readily admit that the latter are winning more battles and are fighting with more zeal. This in turn draws the population in toward that ideology.

So my point is that it is not simply the ideology coming to Iraq that resulted in the well being poisoned... rather it was imposed circumstances. It would be very unlikely that these sorts of folks would get a foot in the door in a stable semi prosperous nation with more to lose.