Immigration European part of the caliphate

[Mmuller]

A caliphate is an Islamic state ruled by a 'caliph' - in this case Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - who is seen as the successor to Prophet Mohammed by those swearing allegiance. In much the same way as the Pope is considered the head of the Catholic church, a caliph would consider themselves leader of the world's Muslims. They would hold themselves responsible for establishing policy - based strictly on the Quran - for all Muslims and territories. One of the first things ISIS did after announcing a caliphate was to declare all emirates and sultanates illegal. Therefore anybody swearing oath to the new Islamic state would simultaneously be declaring that they no longer recognise either the borders, laws or authority of current Muslim-led states. On announcing the Islamic state, the militants repeatedly described it as being 'restored'. This is a reference to the last widely-acknowledged caliphate - which existed under the Ottoman Empire and effectively ended with the founding of Turkey in 1923. Many Islamists - including ISIS - blame this collapse on the geographical carving-up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied Forces after the First World War. In declaring a caliphate, ISIS now claims to partly 'corrected' the century-old dispute.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html


In the near future we are likely to see another Europe. It is really dangerous. Do you want to live under such conditions?... I don't!!!

 

[Sile]

A caliphate is an Islamic state ruled by a 'caliph' - in this case Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - who is seen as the successor to Prophet Mohammed by those swearing allegiance. In much the same way as the Pope is considered the head of the Catholic church, a caliph would consider themselves leader of the world's Muslims. They would hold themselves responsible for establishing policy - based strictly on the Quran - for all Muslims and territories. One of the first things ISIS did after announcing a caliphate was to declare all emirates and sultanates illegal. Therefore anybody swearing oath to the new Islamic state would simultaneously be declaring that they no longer recognise either the borders, laws or authority of current Muslim-led states. On announcing the Islamic state, the militants repeatedly described it as being 'restored'. This is a reference to the last widely-acknowledged caliphate - which existed under the Ottoman Empire and effectively ended with the founding of Turkey in 1923. Many Islamists - including ISIS - blame this collapse on the geographical carving-up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied Forces after the First World War. In declaring a caliphate, ISIS now claims to partly 'corrected' the century-old dispute.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html


In the near future we are likely to see another Europe. It is really dangerous. Do you want to live under such conditions?... I don't!!!
View attachment 7268

This ISIS is funded by sunni moslems ( saudi and turks ) to stop Shia moslems ( iranians ) keeping their enclaved ( thorn in the side) of syria and irak ( majority) from being maintained from the past.

the only way to stop ISIS is
- stop the funding from suadi arabia and Turkey who are both sunni moslem nations
- create a kurdistan
- split irak into a smaller area


For all the bad that assad did in Syria, at least he maintained a religions balance to Alawites, christians, coptics, sunnis and shias in SYRIA, something people forget

 

[Yetos]

This ISIS is funded by sunni moslems ( saudi and turks ) to stop Shia moslems ( iranians ) keeping their enclaved ( thorn in the side) of syria and irak ( majority) from being maintained from the past.

the only way to stop ISIS is
- stop the funding from suadi arabia and Turkey who are both sunni moslem nations
- create a kurdistan
- split irak into a smaller area


For all the bad that assad did in Syria, at least he maintained a religions balance to Alawites, christians, coptics, sunnis and shias in SYRIA, something people forget

there 2 demands also ,
Help Syrria and Lebanos to stand as Multinational countries,
Help minorities to defend their shelfs (Lebanese Phalanx, Yezidi Kurds, Antiocheian(Edessa) Christians)

 

[Mmuller]

I definitely agree with you. In addition to the picture above I'd like to share with you next picture which reflects influence of caliphate on European countries. There are revenge actions in consecutive order. We must think it over and understand danger of escalation of the situation

 

[bicicleur 2]

This ISIS is funded by sunni moslems ( saudi and turks ) to stop Shia moslems ( iranians ) keeping their enclaved ( thorn in the side) of syria and irak ( majority) from being maintained from the past.

the only way to stop ISIS is
- stop the funding from suadi arabia and Turkey who are both sunni moslem nations
- create a kurdistan
- split irak into a smaller area


For all the bad that assad did in Syria, at least he maintained a religions balance to Alawites, christians, coptics, sunnis and shias in SYRIA, something people forget

sunni and shia they both try to impose their power on anybody else
in the Middle East the only alternative is a dictator, democracy fails, the only exception may be Lebanon for as long as it will last
even Turkey, which recently was a secular state is getting more and more convinced of their own 'Muslim-Ottoman superiority'
that should be a lesson for Europe (and America)

 

[Taranis]

A caliphate is an Islamic state ruled by a 'caliph' - in this case Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - who is seen as the successor to Prophet Mohammed by those swearing allegiance. In much the same way as the Pope is considered the head of the Catholic church, a caliph would consider themselves leader of the world's Muslims. They would hold themselves responsible for establishing policy - based strictly on the Quran - for all Muslims and territories. One of the first things ISIS did after announcing a caliphate was to declare all emirates and sultanates illegal. Therefore anybody swearing oath to the new Islamic state would simultaneously be declaring that they no longer recognise either the borders, laws or authority of current Muslim-led states. On announcing the Islamic state, the militants repeatedly described it as being 'restored'. This is a reference to the last widely-acknowledged caliphate - which existed under the Ottoman Empire and effectively ended with the founding of Turkey in 1923. Many Islamists - including ISIS - blame this collapse on the geographical carving-up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied Forces after the First World War. In declaring a caliphate, ISIS now claims to partly 'corrected' the century-old dispute.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html


In the near future we are likely to see another Europe. It is really dangerous. Do you want to live under such conditions?... I don't!!!

Is the so-called "I.S." (neither "Islamic" nor a "state" ) dangerous? Yes, obviously, and it needs to be stopped. But does it represent all Muslims, especially all Muslims living in Europe? No, that is just wishful thinking on their end. The I.S. represents Muslims in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity.

One shouldn't view the I.S. as a continuation of the caliphate (that is, again, just propaganda on their end). It also should be noted that it was not the Entente Powers of World War I that abolished the caliphate, it was the Kemalist government of Turkey in the 1920s that did so. Its much more accurate to think of the I.S. as a Jim Jones (People's Templars) type of death cult, projected into an Islamic setting and with 21st century infrastructure and technology (especially media presence on the internet, the I.S. is above all a propaganda machine). If we think that all Muslims, anywhere in the world, especially in Europe, are on their side, we instantly give in to their propaganda.

 

[LeBrok]

Is the so-called "I.S." (neither "Islamic" nor a "state" ) dangerous? Yes, obviously, and it needs to be stopped. But does it represent all Muslims, especially all Muslims living in Europe? No, that is just wishful thinking on their end. The I.S. represents Muslims in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity.

One shouldn't view the I.S. as a continuation of the caliphate (that is, again, just propaganda on their end). It also should be noted that it was not the Entente Powers of World War I that abolished the caliphate, it was the Kemalist government of Turkey in the 1920s that did so. Its much more accurate to think of the I.S. as a Jim Jones (People's Templars) type of death cult, projected into an Islamic setting and with 21st century infrastructure and technology (especially media presence on the internet, the I.S. is above all a propaganda machine). If we think that all Muslims, anywhere in the world, especially in Europe, are on their side, we instantly give in to their propaganda.

As usually wise words and balanced point of view.
Thanks

 

[Yetos]

Is the so-called "I.S." (neither "Islamic" nor a "state" ) dangerous? Yes, obviously, and it needs to be stopped. But does it represent all Muslims, especially all Muslims living in Europe? No, that is just wishful thinking on their end. The I.S. represents Muslims in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church or the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity.

One shouldn't view the I.S. as a continuation of the caliphate (that is, again, just propaganda on their end). It also should be noted that it was not the Entente Powers of World War I that abolished the caliphate, it was the Kemalist government of Turkey in the 1920s that did so. Its much more accurate to think of the I.S. as a Jim Jones (People's Templars) type of death cult, projected into an Islamic setting and with 21st century infrastructure and technology (especially media presence on the internet, the I.S. is above all a propaganda machine). If we think that all Muslims, anywhere in the world, especially in Europe, are on their side, we instantly give in to their propaganda.

hmm indeed nice view, balanced and calming, I could say wise enough, so not to terrify Europeans,

but, there is always a but, and I always like the roll of Devil's advocat (συνηγορος του Διαβολου),
the fighting Islam (outside Iesrael Palestine Lebanon borders ) and their organizations start to appear in Afganistan after Soviet invasion/attack,
they grew so much that created Al kainta and many other organizations, even today that we believe that Afganistan has peace, it is like walking in thin ice,
we have seen it enter in Pakistan and expand wide wide and wide again,
today we know that in Afganistan people were trained to go after to Africa, Middle East, Europe, USA (9/11)
we know that Daesh is recruiting infantry from where? Europe?
and Taliban of Yesterday become what? Daesh? who slain every kafir in their pass like Yezidi and Syrria's Christians? and went more close to West!!!!
and they enter Europe through Italy and Greece and get new ID card? but keep doing the same, since some Mullas (Priests) are calling the faithfull to fight a sacred war with DAESH,

hmm, ok I am not worry for tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, but for the year after this year and the year next of that etc,

Globalization might not need a global religion, but be sure that some will try to prevail their religion as the only global, so Globalization to succes

 

[Taranis]

hmm indeed nice view, balanced and calming, I could say wise enough, so not to terrify Europeans,

but, there is always a but, and I always like the roll of Devil's advocat (συνηγορος του Διαβολου),
the fighting Islam (outside Iesrael Palestine Lebanon borders ) and their organizations start to appear in Afganistan after Soviet invasion/attack,
they grew so much that created Al kainta and many other organizations, even today that we believe that Afganistan has peace, it is like walking in thin ice,
we have seen it enter in Pakistan and expand wide wide and wide again,
today we know that in Afganistan people were trained to go after to Africa, Middle East, Europe, USA (9/11)
we know that Daesh is recruiting infantry from where? Europe?
and Taliban of Yesterday become what? Daesh? who slain every kafir in their pass like Yezidi and Syrria's Christians? and went more close to West!!!!
and they enter Europe through Italy and Greece and get new ID card? but keep doing the same, since some Mullas (Priests) are calling the faithfull to fight a sacred war with DAESH,

hmm, ok I am not worry for tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, but for the year after this year and the year next of that etc,

Globalization might not need a global religion, but be sure that some will try to prevail their religion as the only global, so Globalization to succes

Sorry, but the I.S. have preciously little to do with the Taliban. The Taliban didn't "simply move west", the I.S. is a native phenomenon of Syria and Iraq that grew out of the civil wars in these areas.
The emergence of the I.S., I do see for a number of reasons (in reverse chronological order, from latest to earliest):

- The Russian opposition to an international intervention in Syria in 2011/2012, or more broadly, the Sino-Russian consensus in the UN security council, on the grounds that "Russia would not allow the mistake of Libya to happen again", with the ulterior motive of having strategic interests in Syria (which, mind you, they're going to lose anyways should the Assad regime fall, which appears more likely with recent events - i.e. the sacking of Palmyra/Tadmur by the I.S., which the Syrian military was unable to stop).
- The so-called "Arab Spring", which (amongst many other effects) triggered the Syrian Civil War.
- Perhaps the most heaviest, the US invasion of Iraq 2003, and the whole idea of going into Iraq without any plan what so ever. Bush's "plan" more or less was that somehow, post-Saddam Iraq would magically turn into a "shining beacon of democracy", which is obviously absurd, and the power vacuum in post-invasion Iraq was definitely a destabilizing factor in the Middle East that made things a lot worse. With Saddam Hussein still in power, the current situation would be unthinkable. Note that I'm no way a supporter of Saddam Hussein or of authoritarianism in general, but in hindsight his rule was decisively the lesser evil, by large margin.
- By extend, you could also blame the Entente Powers of World War I who fairly randomly drew up the current borders onto the map, but I concede this is a stretch.

How are things going to turn out, though? For the absolute worst-case scenario, in my opinion, there's another historic analogue to look at, namely the deadliest civil war of the 19th century (not the American Civil War, despite what some people think :useless: ), namely the Tai Ping rebellion in China. The Tai Ping were founded by another religious extremist, Hong Xiuquan, who claimed to be the brother of Jesus (again, here's another the parallel of how non-representative the Tai Ping were of Christianity), and dragged Qing China into a protracted deadly civil war that lasted over a decade and saw French and American forces fight on the side of the Qing. Another example, this time actually a Muslim one, is the rebellion in late 19th-century Sudan triggered by Muhammad Ahmad ibn as-Sayyid Abdallah, who proclaimed himself to be the Mahdi (the Islamic messianic figure that is supposed to rally the forces of Islam against the Antichrist during the End Times). Here, the parallel is also strong because the I.S. also invokes a very strong End Times message, even though Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hasn't proclaimed himself as the Mahdi... (...yet? :bored: ). Needless to say, the Mahdists were eventually defeated, too, but this was also a costly war (but nowhere as deadly as the Tai Ping rebellion) that took almost twenty years before it was finally over. So I suspect, we may be looking at something similar here...

 

[Yetos]

Sorry, but the I.S. have preciously little to do with the Taliban. The Taliban didn't "simply move west", the I.S. is a native phenomenon of Syria and Iraq that grew out of the civil wars in these areas.
The emergence of the I.S., I do see for a number of reasons (in reverse chronological order, from latest to earliest):

- The Russian opposition to an international intervention in Syria in 2011/2012, or more broadly, the Sino-Russian consensus in the UN security council, on the grounds that "Russia would not allow the mistake of Libya to happen again", with the ulterior motive of having strategic interests in Syria (which, mind you, they're going to lose anyways should the Assad regime fall, which appears more likely with recent events - i.e. the sacking of Palmyra/Tadmur by the I.S., which the Syrian military was unable to stop).
- The so-called "Arab Spring", which (amongst many other effects) triggered the Syrian Civil War.
- Perhaps the most heaviest, the US invasion of Iraq 2003, and the whole idea of going into Iraq without any plan what so ever. Bush's "plan" more or less was that somehow, post-Saddam Iraq would magically turn into a "shining beacon of democracy", which is obviously absurd, and the power vacuum in post-invasion Iraq was definitely a destabilizing factor in the Middle East that made things a lot worse. With Saddam Hussein still in power, the current situation would be unthinkable. Note that I'm no way a supporter of Saddam Hussein or of authoritarianism in general, but in hindsight his rule was decisively the lesser evil, by large margin.
- By extend, you could also blame the Entente Powers of World War I who fairly randomly drew up the current borders onto the map, but I concede this is a stretch.

How are things going to turn out, though? For the absolute worst-case scenario, in my opinion, there's another historic analogue to look at, namely the deadliest civil war of the 19th century (not the American Civil War, despite what some people think :useless: ), namely the Tai Ping rebellion in China. The Tai Ping were founded by another religious extremist, Hong Xiuquan, who claimed to be the brother of Jesus (again, here's another the parallel of how non-representative the Tai Ping were of Christianity), and dragged Qing China into a protracted deadly civil war that lasted over a decade and saw French and American forces fight on the side of the Qing. Another example, this time actually a Muslim one, is the rebellion in late 19th-century Sudan triggered by Muhammad Ahmad ibn as-Sayyid Abdallah, who proclaimed himself to be the Mahdi (the Islamic messianic figure that is supposed to rally the forces of Islam against the Antichrist during the End Times). Here, the parallel is also strong because the I.S. also invokes a very strong End Times message, even though Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hasn't proclaimed himself as the Mahdi... (...yet? :bored: ). Needless to say, the Mahdists were eventually defeated, too, but this was also a costly war (but nowhere as deadly as the Tai Ping rebellion) that took almost twenty years before it was finally over. So I suspect, we may be looking at something similar here...

sorry

Taliban warriors, fight as kind of volunteers, in Bosna and Kossovo,
Daesh was connected with Tunish Algeria Egypt,
the same warriors who were in Tunisia, then Algeria etc were in the beginning of ISIL,
they were trained in Afganistan by Taliban or Al Kainta
and now they have trained men to start war in Europe,
but they will make it look like as Balkan spring

you can read here

http://jihadology.net/category/al-ḥayat-media-center/


the fear of Greeks who know Islam 1300 years, and rest non Islamic balkans, is again correct,
I can assume numbers, I can suppose, but I am not a prophet, and I do not want to be,
I am neither a secret service to give numbers, or what ever,
but what is going on happening in Skopje last months,
as also the tremendous numbers of illegal immigrants, from the lands around DAESH, or from the lands around BOKO HARAM,
people who spend easily 50E for a bottle of water!!! and buy with 500E bills, but come with no ID card or passport!!!
maybe something strong is under our nose,
or maybe nothing, and we just worry for no reason,
anyway, I am calm, but I checked and oiled my guns

as you can see in the video
DAESH IS NOT A LOCAL PHENOMENON
IS A WORLD WIDE CRUSADE OF ISLAM TO CREATE HALIPHATE!!!!

 

[LeBrok]

Sorry, but the I.S. have preciously little to do with the Taliban. The Taliban didn't "simply move west", the I.S. is a native phenomenon of Syria and Iraq that grew out of the civil wars in these areas.
The emergence of the I.S., I do see for a number of reasons (in reverse chronological order, from latest to earliest):

- The Russian opposition to an international intervention in Syria in 2011/2012, or more broadly, the Sino-Russian consensus in the UN security council, on the grounds that "Russia would not allow the mistake of Libya to happen again", with the ulterior motive of having strategic interests in Syria (which, mind you, they're going to lose anyways should the Assad regime fall, which appears more likely with recent events - i.e. the sacking of Palmyra/Tadmur by the I.S., which the Syrian military was unable to stop).
- The so-called "Arab Spring", which (amongst many other effects) triggered the Syrian Civil War.

Well said.

- Perhaps the most heaviest, the US invasion of Iraq 2003, and the whole idea of going into Iraq without any plan what so ever. Bush's "plan" more or less was that somehow, post-Saddam Iraq would magically turn into a "shining beacon of democracy", which is obviously absurd, and the power vacuum in post-invasion Iraq was definitely a destabilizing factor in the Middle East that made things a lot worse. With Saddam Hussein still in power, the current situation would be unthinkable.

I'm not sure why Saddam would have been untouchable by Arab Spring effect? He was a dictator hated by people, not mentioning longings of Kurds for independence, or Iranian influence among Shia. Yemen comes to mind.
Sooner or later Iraq would destabilize and fall apart. It was only kept together by a brutal hand of Saddam.

Note that I'm no way a supporter of Saddam Hussein or of authoritarianism in general, but in hindsight his rule was decisively the lesser evil, by large margin.

Mubarak was even less evil and less crazy, and he needed to go too.

- By extend, you could also blame the Entente Powers of World War I who fairly randomly drew up the current borders onto the map, but I concede this is a stretch.

That is the starting point of today's Middle East problems. I think that if Imperiums withdrew without setting any borders, that would have created huge power vacuums. We would have many conflicts and wars, ethnic and religious, who gets what the Middle East for many decades. It would have been bloody, but by now the process would have been over, with more ethnically divided region. Possibly more peaceful and with some democratic countries. Instead this process was delayed. All natural and grass root forces were kept in check till Arab Spring. Well, it might take a generation or two till there is a real peace there. We all know how messy was the process of democratization of Europe, from French Revolution till now. In Russia and Ukraine it is still messy and ongoing. We should cut Middle East some slack.

How are things going to turn out, though? For the absolute worst-case scenario, in my opinion, there's another historic analogue to look at, namely the deadliest civil war of the 19th century (not the American Civil War, despite what some people think :useless: ), namely the Tai Ping rebellion in China. The Tai Ping were founded by another religious extremist, Hong Xiuquan, who claimed to be the brother of Jesus (again, here's another the parallel of how non-representative the Tai Ping were of Christianity), and dragged Qing China into a protracted deadly civil war that lasted over a decade and saw French and American forces fight on the side of the Qing. Another example, this time actually a Muslim one, is the rebellion in late 19th-century Sudan triggered by Muhammad Ahmad ibn as-Sayyid Abdallah, who proclaimed himself to be the Mahdi (the Islamic messianic figure that is supposed to rally the forces of Islam against the Antichrist during the End Times). Here, the parallel is also strong because the I.S. also invokes a very strong End Times message, even though Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hasn't proclaimed himself as the Mahdi... (...yet? :bored: ). Needless to say, the Mahdists were eventually defeated, too, but this was also a costly war (but nowhere as deadly as the Tai Ping rebellion) that took almost twenty years before it was finally over. So I suspect, we may be looking at something similar here...

What about Christian Crusades in Middle Ages, to build the God's Kingdom in Holy Land and wait for Jesus to come again? And they did it without the Internet! Just religious and romantic ideas and young men's desire to fight, shoot and kill the enemy. The scary thing is that many psychopaths, from around the globe, used that chance to enlist, to have unlimited licence to rape, torture and kill for pleasure. Isn't it what we see?

 

[LeBrok]

sorry

Taliban warriors, fight as kind of volunteers, in Bosna and Kossovo,
Daesh was connected with Tunish Algeria Egypt,
the same warriors who were in Tunisia, then Algeria etc were in the beginning of ISIL,
they were trained in Afganistan by Taliban or Al Kainta
and now they have trained men to start war in Europe,
but they will make it look like as Balkan spring

you can read here

http://jihadology.net/category/al-ḥayat-media-center/


the fear of Greeks who know Islam 1300 years, and rest non Islamic balkans, is again correct,
I can assume numbers, I can suppose, but I am not a prophet, and I do not want to be,
I am neither a secret service to give numbers, or what ever,
but what is going on happening in Skopje last months,
as also the tremendous numbers of illegal immigrants, from the lands around DAESH, or from the lands around BOKO HARAM,
people who spend easily 50E for a bottle of water!!! and buy with 500E bills, but come with no ID card or passport!!!
maybe something strong is under our nose,
or maybe nothing, and we just worry for no reason,
anyway, I am calm, but I checked and oiled my guns

as you can see in the video
DAESH IS NOT A LOCAL PHENOMENON
IS A WORLD WIDE CRUSADE OF ISLAM TO CREATE HALIPHATE!!!!

Cars kill and injure tens of thousands of Greeks every year. They are more dangerous to Greeks than Daesh, by order of magnitude, well, many magnitudes. Why aren't you scared of cars, and outlaw cars?
How many deaths Islamic terrorists caused in Greece last year?

 

[Alan]

A caliphate is an Islamic state ruled by a 'caliph' - in this case Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - who is seen as the successor to Prophet Mohammed by those swearing allegiance.

Who on earth declared him to calpih beside him and his psychotic followers?

 

[Alan]

there 2 demands also ,
Help Syrria and Lebanos to stand as Multinational countries,
Help minorities to defend their shelfs (Lebanese Phalanx, Yezidi Kurds, Antiocheian(Edessa) Christians)

Solution is to get rid of Sykes-Picot borders and stop supporting nations who are funding those people.

 

[Alan]

sunni and shia they both try to impose their power on anybody else
in the Middle East the only alternative is a dictator, democracy fails, the only exception may be Lebanon for as long as it will last
even Turkey, which recently was a secular state is getting more and more convinced of their own 'Muslim-Ottoman superiority'
that should be a lesson for Europe (and America)

Turkey was NEVER a secular state to begin with. Secularism doesn't start with forcing European lifestyle upon the people. What I see is Turkey changing from a Europe orientated but fascistic state to an muslim world orientated fascist one.

Democracy would work in the Middle East if people were not forced to live with other people, they have nothing in common with and hate, in fake borders. You can't force shia and sunni Arabs (historical hate) to live in one state and expect them to settle for good. The borders of the Middle East were not made for Democracy.

 

[Yetos]

Solution is to get rid of Sykes-Picot borders and stop supporting nations who are funding those people.

the Sykes -Picot borders, were drawn the time of Arab revolt and Laurence of Arabia,
since you are a Kurd, you know that if Kurds support Laurence and not Kemal there will be no Sykes-Picot borders, but Free Mossoul,

the think is that many borders must chance all over the world, and maybe that will be done soon there,
but who will gain priviledge?
although I agree that war must stop there, creating territories of more shelf control, and identification

 

[Alan]

the Sykes -Picot borders, were drawn the time of Arab revolt and Laurence of Arabia,
since you are a Kurd, you know that if Kurds support Laurence and not Kemal there will be no Sykes-Picot borders, but Free Mossoul,

Ya think? Sykes-Picot border was the ultimate result of the promise for Arabs that they would get one Arabian homeland. Instead they were cut into pieces and one part of Sunni Arabs forced to live with Alawi/Shias.

We didn't trust the imperial powers and where fooled by Kemal.

the think is that many borders must chance all over the world, and maybe that will be done soon there,
but who will gain priviledge?
although I agree that war must stop there, creating territories of more shelf control, and identification

Agree

 

[Yetos]

Ya think? Sykes-Picot border was the ultimate result of the promise for Arabs that they would get one Arabian homeland. Instead they were cut into pieces and one part of Sunni Arabs forced to live with Alawi/Shias.

We didn't trust the imperial powers and where fooled by Kemal.



Agree

Ya I do think, cause as a Greek i know that plan had 3 more countries

1) Armenistan (Pontus Laz Kars and Turkish Armenia) a country that from first time Russians were against, the mistake of Greek Βενιζελος,
2) Big Aleppo (Χαλυβων) away from Damascus nobility
3) British Mossoule, british wanted to make a colony there with exit to mediterenean and Arab gulf, among Iran and Turkey, Caucas(Russia) and Arabia
in fact in Mossoule was the big game, you know why,

Kemal was smart and gave half Mossoul but kept half Aleppo (Alexandretta), and moved his army West with support from Powers, to Aegean sea
in fact, i consider him one of the smartest leaders at 20th century, and the only true reformer in the history of Islamic world,
cause he manage to make the 1rst Islamic country that has a kind of working democracy, no matter in the less than 100 years many dictatorships took place,
but also many elections took place, and that is something

 

[Maleth]

Does anyone think there are similarities between the mentalities of 400 years ago puritan Oliver Cromwell and Isis, that is in a less globalized scenario. What do you think?

 

[Taranis]

Who on earth declared him to calpih beside him and his psychotic followers?

This is a crucial issue. A lot of people (including the I.S. themselves, but also westerners who throw around the word "caliphate" like some kind of "boogeyman") use the word without considering what it historically means. The Arabic khalīfah literally means something like "successor", in the sense of being a successor to the prophet Muhammad. Unlike in Christianity, since Islam has no tradition of a division between state power and religious power, historically, this means - in theory - that in addition to being a spiritual leader, the early caliph was also the de-facto supreme ruler over all Muslims. This was the case for the early caliphs (the four Rashidun caliphs, or "rightly guided ones"), as well as for the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs. In a way, the I.S. seeks to create a fantasy of this early Islamic period, when all Muslims were living inside a unified empire. However, this is ignoring that as time progressed the power of the caliph waned: when the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in a bloody revolt, they weren't able to wipe the family out entirely, and the Umayyads continued to claim the title of caliph in the west for several centuries, in Al-Andalus (Muslim Iberia). Later on, on the eve of the Mongol sacking of Baghdad, the Abbasids' power had waned and de-facto they only controlled an area more or less consistent with that of modern Iraq. Chronologically speaking, the most recent ones to hold the title of caliphs were the sultans of the Ottoman Empire, but in practice, the sultan had very little power outside of the borders of the Ottoman Empire, while there were at that point substantial Muslim populations living in subsaharan Africa, Iran, Central Asia, India and Southeast Asia.

Another overlooked aspect in this "fantasy view" of the early Islamic period (8th century) is the demographic aspect: Islam was a minority religion, and as the Islamic caliphate expanded it territory, a multitude of non-Muslim and non-Arab peoples (Greeks, Copts, Armenians, Persians, etc. etc.) came under the rule of what - for a while, especially under the Umayyad dynasty - resembled an Arab-only religion. We think of the djizyah (the extra tax that was issued on Christian and Jewish subjects) as a means of discrimination, but for the early caliphate, this was a critical issue, as the vast majority of its subjects were non-Muslims (and it should be noted that the Ottoman Empire abolished the djizyah system in the middle of the 19th century).