HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » freshwest » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 308 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 45,478

Journal Archives

It's only a delusion if it doesn't come to pass. The caliphate is a tangible vision..

Sorry, but I am going to trot out this post of mine but there's a background leading to that speed and acceptance, coming from a different way of looking at the world:


A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign polity (state) of the entire Muslim faithful (the Ummah, i.e. a sovereign nation state) ruled by a single caliph under the Constitution of Medina and Islamic law (sharia).

In its earliest days, the first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, exhibited elements of direct democracy (shura). It was led, at first, by Muhammad's immediate disciples and family as a continuation of the religious systems he had introduced.

The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). From the end of the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first of these was the Umayyad dynasty, followed by the several other sometimes competing claimants and finally the Ottoman dynasty. Though non-political, the Ahmadiyya Caliphate had been the only caliphate in existence for over a century. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant proclaimed another.

The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries".


Look at all the countries we are talking about today. Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the little alphabet nations there.

Note the Ottoman Empire at its height. We're talking about all of the current nations as well as those that bordered it now:

Ottoman Empire (/ˈɒtəmən/; Ottoman Turkish: دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه, Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye, Modern Turkish: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu), also historically referred to as the Turkish Empire or Turkey, was an empire founded by Oghuz Turks under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299. With the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, the Ottoman state was transformed into an empire.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, leading to the emergence of the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states.


As the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Armenian Genocide occured and other nations were made. The Russians are tending to historical factions there.

That eventually included the state of Israel. Contrary to a mantra often repeated, Israel was not a gift from Europe and the USA for Nazi atrocities.

It had been contemplated in 1917:


And also in 1926:


True, it was an European creation, as were most of the other countries that evolved out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It just so happened that the rulers were different, is all that happened to that huge chunk of the world's surface. Looking at it in those terms explains the resistance of the parties involved to listen to the United Nations. Their viewpoint extends many centuries beyond the founding of that organization, or even the definitions of the nation state.

One side pushed one way over centuries, and then the other pushed back. We have movements in all the western nations, Russia, China, the islands and in the Americas that call for a world caliphate. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's how people organize themselves for what they think is a good thing.

Those who believe in setting up or expanding a caliphate believe it is a great plan to bring about world peace. There are costs along the road to empire. ISIL is showing us what they'll be. They want to bring back that empire and their version of peace in which all the people will agree on everything they say is the right thing to do.

The caliphate(s) once extended further and was contracted only by armed resistance. It was during long, bloody centuries. IMO, America is much too young to grasp this.

Our idea of how those regions in the two images here should fit onto a map, is not theirs. It was only a temporary hold. They have historical precedent for what they are doing. The more lands they can put in their resurrected empire, the more influence they'll have around the globe to establish their peace.

I don't know if they are right or if they will prevail. I've talked to eager young people online who think it's beautiful and promote it with messianic zeal, very happy to convert others to what they think is a good and holy thing.

It makes sense to those who believe in this. Those who don't, either accept their doing it or oppose it or try to escape it. I've known people from Egypt, Lebanon and other nations who moved to the USA to get away.

Some Americans say nothing will change their own lives. They may be right about it all. But I think they're unrealistic, because in history people don't stop wanting because other ignore their movement. That's not how the world works in the long term.

There always seems to be something amiss in periods of peace. A lack of justice, most likely, so people continue to make war with each other.

Just a few things to consider without any judgment on my part and I doubt anything I could do would change the outcome of these things. And some may not even respect Wikipedia, either.


I see no will expressed by Americans to stop this. Obama's limited action on this is meeting howls of derision from all sides. His latest speech is simply re-iterating what he said at the NATO summit in Wales, which I've posted along with the latest one.

Americans will vote on what their future will be in less than 60 days. Not deciding (or not voting) is still making a choice. I don't see us as up to the challenge, personally. The will is not there. No more than it was in the Thirties. I hope the re-post here for you clarifies my POV.


+1,000. He had to go for the cheap shot. As The Magistrate said:

Anyone who confuses legal and political equality with identity of talents and character has never thought for two minutes consecutively about either thing.

~ The Magistrate

Goes for skin color, too, Mr. Moore. It's racism to demand he live up to your idea of what a black man is supposed to do, as if he was your property. Back off!

This is genius at work, pure purpose:

Yes, Michael Moore, he's a better man and much wiser than you will ever be. Just keep screeching, it only makes you look bad, not him.

McCain is a charlatan. Obama is a genius. Sorry, Johnny!

Obama's mind is focused, working in full gear and they are terrified:

McCain thinks this is presidential:

Devil's Advocate or Agents of Satan who claim their duties are only ceremonial?

They don't help those being tortured for the amusement of the masses.

Unwarranted. You could have added your data without talking like that.

Americans know what the Australians suffered in WW2 on behalf of the BE as part of the Allies, in the Pacific Theater. It's well documented and part of the reason Australia is part of the Five Eyes that is also part of fighting ISIL.

What has the current Australian economy have to do with WW2 and the commitment of all of the ALLIED forces of which Australia was a part?

You should go to the Wiki page on WW2 casualties to edit it with your data instead of what you said about the graphic. It does not exclude Australia.

It is emblematic of my point, that the Axis did not suffer as much as the Allies did. What has those lives lost got to do with one single graphic? Does it say they were lost in vain?

I don't think so. I respect their sacrifice. I respect my father who fought in the Pacific and went from one island to another until they reached China and cleaned up what the Japanese left in retreat. Australians know this. Americans know this.

I'll try to explain the point of my post, that is about a national will and how we came to be what we are in the world. Note how The Five Eyes include both Australia and NZ:

...The treaty sharing info goes back to WW2.

The entire Anglosphere has been sharing a lot of information offically on the same basis it did during that war. Below is a post by Devon Rex, but most of us knew this for years, just not this well laid out:

I'll spell it out:

UKUSA. It's the SIGINT Intelligence Agreement. BRUSA.

Might as well be signed in blood.


United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-sah) is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes (FVEY). It was first signed in March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States and later extended to encompass the three Commonwealth realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The UKUSA Agreement was a follow-up of the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, the World War II agreement on cooperation over intelligence matters. This was a secret treaty, allegedly so secret that it was kept secret from the Australian Prime Ministers until 1973.

The agreement established an alliance of five English-speaking countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence, especially signals intelligence. It formalized the intelligence sharing agreement in the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, before the entry of the U.S. into the conflict.


The agreement originated from a ten-page British–U.S. Communication Intelligence Agreement, also known as BRUSA, that connected the signal intercept networks of the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at the beginning of the Cold War. The document was signed on March 5, 1946 by Colonel Patrick Marr-Johnson for the U.K.'s London Signals Intelligence Board and Lieutenant General Hoyt Vandenberg for the U.S. State–Army–Navy Communication Intelligence Board. Although the original agreement states that the exchange would not be "prejudicial to national interests", the United States often blocked information sharing from Commonwealth countries. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on June 25, 2010.

Under the agreement, the GCHQ and the NSA shared intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries (known as Exotics). The network was expanded in the 1960s into the Echelon collection and analysis network.

In July 2013, as part of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, it emerged that the NSA is paying GCHQ for its services, with at least £100 million of payments made between 2010–13.

Collection mechanisms

The UKUSA alliance is often associated with the ECHELON system; however, processed intelligence is reliant on multiple sources of information and the intelligence shared is not restricted to signals intelligence.

The "Five Eyes" in question are –

USA – National Security Agency
United Kingdom – Government Communications Headquarters
Canada – Communications Security Establishment
Australia – Defence Signals Directorate
New Zealand – Government Communications Security Bureau

Global coverage

Each member of the UKUSA alliance is officially assigned lead responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis in different parts of the globe.


Australia hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia, and southern China.


Formerly the northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite, radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and non-aligned paramilitary groups in the region.

New Zealand

The Waihopai Valley Facility—base of the New Zealand branch of the ECHELON Program.
New Zealand is responsible for the western Pacific. Listening posts in the South Island at Waihopai Valley just south-west of Blenheim, and on the North Island at Tangimoana. The Anti-Bases Campaign holds regular protests in order to have the listening posts closed down.

United Kingdom

Europe, Africa, and European Russia.

United States

Monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern China.


Devon Rex wrote:

'Might as well be signed in blood.'

That is true. Millions of people died in that war and that's still taken seriously. True, it was before most of us were born but it formed the world we live in.

Australia has supported the actions of the USA and UK for many years since WW2. Do you think NZ and Australia should leave this alliance now?

I'm not getting where the fire is coming from, all out of proportion to my point. I have neither said nor posted anything to offend Australia or NZ.

I made a narrow point, focused on the will of the American people to be involved in stopping ISIL. You have not addressed the point of my comment.

I disagree with Iran supplying nukes to a group that hates them. The reason we are in Afghanistan is

the same reason we are in Pakistan. Iran is not as crazy as it's made out to be but no walk in the park, either for human rights or ending terrorism. Obama has brought them back from extremism, in a relative fashion, despite some of the awful things they have funded.

The Taliban and others like them cross the border from Afghanistan and Pakistan and are being supported by factions in both nations. Pakistan is a nuclear power, but it is dangerously unstable. That's why we're not going to leave, IMO.

Pakistan's neighor India is also a nuclear power but not as unstable. If ISIL gets a bomb, it'll be from there, is what I bet. Iran can cause trouble, but it actually been cited as a nation with no interest in seeing ISIL suceed, except to stir the pot. And if goes too far, it will go against Iran, too. Wrong religion...

And the idea that ISIL has only 20 thousand at its command is wrong. Try something between that and 20 million, and more will be born daily from the sex slavery and forced marriage ISIL is practicing:

‘Apocalyptic’ Isis beyond anything we've seen, say US defence chiefs

Senior Pentagon officials describe militants as ‘apocalyptic’ group that will need to be defeated but maintain limited strikes are sufficient

...(General) Dempsey, an Iraq veteran, has long been sceptical of US military involvement in the Syrian conflict, citing among other reasons the threat to US pilots from dictator Bashar al-Assad’s air defences. He has frustrated those who advocated American involvement in the two neighbouring wars, such as hawkish Republican senator John McCain, who in June called on Obama to fire Dempsey, saying he “has done nothing but invent ways for us not to be engaged.”

Echoing the White House’s stated position, Dempsey said the US needed “a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating Isis over time,” something the administration this week has put effort into broadening and strengthening. But the group’s ultimate defeat, the general said, would only come “when it is rejected by the over 20 million disenfranchised Sunnis that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad.”


While no doubt only a small percentage of the 20 million displaced people support ISIS, there are a significant number of refugees from the Iraq War. People need to think of these people. They want a new home and ISIL Is promising it.

The demographic of the Arab world (or Middle East as they're not all Arab) is also a difference in what you describe in the era post-WW1 Germany. In the Middle East, last I read, a much larger percentile of the population is under 18 and another part is from 18 to 25, something around 75%, and a lot not getting what they think they deserve.

Some say the West is old and weak, as we spend money on our disabled, elderly and quality of life issues. Youth is raw power to be harnassed no matter what economics they live and die under, and they are fearless. That is why this won't go away any time soon, it will take generations.


President Obama Addresses the Nation on the ISIL Threat

Published on Sep 10, 2014

Speaking from the State Floor in the White House on September 10, 2014, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Iraq and the United States’ strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL, a terrorist organization.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with members of the National Security Council in the Situation Room of the White House. September 10, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

FULL TEXT: President Obama's Speech On ISIS

Remarks of President Barack Obama Address to the Nation

My fellow Americans – tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.”

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists – Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.


to cal04:


Posted for members of the BOG, a safe haven created for supporters of the 44th President Barack Obama, his policies, achievements and fellow supporters. We have a SOP posted here.

Adlai E. Stevenson on Republicans and Democrats:

If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.

~ Adlai E. Stevenson

The truth is pretty clear here.

Rachel Maddow - Davis seeks to rouse dormant Democratic giant

Published on Sep 10, 2014

By Licentiathe8th - Sept 9, 2014

Wendy Davis, Texas state senator and Democratic gubernatorial candidate, talks with Rachel Maddow about the long neglected Democratic voting base that she champions in Texas, and why she chose now to go public with her own abortion stories.

to Galraedia:


Thanks! So long as they can't stop the critique of their programs, which is the worst on cable!

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

~ Jim Morrison

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 308 Next »