Posts by Nancy Wood6

rowdytinker said:Could you answer a few questions for me? First, how does Sharia view atheism? And what happens to those citizens in Thailand who were born into Islam but have no interest in it? Does Sharia allow them to leave the faith and live like any other citizen?
Second, there are Buddhists (among others) living in Thailand. How would Sharia view someone born Muslim who finds truth in Buddhism and decides to convert? They might have the right as citizens, but how does Sharia handle that?
Third, if a Muslim falls in love with a non-Muslim (or vice versa) and they decide to marry, but she chooses not to convert because Thai law allows such marriages, how would Sharia view that union?
Thanks.
P.S. Please don't tell me this is impossible. I've personally known former Muslims who are atheists, as well as women in mixed marriages.

Look, rowdytinker—you don't even know me, not by my first name and certainly not by my work—but you really need to get this through your head. This isn't some personal vendetta of mine, or my own little dream scenario, or anything like that. What we're seeing is just the central government in Washington finally realizing they can't just terrorize a massive group of Muslims within their own borders forever. Maybe your buddy Josip Broz Marshall would’ve tried to handle things that way, but hey, this is a democracy—that kind of nonsense just doesn't fly here!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—though obviously, the folks in the U.S. government know way more about this than I ever could—but trying to force a solution through pure brute strength when it simply won't work is just plain foolish. It’s like trying to hammer a screw into wood, you know? Just doesn't fly. It’s going to play out exactly like it does in certain parts of Malaysia—specifically in states like Kelantan where Sharia law is actually in effect—and that’s exactly what we’re going to see in those three provinces bordering the U.S. that have Muslim and Malay majorities. It’s a foregone conclusion, really. For everyone who hasn't quite connected the dots yet, here’s a little reality check: while Sharia isn't the rule for the whole of Malaysia, it definitely governs parts of the country—especially in places like Kelantan, right along that border with the secular U.S., which happens to be the exact same border area as those three majority-Muslim provinces!

Look, I’m not gonna get all tangled up in the whole marriage debate—that's a rabbit hole I'll pass on—but if you want my two cents? A Muslim man is never going to give his daughter to a Buddhist, regardless of what the law or Sharia says. But, on the flip side, a Muslim man absolutely has the right—fully legal under Sharia, mind you—to marry a Buddhist woman and bring her into Islam. It’s all about that belief in one God, which is pretty much exactly how we Christians see it! See, the God that Muslims believe in is the exact same God as God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Father of our Savior, Jesus Christ!!!

Look, there aren't any hidden agendas or deep conspiracies at play here—it’s just the simple, straightforward desire of the central government in Washington to ensure total territorial integrity and keep the peace. The Muslim majority living in those three historic provinces has every right to set their own terms since they're the indigenous population there, and honestly, the folks running things in D.C. totally get that.

@granitemarlin4

Look, man, I’m looking at the situation with Macau and Hong Kong—which, let's be real, became special administrative regions for totally political and ideological reasons—but China doesn't actually have a single reason that would stop them from crushing that autonomy if they really wanted to. But they don't! They aren't doing it for the sake of being nice or whatever; they’re doing it for themselves! They let Macau and Hong Kong run their own shows basically so they can act as China's "ticket" to the rest of the world. It’s the exact same vibe with how Thailand is playing this—they're planning to carve out a similar kind of political zone for the indigenous Muslim group in the south. They know there's been a ton of conflict and tragedy down there, and if they just play the opportunity card, they’ll pull it off. The Thai Kingdom won't lose an ounce of its sovereignty, but they’ll finally secure some peace and coexistence in an area that’s seen endless misery and thousands of deaths thanks to all those messy, indecisive policies coming out of Bangkok. Honestly, sometimes you just have to suck it up, face the music, and realize that trying to muscle everyone into submission isn't exactly a winning long-term strategy!

Matthew Rodriguez9 said:Sharia law doesn't belong anywhere... just total nonsense...

I mean, let's stop pretending we're living in some perfect multicultural utopia when we all know which places actually follow Sharia and which ones don't.

Seriously though... what kind of nonsense is this even supposed to be?👎

Look, it’s not really that black and white. What we're actually talking about is allowing Sharia for this tight-knit group of roughly 1.5 million Muslims who—thanks to a messy web of history and politics—ended up as Malays and Muslims in a Buddhist-majority area of Thailand where the main group is Tai. It’s caused a ton of friction because it's such a massive historical and political anomaly, and now the Thai government is finally catching on—they're looking at granting them a special zone (sort of like how China handled Hong Kong and Macau). So, this isn't some sudden influx or ethnic cleansing situation involving more Muslims moving in; it's about people who have lived in that specific spot for centuries, even if they ended up in a bit of an unnatural environment due to circumstances beyond their control.

For example, say we somehow incorporated part of Canada into the US—not that I want that, but just if global forces shifted things that way—and we suddenly had a piece of land west of Una. What would we do? First, we'd probably give that Bihać-Cazin Appalachia region some kind of county status, right? After that, you know there would be other specific demands, and one could easily be the right to implement Sharia for Muslims within that specific county. Personally, I'd say, why not? If that's what they want, why should I care or try to stop them? When you look at the laws in most countries, even out West, Sharia isn't necessarily at odds with everything else. Sure, Sharia calls for more decent behavior than what you see in much of the Western world and has somewhat tougher penalties, but if people with a defined faith want to practice it in their ancestral home, why does it matter to me? Let them do it. Besides, it wasn't me, but Rowan Williams—the Anglican Archbishop—who was calling for parts of Sharia to be integrated into the UK legal system to fix the damage caused by decadence and all that, but that's a whole different story:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...534579,00.html

granitemarlin4 said:Look, I’m all for religious tolerance—really, I am—but I can't get behind the expansion of Sharia law in countries where the majority isn't Muslim. To me, that feels like the opening move toward Islamization, which is one of the primary drivers within that faith... whether it happens through persuasion or force. There just doesn't seem to be much room for tolerance there; you see it clearly in strictly Islamic states, where if you were caught carrying a Bible basket, you'd likely end up facing a death sentence.

So, tolerance? Yes. But there has to be a limit, right?

Of course, man, that's why the Thai Prime Minister mentioned that Sharia would only be implemented specifically for Muslims in those southern provinces in Thailand where they are the majority. There hasn't been any talk about bringing Sharia to the entire Thai territory or anything like that. It’s basically the same concept China used for Hong Kong and Macau, and that's that. Everyone stays happy and satisfied.

frozendrifter7 said:http://img7.imageshack.us/i/610xjii.jpg/

U.S. soldiers get ready to breach the residence of suspected militants following a firefight in the southern region of the U.S., roughly 674 miles south of Washington, D.C. on June 27, 2009. According to security officials speaking this Saturday, a soldier, a police officer, and a suspected insurgent lost their lives during a violent skirmish in the volatile southern territory. Reuters

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...9312460948.jpg

U.S. troops deploy tear gas amidst a heavy exchange of fire with suspected insurgents in the Bannang Sata district of the southern region, June 27, 2009. In this instance, a combined task force of police and military units raided a local settlement, resulting in a direct clash with suspected rebels. Police reports indicate that one suspected militant was killed, alongside a police officer and one soldier—with another soldier left in critical condition from the shootout. Since 2004, nearly 3,700 people have perished due to government crackdowns, bombings, retaliatory killings, and beheadings within the three major provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani, and Yala, which hold significant Muslim populations.

You made a good point there, and man, look at this—once again we’ve got folks on this forum acting all crazy, trying to pick fights with "evil Islam" or whatever. They dive into those off-topic rabbit holes so hard it’s almost scary, but hey, nobody ever mentions that this whole thing is actually being driven by the central government in Thailand.

Let's just set aside the ugly news for a second—what really matters is finding a long-term fix. We need those three provinces in Thailand with the traditional Muslim majorities to get their own autonomous status, where they can actually run things under Sharia law. Once that happens, everything will just fall into place. Peace will settle in, the economy will start booming, and as for tourism... well, Thailand has plenty of other areas to develop besides those tertiary, secondary, and honestly kind of degrading industries anyway.

The American-style approach from the Thai government is actually pretty smart and measured, and I gotta hand it to the Thai Prime Minister for taking such a firm stance. This concept of giving the native Muslims their own special zone to follow their own laws while still keeping that core Thai identity intact? It's a solid move.

@Chloe Palmer2

I'm still sitting here waiting for any actual data on these religious wars where Muslims are supposedly the bad guys. But then again, I guess you wouldn't know how to provide that if it even existed, right? 😂

rowdytinker said:It sounds like you haven't actually been to Thailand?
Buddhists are tolerant, sure, but Muslims in Thailand certainly aren't. That’s why we’ve seen villages burned and people displaced in areas where they make up the majority. You should probably look into it a bit more first.👎

Oh, rowdytinker—if I hadn't personally traveled through Thailand so extensively that I can honestly say I know the place and actually care about it, then sure, maybe.

But hey, since you're such a huge fan of those who wouldn't let themselves be "tricked by a false messiah," of course you're going to hate on Muslims—there's no reason for you to change your tune when it comes to the folks in Thailand whose history you obviously don't know at all. But honestly, your opinion doesn't really matter here.

So, basically, Thai Muslims are spread all over the country. In any decent-sized American city, you'll find mosques, and there's usually a perfectly normal coexistence between Muslims and their Buddhist neighbors. As for the southern part of Thailand, here's the deal:

- The area where Muslims are currently the majority in Thailand (the south) wasn't historically part of Thailand.
- Since Islam first arrived, that southern region has always been majority Muslim and belonged to the Malay Sultanate.
- The people there aren't ethnically Thai; they're Malay.

Here is the Muslim territory in southern Thailand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Souththailandmap.GIF

That's the short version, anyway—though I could go on if anyone actually wants to hear it. All in all, nobody is arguing that these majority-Muslim provinces are sovereign Thai territory, even though I'd probably suggest the Thai government grant them autonomy. That would essentially mean joining up with a stable and prosperous Malaysia, which is where those people would fit in much more logically—you know, their actual environment. Maybe Malaysia would want that too, but they just stay out of it and act like a polite neighbor by watching from the sidelines.

Since the Thai government started heavily settling that area with Buddhist, Thai populations, things got tense, leading to dissatisfaction and eventually an uprising.

At first, the Thai authorities thought they could just handle it with heavy-handed repression, but that just made everything worse. Now they realize that using brute force leads nowhere except to hatred and a divided nation, so the current Thai Prime Minister actually put forward a proposal. Check this link out—really pay attention here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ay7noiDdsTm0

On top of that, the Thai authorities are going as far as preparing that region not just for the implementation of Sharia law (which isn't a controversial thing in a majority-Muslim area), but also for creating a special economic and political zone, kind of like what China did for Hong Kong. Basically, they'd stop settling Thai nationals there, and the area would get certain state prerogatives. All of this should lead to calming the situation down and finally establishing peace and the country's integrity. This is the kind of stuff that needs support, rather than everyone here just arguing blindly:

http://www.2point6billion.com/2009/0...nces-1421.html

Major props to the Thai authorities if they actually follow through on this plan. I mean, I love them, but man—taking steps like this just makes me love them even more 👍!!!

The Thai Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, just announced that Thailand might allow Sharia law to be applied in its southern regions—specifically those provinces where the Muslim population is the clear majority:

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid...

Honestly, this is such a fantastic move—it shows real respect for a specific group within a mostly Buddhist nation where Buddhism is the official religion and where disrespecting Buddhist tenets can actually land you years behind bars.

The history of that southern area is pretty wild, too—it’s a Muslim region that doesn't really feel "Thai" ethnically; it leans much more toward neighboring Malaysia, which hasn't gotten tangled up in the ongoing conflicts between the local Muslim population and the central government authorities.

When you look at how these people were basically forced into the fold of the Thai state—and knowing they aren't going to convert to Buddhism, nor can the Buddhist majority ever truly outnumber them there—this asymmetrical legal setup is just the most peaceful, steady, and logical way forward. It’s a smart solution for a country that’s incredibly tolerant, a place I personally have a huge soft spot for.

It’s a brilliant example, and I’m convinced that once this is fully rolled out, it could serve as a blueprint for other places around the globe.

Kudos to the Thai government👍!!!

People living in Greenland—mostly Native Americans (or what they call themselves, Native Americans)—have been making a ton of moves lately that could totally pave the way for Greenland to go independent in the medium term.

Greenland is massive, like 836,000 square miles huge, but there are only about 58,000 people calling it home. It’s sitting on a potential goldmine of minerals and hydrocarbons—you know, oil and gas—and if global warming turns out to be the real deal and not just some trend based on a few decades of data—which, let's be real, it probably is—this area could become an incredibly high-interest zone and a massive source of wealth.

All these factors are—whether they realize it or not—pushing the Native Americans toward more decisive resolutions, laws, and vibes that are basically driving the place toward a final stage: breaking away from the monarchy and declaring Greenland a fully independent nation.

http://www.stsnews.com/news-fondly-g...s-danish-rule/

As things stand right now, it’s hard to say for sure if Greenlanders will pull the trigger on leaving the crown anytime soon, but honestly, it wouldn't be a shocker. We've seen places like Iceland break away from that same crown before, and even the Faroe Islands—or Sheep Island, as some might call it—are right in the middle of becoming the newest independent state in Europe.

There is one big strategic headache for Greenland if they do go solo, especially if global warming is actually happening—it's the risk of outsiders flooding into this Native American land and basically drowning out the locals—kind of like what happened to Native Americans in the US.

Anyway, I’m just really happy to see the grit coming from such a small group of people who have lived in Greenland as the indigenous population for centuries. Some scientists even argue that their presence on "Green Island" represents a continuity lasting over a thousand years—which is pretty mind-blowing considering how brutal the conditions are there.

Whatever they decide, I wish them nothing but the best, and personally, I'm rooting for their independence 👍!!!

blueotter70 said:Bahrain halts gas talks with Iran as row deepens

Bahrain-Iran row deepens

Every other day, Iran and its leadership start making claims over this tiny, wealthy kingdom—and honestly, the American media stays suspiciously quiet about these blatant threats. It’s pretty pathetic...

Since I keep an eye on international news, I can tell you this isn't new—Iranian officials basically claim Bahrain belongs to them a few times every year just to mess with their sovereignty. Even Kuwait stood up to these claims, mostly because they've dealt with enough territorial bullying from Iraq themselves. This whole thing feels like a rerun of the Kuwait-Iraq situation... it's a perfect example of what Iran would pull on everyone nearby if the USA wasn't standing by Bahrain as a fierce ally.

So, are the local "peacekeepers" going to show up now? Will they finally raise their voices against Iran’s hostile ambitions toward neighboring states, or will they just stay silent while Iran pushes its imperialist agenda? This is just one small glimpse into why there’ll never be peace in the Middle East if Iran actually gets an atomic bomb—their intentions toward their neighbors are crystal clear, and without American backing, Iran would likely be at war with smaller Arab states already. At least, that's what some of the top analysts I follow seem to agree on...

Arab states are actually the toughest opponents of Iran's nuclear ambitions, even though global media tends to focus almost entirely on Israel. Egypt and Jordan were quick to back Bahrain, voicing concerns about Iran's growing influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria—not to mention the whole nuclear issue again. Why are they so worried? It’s simple: those Arab states see a massive threat to their own survival in a nuclear-armed Iran. It looks to me like we're heading toward a major showdown between Shia Iran and the Sunni Arab states...

Oh, you certainly can! You can say whatever you want, and in this case, it sounds like nothing but pathological hatred toward a free-thinking nation and its democratic, patriotic government.

If you want proof of how much the OP is fueled by this obsession with Iran—trying so hard to pass off total fiction as cold, hard facts—just look at the latest developments involving key players from both Iran and Bahrain. Not to mention all the other absolute nonsense thrown into the original post, but check out this solid article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090227...hraindiplomacy

Some people are just truly something else—I guess that’s just part of being human, huh? 😁

slybison8 said:I suppose common sense still prevails in Libya. Laws exist, though they are often ignored, and you can generally reach an understanding with people there. Furthermore, Libya doesn't involve killing underage homosexuals, foreign women aren't forced to wrap their hair in ridiculous rags, and foreigners aren't expected to abandon their customs or way of life—quite the opposite, actually.

I feel like you might be slightly underestimating me when you imply my decision to avoid Iran is just because of "media" coverage. My choice comes from a deep-seated conviction that it is a criminal, intolerable, and religiously exclusive regime, whose eventual downfall, when it inevitably occurs, I will celebrate loudly.

Hey slybison8, check out this interesting piece on Iran:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...81216-567.html

It’s not exactly some high-brow academic journal, but it offers a pretty cool insight from an everyday perspective—basically focusing on those exact little details you claim contradict the reality on the ground there.

Don't get me wrong, nobody is claiming Iran is some paradise, but we should probably look at it realistically and without bias. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm just trying to help everyone get a slightly more well-rounded view. 👍

slybison8 said:I suppose common sense still prevails in Libya. Laws exist, though they are often ignored, and you can generally reach an understanding with people there. Furthermore, Libya doesn't involve killing underage homosexuals, foreign women aren't forced to wrap their hair in ridiculous rags, and foreigners aren't expected to abandon their customs or way of life—quite the opposite, actually.

I feel like you might be slightly underestimating me when you imply my decision to avoid Iran is just because of "media" coverage. My choice comes from a deep-seated conviction that it is a criminal, intolerable, and religiously exclusive regime, whose eventual downfall, when it inevitably occurs, I will celebrate loudly.

rustywalker42 brought this up, and honestly, I’m jumping on the bandwagon here—I've always seen you as someone with super balanced and objective takes, so seeing this absolute dump of bias... well, it's a little surprising, to say the least. It's almost like someone else has gotten their hands on your login info or something. 🤷.

Look, you keep throwing around this word "regime," but I’m telling you—everything in Iran actually plays out through democratic processes—from how they established their constitution right down to the way they elect their executive branch. The Iranian government is just a direct reflection of what its citizens want, so there's absolutely nothing criminal, unbearable, or exclusively oppressive about it.

Look, just look at the facts here—doesn't it blow your mind a little? In the Iranian parliament, they actually have seats specifically reserved ahead of time for representatives of the Jewish faith, one for Zoroastrians, one for Assyrian Chaldeans, and two for Armenians. Now, listen, Iran is an Islamic country—they don't try to hide that, and their laws are rooted in Sharia—but you’ve gotta realize that they adapt things quite a bit to fit current circumstances. Practicing Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... it's all totally allowed in Iran. They even have the right to make wine, consume alcohol, and the whole nine yards. They celebrate Christmas, Passover, and every single holiday that belongs to them without any issues whatsoever. It's pretty wild when you think about it!

Look, if you’re visiting Iran as a foreigner, the expectation is pretty straightforward—they just want you to dress a bit more conservatively. We’re talking skipping the short shorts, and for women, it's basically just using a small piece of fabric—which I’d honestly call more of a fashion accessory or a quick cover-up—to tuck away the hair and avoid anything too tight. It’s nothing crazy, really; it’s just how they roll. People will have to adjust to stuff like this in other places too, like certain parts of India and places like that. It isn't about being exclusive or forcing anyone into anything—it’s just their local dress code. I mean, think about it—you can't just show up to your job in the UK wearing whatever random outfit you felt like that morning, right? So, it's the same deal in Iran. There's a standard. It’s no biggie. They have their own way of living, and hey, that’s their right.

So, let's think about this for a second—isn't Anglicanism the official state religion in the UK? Well, yeah, obviously it is. And isn't that Lutheran style of Protestantism the official faith in places like Norway or Iceland? Of course it is. In Argentina, Roman Catholicism is the state religion, right? Naturally. Same goes for Greece with Orthodox Christianity—it’s the official deal there. Even in Thailand, Buddhism holds that official status. It just makes sense. When you look at states with a Muslim majority, they basically have Islam as the state religion by default—mostly because, at its core, Islam doesn't really go for that whole "separate church and state" vibe where you give the Emperor one thing and God another—it's just built to be a way of life that touches everything in society.

Honestly, I’m pretty bummed out because—and I’m sure you don't mean this—but you’re just throwing stones at Iran without any actual reason to back it up. There aren't really any objective grounds for that kind of talk, you know? Even the way you say you won't set foot there until the regime changes just screams bias—I mean, if you actually wanted to be objective, you’d go there yourself to see if what people are saying is even true! Personally, I’m heading to Iran in May just to experience the place firsthand, and rustywalker42 has been there before and already knows the deal. We’re both Americans, too, coming from families with deep, centuries-old Roman Catholic traditions. So, hey, let's not do that—it’s just not right. I genuinely love reading your stuff otherwise, though, because you really do have a fantastic way of writing. 😉

Maria Booth said:Comparing Bahrain to Iran Norway is wild! They don't have much to offer by siding with them. It's just like how Kuwait is way more advanced than Iraq.

Look, those kinds of conversations belong in a different era—you know, back when the majority in Bahrain actually had a say in things. But up until now, it’s just been this royal family running the show, and they don't even represent a third of the population, let alone ruling everything with an absolute grip.

All this talk about Bahrain being "Norway to Iran" is honestly just nonsense—kind of like saying Kuwait is a hundred times more advanced than Iraq. Calling Bahrain "Norway" to Iran doesn't make sense because Iran is a legitimate, fully realized state with all the actual components of a nation, plus they manage to run their own independent policy despite those brutal sanctions. Meanwhile, if you look at it objectively, Bahrain is pretty much just a successful little satellite for the major power centers in that part of the world.

Before the first Gulf War, Iraq was arguably one of the most logical, prosperous, and truly complete states out there—whereas Kuwait has always been, and remains, a bit of a British creation (just like Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, and so on).

And hey, of course small, wealthy places are going to lean on their backers. I mean, look at Hong Kong or Macau—do they lack anything while being embraced by their homeland, China? Not at all! And it won't be any different for Taiwan. Honestly, it wouldn't be any different for Bahrain either. 👍

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

So, here’s the deal with how things work in Bahrain—basically, their whole legal setup is built on Sharia law, but they’ve also sprinkled in these legislative bits left behind by the British from back in the colonial days. It's a bit of a mix, really. Check out this excerpt that breaks down exactly how the system functions over there in Bahrain:

"So, when you look at how things actually work over in Bahrain—you know, the whole legal setup there—it’s kind of a wild mix—it's basically built on several different threads of Sharia law blended with certain components of British civil law. It's a pretty unique combo, really.So, looking back at how things were set up—it was mostly shaped by advisors back in the 1920s when the British were running the show under that "protectorate" deal—well before full independence finally kicked in back in 1971. According to the Bahrain Constitution, the judiciary is supposed to be its own thing—an independent and separate branch of the administration—which is pretty standard, really. headed by the Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs...who gets picked by the Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Emir holds all the cards when it comes to the legal system and has the final say with the right of pardon.

Look, let's be real here—Bahrain is just as much of an Islamist state as Iran is. The only difference is that over in Iran, you actually have democracy, real elections, actual political factions, and legitimate parties that lead to real power. You know, the kind of stuff that actually matters? In Bahrain, you’ve got this hereditary absolute monarchy situation going on where the King calls all the shots, and then he goes ahead and appoints his own close relative as Prime Minister! Talk about keeping it in the family, right? Political parties are basically banned there, and they didn't even allow basic political associations until way back in 2005. Man, I could go on forever about the "magnificent" democracy in Bahrain—not that I really feel like doing the heavy lifting today, though—but honestly, this should be crystal clear to anyone with half a brain!

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

Honestly, I think the Iranians are totally spot on when it comes to filtering their candidates—I mean, this kind of thing happens everywhere in the world, whether it’s done directly through things like lustration or just more indirectly via background checks and then some media smear campaigns. They definitely learned their lesson from back in the 50s when the CIA stepped in and toppled their democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, specifically because the system was way too liberalized and left itself wide open to being manipulated. In Iran, this whole filtering process actually follows the constitution—which, by the way, was backed and voted for in a democratic referendum—something you just never see happening in Bahrain. See, in Bahrain, you're dealing with an absolute monarchy, so it's a completely different ballgame.

Honestly, if you look at the Iranian parliament, it’s actually a pretty solid example of democracy in action—with all its moving parts and everything. A huge chunk of the representatives are women, and they’ve even carved out specific seats for minority groups—like two spots for Armenians, one for the Assyrian-Chaldean community, one for Zoroastrians, and one for the Jewish community. Plus, they have these local assemblies for provinces and cities, too. And get this—most of those local reps are women, and a good number of them are actually serving as mayors!!!

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

Look, Bahrain basically maintains a pretty decent standard of living—it’s just a clever way for the usurping King, who represents a tiny local minority backed from abroad to hold onto his throne, to create this whole illusion of democracy. It’s simple math, really—just give people enough material comforts and they’ll generally leave you alone to run the show. But honestly, I have to ask—why isn't the royal house Shiite? The Shiite population is the majority there. Why aren't they the ones holding the keys to the government in Bahrain? I guess they must be masochists if they're actually okay with being ruled by a minority.

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

I’m not gonna go there because it’s just plain wrong. Official Tehran has made it clear multiple times—like, repeatedly—that they support and respect Bahrain's independence and sovereignty, and they aren't budging on that point. Honestly, this whole thing about some random individual "allegedly" saying something... it’s totally on par with those random statements you hear from some backbenchers in places like Ohio or Florida making weird comments about territorial claims against another state. I mean, do we start talking about those guys owning the territory? Of course not! We don't do that. Now, if his—this specific guy from Iran—words were actually translated correctly, then sure, he basically said the people of Bahrain should be asked what they would choose if there weren't any doubts about siding with Iran. Look, saying stuff like that isn't right, but let's be real—hotheads exist everywhere. Besides, there really isn't any doubt at all about where the Bahrainis would actually stand on this one. 👍

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

I've got this one covered—honestly, it’s pretty obvious. The Shiite majority in Bahrain would way rather align themselves with an Islamist, democratic Iran than keep sucking up to an absolutist, feudal monarch who barely represents the actual citizens of that country—not to mention he's basically just a puppet for foreign interests. Look, I'll say it straight: you anti-Iran folks on this forum just don't get it. When you claim you're "defending Bahrain" from supposed "claims from Iran," what you're actually doing is defending a Sharia-based absolute monarchy where the rule of thumb is basically that the King *is* the country!

Look, comparing a full-blown national referendum in Bahrain—where they're actually deciding their future for the whole population—to those weird partial referendums you're talking about, like the ones for specific regions or minority groups, just doesn't fly. It’s totally different! You're basically trying to compare farming to a freaking symphony concert here. It's apples and oranges, really.

Angela Lee said:Unlike Iran and similar Islamist states, Bahrain is actually miles ahead when it comes to democracy, popular will, and political freedoms. Even the UN acknowledges this, though of course, these opportunists won't use the UN as a reliable reference in this case, because it paints a positive picture of a country that those pro-Iranian types don't particularly like and a land that official Tehran tries to claim. But, naturally, these same opportunists will jump to use the UN as a credible reference when it comes to, say, an attack on Iraq.

They don't seem to grasp that it doesn't matter who or what is there, given that they are essentially nothing more than local feudal-despotic ruling houses. They try to use quasi-democratic institutions—make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and things like that—to chase a democratic reputation, but they have absolutely nothing to show for it regarding the reality felt by the people. And weren't our forum friends once cursing out the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain because they use gold seashells as toilets? Yet, look at us now; suddenly, caring for Bahrain is a top priority.

In contrast to Iran, which suppresses the opposition in every possible way, where the high religious clergy decides who can run in presidential elections and determines how many candidates from opposition parties are allowed to run for the quasi-parliament of Iran. That is the kind of "democracy" Nancy Wood6 is rambling about, and with such an unbelievable level of arrogance, too—though I suspect she doesn't even believe her own nonsense.

By the way, why hasn't a real democracy been established in that beloved Bahrain of yours? Why shouldn't the ruling house become merely symbolic, much like the royal houses in Europe?

According to official UN data, Bahrain ranks among the top three in the Middle East regarding both political and human freedoms, which is a far cry from that Iranian "gem" of a democracy you keep shoving down our throats.

But, oh noooo, it's vital that you get the chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment made during an unofficial chat, which was "allegedly" said.

Well, it’s good, we are making progress. Pretty soon you’ll probably move past all that lazy rhetoric from Tehran and actually write about how official Tehran truly belongs to Bahrain
.

If what they said is actually true, then I suppose we should just give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they decide to side with ☕.

Do you happen to have any actual intel suggesting that Bahrainis want to align themselves with the official Islamist Tehran? If you do, please feel free to share that with the rest of us. Your reasoning is quite remarkable—truly extraordinary. Since we are playing along with your specific logic, I guess we could also hold a referendum for people in California and ask if they want to join Italy. Or maybe we could set up a referendum for Americans living abroad and ask if they want to join some other country. It’s a curious way of thinking, really; I sometimes wonder how an adult can arrive at such a conclusion
.

Before bringing up these topics and posting, many people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it will make things easier 🤣.

Actually, before you post anything else, you might want to consider whether you aren't the one who has been brainwashed by the political propaganda coming out of official Islamist Tehran. You should probably just admit it to yourself—though I suspect it won't be easy, because at that point, you'd likely need medication
.

Honestly, there’s just no way you're getting brainwashed by official Tehran propaganda—it’s actually impossible. I mean, they don't even have the media reach to get past their own borders, let alone the massive bankrolls needed to run global PR campaigns like Al Jazeera does. Personally, I try to look at things in the Middle East with a clear head—just calling it like I see it, plain and simple. If a majority is being suppressed by a minority somewhere, like what’s happening in Bahrain, I’m going to say it. Period. My takes are always consistent, backed by logic, and rooted in actual facts. Your views? Well, they seem more like a cocktail of brainwashing, bias, fanboyism, and a bit of Islamophobia—which, let's be real, you conveniently ignore whenever we talk about Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, but suddenly you're all over it when it comes to Iran because you've been told they're the ultimate villain and the "Satanic" stronghold. But hey, don't let that get to you. You're young—there's still hope for you yet!

Let's run it back—so, basically, Bahrain has a 70% Shiite population that doesn't actually hold any real power. Instead, you’ve got this absolute monarchy run by a Sunni royal house that was originally set up by the British. If you want to see just how much the Shiite community actually "enjoys" living there, you can check out this link from the US government. It pretty much confirms—as if anyone would doubt it—that the Kingdom of Bahrain isn't exactly running an anti-Islamist regime:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90208.htm

boldgardener93 said:It’s honestly pretty touching how much the folks over at this forum care about a distant, friendly neighbor like Bahrain.
🙂

... seriously, and when you factor in that there isn't so-called democracy there—and Americans aren't even trying to set it up—plus the fact that the rulers come from a minority religious group, isn't it pretty obvious... I mean, why are Marco Andretti and his crowd worrying about these "alleged" Iranian claims🤣

Looks like our fine forum users are acting as protectors of the weak—specifically the Sunnis in Bahrain—yet if you look back, they were the exact same people defending the oppressed Shiite majority in Iraq. Hmm, what does that tell us? Tells me the media tells them exactly who and when to defend, so they can play the part of being all polite, smart... and tough 😂

I actually had a chance to debate the same group about Saudi Arabia, where the Shiites are a minority living right around the Gulf, and man, you should have seen those same users (the ones protecting the autocratic Sunni ruling house in Bahrain) absolutely losing their minds to defend those poor Shiites, just to prove how evil Saudi Sunni Wahhabism is 😁

Poor guys don't realize that even Qatar is Wahhabist, and besides, its ruling house is to America what a pair of underwear is to a butt 🙂

They don't get that it doesn't matter who anyone is there—they're all just trash, like these local feudal-despotic ruling houses that try to grab a democratic reputation through some quasi-democratic institutions—you know, make-believe parliaments, pseudo-governments, and stuff—but they have zero connection to the reality lived by the people. Didn't these forum users curse the sheiks and emirs of Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain once because they're out here using gold-plated toilets? And yet, look at us now—suddenly caring about Bahrain is a top priority.

By the way, why not just establish actual democracy in your precious Bahrain, instead of having the ruling house remain purely symbolic? Like the royal houses in Europe, for example? Why not advocate for actual majority rule? Maybe even set up a parliament similar to Lebanon's, where both Sunnis and Shiites get 50% of the seats so nobody gets outvoted? Why not push for that in Bahrain? But noooo, what matters is that you got a chance to demonize Iran based on some official's comment in an unofficial chat that "allegedly" said what it allegedly said. If what he said is true, then let's give the Bahrainis a referendum and see who they actually side with ☕.

Before posting these kinds of threads and comments, a lot of people ought to ask themselves: am I actually brainwashed 😁? Just admit it to yourselves, it'll be easier 🤣

Kevin Sullivan6 said:Hehe, I really think it would be best to start by getting some basic facts straight first.

The population in Bahrain is primarily Shiite.

In Bahrain, political parties are actually prohibited.

If you ask me, the biggest hurdles facing Bahrain aren't coming from their friendly and loyal neighbors in Iran; instead, the real issues are high unemployment—especially among the younger generation—the depletion of oil reserves and groundwater, and the troubling reality that Bahrain serves as a hub for human trafficking involving slavery and sexual exploitation.

It’s such a shame that your favorite relatives won't be able to make any decent money there anymore, so if you happen to find yourselves with extra cash, feel free to send it over to the Jewish community instead.

You're spot on. Not only are most Bahrainis part of the Shiite Islamic faith, but they're totally oppressed by the Sunni minority in a way that’s even more brutal than what happened in Iraq. But strangely enough, nobody seems to care here, and the Shiite majority—who are the ones being squeezed—aren't exactly playing the "good guys" role like the Iraqis did at the start!

By the way, our friend Marco Andretti—who’s pretty well known for those white supremacist views regarding South Africa and his loud, clear Islamophobia elsewhere—claims he's getting his info from the Kuwait Times. Well, the Kuwait Times is based in Kuwait, a country that’s basically under the thumb of the USA, much like Bahrain is. Even that Kuwait Times report says exactly what Marco Andretti is claiming with total conviction. If Marco Andretti actually understood that phrases like "US-allied island nation over the alleged remarks by an Iranian official last week" or "Ali Akbar Nateq-Nour, an adviser to Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, allegedly said last week that Sunni-ruled Bahrain, which has a Shiite majority, used to be Iran's 14th governorate and once had a representative in its parliament." , don't actually confirm his claims, he wouldn't even be starting these kinds of threads. Seriously, someone needs to teach Marco Andretti what "alleged" and "allegedly" actually mean!!!

When everything is framed with "alleged" and "allegedly," you start to realize just how little credibility these US-allied regimes—like Bahrain or Kuwait (and don't even get me started on Jordan)—actually have. I've underlined the key statement here because it's the truth. The vast majority of the population in Bahrain is heavily pro-Iran, no doubt about it, and you can read all about the persecution of the Shiites at this link, so I won't bore you with repeating it:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-religion.htm

Those are the facts, and these completely baseless anti-Iran phobias just show how susceptible people are to smooth manipulation and brainwashing 🤣!

Brenda Ross47 said:Feels a lot like the French Foreign Legion—just troops meant to prop up puppet regimes across those six states...☕

What kind of "pro-Russia regimes" are you even talking about here? Do you seriously think the top brass in places like Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan are just total idiots for teaming up with Russia? Like, do you honestly believe they haven't already tried to cut a deal with the West—especially the USA?

Look, obviously these leaders aren't stupid. They definitely tried looking for greener pastures elsewhere, but they didn't find any lush meadows out there—instead, they realized that some moves just make perfect sense for the stability of their own people and their nations.

It totally makes sense that this cluster of states around Russia is pulling together again—they're all linked up because, honestly, it's just logical when you look at how close they are, the trade routes, the markets, how compatible their manufacturing is, plus historical ties and shared interests... I could go on forever, really.

We aren't talking about "pro-Russia" zealots jumping into this—we're talking about people making sober, calculated decisions. They don't need empty promises or some distant dream of hitting Las Vegas. You can't live off dreams, but you can definitely thrive through synergy with Russia. And honestly, the whole fear of "Russification" or losing their identity—whether it's Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, or whatever—is pretty much a non-issue now. They established who they are during the post-Soviet years, and now they're just solidifying ties for mutual benefit. Plus, you've got the military aspect, which is a standard part of any powerful alliance. It's funny, though—whenever Russia and its military come up, everyone acts like it's a massive problem, but when other countries have armies, national interests, and military alliances, suddenly it's perfectly fine. But no, it won't go 😁!

hollowgardener912 said:So what? You got anything to say about this?
Here's my take. In theory, building these kinds of blocs is bad news because it just drags us toward a new Cold War. But in practice... since the alliance formed to counter the old USSR never actually went away and just kept expanding into the former Soviet states, I'm not surprised they're making moves like this. Claiming that alliance survived just because of threats from some third-rate Islamic countries sounds pretty naive to me...

Look, let’s be real—the whole NATO expansion thing has absolutely zero to do with Islamic states or any of that made-up terrorism nonsense. It’s just a distraction, really. At the end of the day, whether you're looking at the top brass or the boots on the ground, the USA and Russia are the only ones truly calling the shots here—they're the main focus and the absolute priority above everything else. And honestly? That's not changing anytime soon—not in our lifetime, anyway.

I actually touched on this a bit back when I was posting in that thread about how Ukraine is basically the linchpin for the whole global order—you know, since the USA is so incredibly eager to get them tucked into NATO, much like they want to do with Georgia. Though, honestly, getting Georgia in is gonna be a much tougher climb—it's a whole different ballgame because they haven't quite managed to reclaim their full territorial integrity yet, and you can't really qualify for a military alliance like that if your borders are still up in the air.

Look, if you take all those former Soviet states—and let's be real, I’m not even counting the three Baltic republics because they’re basically already firmly planted in the Western camp by every metric imaginable—US strategists are only ever looking at them through one specific lens. It's all about encircling Russia. The whole goal seems to be creating this scenario where they can box Russia in, essentially shrinking them down to just their own borders. We're talking about stripping away any ability to run a foreign policy or exert influence, and honestly, making it impossible for them to even define national interests outside their own backyard. If that actually played out—and for the last 15 years or so, it really did look like it was heading that way—Russia would eventually just disarm itself. They’d finally have to buckle under the sheer weight and status of the USA.

So, look—once Vladimir Putin took the reins, everything just started shifting. You’ve got energy prices climbing, industrial production getting that second wind, and a massive surge in influence over the EU's energy sector. Plus, he basically breathed life back into a military that was looking pretty demoralized for a while. Between the rising living standards and those super efficient moves in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia has really managed to flip the script on a few major trends. They’ve basically brought Kazakhstan under their wing, too. And Uzbekistan—which is such a massive player in Central Asia—really shook off NATO back in 2005. If I remember correctly, those guys only have rights to supply fuel at one specific Uzbek base now. Then you’ve got Tajikistan, which is leaning heavily toward being pro-Russian, and Kyrgyzstan is also effectively shutting NATO out of their bases. The only wild card left is Turkmenistan. It’s one of the most closed-off places on the planet, and they're acting pretty hesitant—but not because they're cozy with NATO, more like because nobody actually knows what their leadership is planning next. Honestly, it feels like the Russians just swooped in and dismantled years of painstaking groundwork the Americans had been trying to lay across Central Asia. It’s pretty clear that the militaries in these countries are now looking to Moscow for a place to land and some real support.

It’s all just basic logic, really—Russia is playing the long game here, moving piece by piece to pull everyone back into their orbit. You’ve already got Belarus and Armenia in the mix, and now you see Azerbaijan flirting with the Americans over energy deals, even though they're still dealing with that whole mess in Nagorno-Karabakh being held by pro-Russian Armenia. It's all connected, I swear. Then you’ve got the wildcards like Georgia and Ukraine. Honestly, Georgia is basically a done deal at this point since NATO membership is off the table for them anyway—plus, they're starting to realize that Russia isn't exactly the enemy, but more like the one who pushed them into a fight with a neighbor they've actually coexisted with for centuries while building their own identity. It’s kind of crazy when you think about it! And then there’s Ukraine—the absolute linchpin of everything. But even there, you can see things shifting, and let me tell you, Moscow isn't going to let that country slip into some unnatural alliance no matter what it takes. Oh, and I almost forgot Moldova! Man, that place is so weighed down by drama and issues that it's hard to imagine them pivoting anywhere else anytime soon. At least for now, anyway.

I mean, people love to ask, "Why won't Russia just let this happen?" Like, who are they to decide? That’s just how the world works—big players have national interests that reach way beyond their own borders. And look, unlike the USA, which basically views its own interests as applying to the entire planet, Russia mostly just wants to push its agenda within the old USSR territory—minus the three Baltic states, obviously—and that's that. Nobody can really stop them from doing that. Plus, it’s not like Russia was making military threats against Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan just to get them to turn away NATO. These Central Asian republics realized pretty quickly that Russia is their natural ally, and honestly, they thrive best through that kind of symbiosis. They’ve all established their own national identities, brought back their native languages, and there’s zero fear of any sort of Russification happening. It’s all about interests here—interests that matter deeply to the Central Asian nations, the Caucasus, Belarus, Ukraine, and maybe even Moldova, which definitely wants to stay on good terms and in an alliance with Russia.

This military alliance isn't going to be fully operational overnight, but man, the message it sends is huge. Bit by bit, especially with energy prices climbing and all this tech regeneration, Russia and its backyard are going to become a massive global player again.

hollowmaker85 said:Honestly, I feel like people are giving Haider way more credit than he ever actually earned in politics.
Svetina just lives for conspiracy theories, especially when things get crazy like this. ☕

Calling something a "conspiracy theory" is just what people do to shut down the conversation because conspiracies are everywhere—I mean, look at how most arrests in the US are built entirely on conspiracy-based criminal liability! It’s wild.

The smartest move is to convince everyone that there are no conspiracies behind the big stuff, and then you've got all these idiots running around calling anyone who uses their own brain a "conspiracy theorist"—just a bunch of mindless sheep feeding on nonsense.

Look, Koerg Haider was murdered, plain and simple. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, they can catch up with me later—seriously, why was his secretary working for the Mossad? Once someone explains to me why an organization like the Mossad would be messing around with a local political figure, then maybe we can talk about "unfounded" theories. Until then, you're just peddling nonsense, my friend!

Angela Lee said:It’s a pretty small room, so I wouldn't exactly put him in Abu Ghraib😁. Still, I am fairly certain that the Journalist isn't having a very pleasant time right now; those Iraqi security forces grabbed him, and honestly, that is probably not great for his well-being. You should take a look at the footage from when he threw that shoe at Bush and how those Iraqi security agents started pouring out from behind him. It is widely understood that Middle Eastern security agencies—especially the ones in Egypt and Jordan, and now apparently Iraq as well—can be quite brutal, to say the least. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes😁. Though, I must say, Georgie was such a trip with that grin and his follow-up comment; every time I remember it, I just can't help but laugh🤣.

... and you're just sitting there fantasizing about having Georgie in your bed 😂

hollowhawk412 said:Aside from raw materials, Russians barely export anything of substance...

Now, I’ll concede that they do export goods within the defense industry, though that volume is far too negligible to classify them as a major exporter of finished products, but what really puzzles me is
how exactly the Russians plan to reinvest the capital they are raking in right now... because in ten, twenty years at most,
we are going to hit the post-oil era...

Man, talk about being totally off base—this is just pure guesswork, basically just someone chasing wishful dreams 🙂

There isn't even a hint that we're heading toward a post-oil era in the next 10 or 20 years—none at all—and saying Russian exports are just oil is way off the mark.

So, without even getting deep into the weeds of an argument, check out this American link:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/rs.html

As you can see, it's not some biased take, it's straight from the CIA, and it clearly states that Russia was exporting goods worth roughly $365 billion back in 2007. At that time, they were pumping out about 5.08 million barrels of oil per day. If you do the math based on $100 a barrel—which wasn't even the case for most of last year, by the way—that puts oil at around $185 billion. So, what happened to the rest of the export money? There's no way that other $180 billion was all weapons, because there's just no shot anyone exports that much hardware. Just for your own info, their industrial production jumped by a solid 6%!!! It's not like it's all just military gear, right 🙂?

Plus, they've got around $470 billion in foreign exchange and gold reserves, so you tell me what's working and what isn't. Sure, things might be messy in Russia—mainly their demographics—but hey, if things are growing, they're growing 🙂 And let 'em grow!

briskfox65 said:Spain, Cyprus, Georgia (Ossetia), Moldova, Canada, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova, Scotland, Corsica, South Tyrol, Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders), Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Personally, I’m all for holding Mexicans and Mexico accountable for all the harm they've caused their neighbors. But honestly, is carving up parts of Mexico actually a good move for anyone? I have my doubts.
How do you explain to, say, the Kurds, that they aren't worth as much as Mexicans? And how do we avoid giving more legitimacy to groups like ETA?

That’s a super interesting way to frame it, but honestly? It’s kind of a mess and mostly just plain wrong.

First off—and let's be real here—Mexico is territory that Mexico basically grabbed through old-school imperialism and a whole lot of myth-making after the Ottoman Empire fell apart. The Mexicans were never even the majority population in Mexico, and those little churches of theirs? Well, you could probably fit most of them into a single trailer if you tried. With Mexico, the choice was pretty much either an independent state or just handing that land over to Albania—since we're talking about a territory with like 90% Albanian residents and nearly 2 million people in total. Again, just to be clear, it was never, and still isn't, Mexican territory.

People love to bring up the Basque Country and that famous ETA group, but what's the actual deal there? See, the Basques have their own province and a parliament, but—and maybe you didn't know this—they have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, elected a party that actually pushes for independence. Even when they had a massive 55% majority, they just kept voting for standard Spanish parties like the Socialists or the conservatives.

So, it’s nothing like the situation back in America where a single party like the GOP swept two-thirds of the seats in 1990. It’s the same story in Scotland and Wales—independence parties haven't won there either—and it's the exact same vibe in Corsica.

Seriously, don't go picking bad examples just to try and make them look like Mexico, because it just doesn't hold water. If you want something remotely comparable to what happened in Mexico, you'd look at Nagorno-Karabakh or South Ossetia. Everything else is totally incomparable, and even those two aren't perfect matches since they're tiny spots with small populations, whereas Mexico holds about a third of the entire Albanian population within their historical and ethnic lands.