Will Egypt join Iraq in the 'Axis of Resistance'?

[Full Moon]

The "Axis of Resistance", what a sweet lie...

 

[Aramagedon]

I am not Atatwolf. you spastic.
And show me where I cheered over Iraqi deaths you MAYMUN. You are just getting a little emotional because I said Turkey and Iran will never be in any sort of alliance . Get over it pal.

These are Iraqis.

View attachment 370499

They don't look old to me, or women. lol

This is Iraq.

View attachment 370496

Running away to Europe. what brave warriors.

You are hardly 18 years old and you think you are Mongol while you are a Persian.

 

[Kuwaiti Girl]

So the clergy in KSA who yield an enormous influence in terms of politics, at least within KSA, are not Islamists? GCC states that are mostly ruled by Sharia or have many laws deriving from Islamic law, are not Islamist either? KSA and Qatar and others have not been concerned with supporting Islam and Muslim endeavors across the world either, or what?

Turkey Islamist? What's exactly Islamist about Turkey? So Erdogan removing some of the legacy of Ataturk (much of it unpopular in Turkey given the support of AKP) turns Turkey into an Islamist country? Where exactly else do Turkey support Islamist forces let alone have any influences aside from a few proxies in Northern Syria, many of whom are Syrian Turkmen?

As for Iran, they are Islamist but their "Islamism" is only relevant for Shias. More precisely Twelvers. Meaning a very small number of people at the end of the day compared to the actual number of Muslims worldwide.
Mostly Shias in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any other Islamism other than Wilayat al-Faqih (even rivaling forms of Islamism such as traditional Shia Twelver Islam as practiced in the Arab world historically and Iraq in particular among the Shia Arabs - Al-Sistani being a symbol of that) are also seen as threats evidence of Iranian (Mullah) policies in Iraq in this regard.

@HannibalBarca is right. This is not about ideologies, its about regimes, mostly unelected and incompetent by large, that are hellbent on gaining influence by all means necessary. Regimes that have little regard for the wishes of their people and for the consequences of their policies.

Eventually the region will move towards an EU-like cooperation as everything else that has been tried, has largely failed. The various isms will fight each other and compete with each other until sanity (economic, security etc.) cooperation prevails.

There is no other solution. And when that occurs naturally nationalism or at least regional spheres will emerge and prevail.

That however does not mean that Islam will vanish or that Islam will play no role in the societies or peoples lives. However hopefully such developments will give rise to better regimes and governments and by default a "peoples" democracy/representation/call it what you want to rather than small select power bases be they clergy, military, monarchy, supreme leaders, elected dictators etc.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a pro-Islamist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has done everything in its power to make sure that the Arab republics (e.g. Egypt) are ruled by secular-leaning heads of state instead of Islamist-leaning heads of state. For example, Saudi Arabia supported el-Sisi's overthrow of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013. Saudi Arabia also supported the removal of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood from power. And, currently, Saudi Arabia is quietly supporting the secular-leaning Libyan general, Haftar, against the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood alongside the Emiratis.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country by law and constitution. Yes, it also happens to be one of the most extreme Muslim countries in the world. But that's the irony. The irony is that, despite Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative Islamic identity, the kingdom has promoted a foreign policy of helping secular Arabs rule over the Arab republics instead of Islamist Arabs.

The same goes for the UAE. The UAE is also a Muslim country by law and constitution, and yet the UAE has promoted an anti-Islamist / anti-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy in places such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

The reason for these policies is actually very simple. The UAE is a very open/liberal country by regional standards. It allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in other Muslim countries. Its economy depends on its openness. The rise of Islamism in the region will inevitably affect the UAE's economy, especially the tourism sector.

Saudi Arabia, however, prefers secular Arab rule in the Arab republics for other reasons. The Saudis don't want a rivaling Islamic power elsewhere in the Arab World. Secular rule in Egypt and other Arabic republics won't pose an existential threat to Saudi Arabia. Islamist rule in a country like Egypt, on the other hand, will eventually pose a huge threat to the House of Saud because the Islamists in Egypt will eventually encourage their Saudi counterparts to emulate their political success.

Turkey is a secular country by law and constitution, but the ruling party in Turkey is using Islamism as a means to expand its influence in the Arab World. The Turks can't use nationalism to do that since that clearly won't work, so Islamism is the only viable alternative. Erdogan and the AKP might not genuinely care about Islamism, but they'll use it as a useful tool to spread their influence into many parts of the Arab World.

On a final note, I agree with your last statement. I think the only solution to the Middle East is EU-style integration.

Sooner or later, there has to be an EU-style "Middle East Union".

The people of the Middle East will fight one another until they get tired of fighting, similar to what the Europeans went through in the early 20th century. Nationalism and religious fanaticism will die out. Regionalism will replace all these ideologies and prevail in the end, just like it has in other parts of the world.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

You are hardly 18 years old and you think you are Mongol while you are a Persian.

Turks, as in people of Anatolia are and have never been Persians, lol. Genetically they cluster with people of Balkans, Caucasus, Arabs and Iranians (Azeris mostly). Just like all people of the Middle East cluster with each other before anyone else. However unlike Turkey other Middle Eastern countries do not cluster much with peoples of Balkans but a lot of this has to do with the fact that there are millions of Turks of Bosnian, Albanian etc. origin.

It is like saying that Southern Turks are Turkified, former Semites. Does not work like that.

Mongols and Turks are two different peoples. Let alone Turks of Turkey and Mongols of Mongolia. They have very little in common genetically if anything. Iranians are ironically genetically closer to Turks of Central Asia and by default Mongols than Turks of Turkey are. You can choose to believe that or not, your choice but you are insulting your own people by using Mongol as a slur.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a pro-Islamist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has done everything in its power to make sure that the Arab republics (e.g. Egypt) are ruled by secular-leaning heads of state instead of Islamist-leaning heads of state. For example, Saudi Arabia supported el-Sisi's overthrow of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013. Saudi Arabia also supported the removal of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood from power. And, currently, Saudi Arabia is quietly supporting the secular-leaning Libyan general, Haftar, against the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood alongside the Emiratis.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country by law and constitution. Yes, it also happens to be one of the most extreme Muslim countries in the world. But that's the irony. The irony is that, despite Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative Islamic identity, the kingdom has promoted a foreign policy of helping secular Arabs rule over the Arab republics instead of Islamist Arabs.

The same goes for the UAE. The UAE is also a Muslim country by law and constitution, and yet the UAE has promoted an anti-Islamist / anti-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy in places such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

The reason for these policies is actually very simple. The UAE is a very open/liberal country by regional standards. It allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in other Muslim countries. Its economy depends on its openness. The rise of Islamism in the region will inevitably affect the UAE's economy, especially the tourism sector.

Saudi Arabia, however, prefers secular Arab rule in the Arab republics for other reasons. The Saudis don't want a rivaling Islamic power elsewhere in the Arab World. Secular rule in Egypt and other Arabic republics won't pose an existential threat to Saudi Arabia. Islamist rule in a country like Egypt, on the other hand, will eventually pose a huge threat to the House of Saud because the Islamists in Egypt will eventually encourage their Saudi counterparts to emulate their political success.

Turkey is a secular country by law and constitution, but the ruling party in Turkey is using Islamism as a means to expand its influence in the Arab World. The Turks can't use nationalism to do that since that clearly won't work, so Islamism is the only viable alternative. Erdogan and the AKP might not genuinely care about Islamism, but they'll use it as a useful tool to spread their influence into many parts of the Arab World.

On a final note, I agree with your last statement. I think the only solution to the Middle East is EU-style integration.

Sooner or later, there has to be an EU-style "Middle East Union".

The people of the Middle East will fight one another until they get tired of fighting, similar to what the Europeans went through in the early 20th century. Nationalism and religious fanaticism will die out. Regionalism will replace all these ideologies and prevail in the end, just like it has in other parts of the world.

Those countries are cherring for "secular" "army" gov to counter Islamist parties, Because if they do not do that, they will lose their power in the region. not because they like secularism or anything else, it's just you can't have 2 kings in the same kingdom...

if you want to see those gulf countries in action, then watch the comores/ the seychelles/ malaysia/indonesia/ and sub saharians countries. and you'll see what "islamism" is from them...

 

[Attila the Hun]

You are hardly 18 years old and you think you are Mongol while you are a Persian.

Nothing racist with that, better luck next time.
And yeah. I AM PERSIAN.

 

[Full Moon]

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a pro-Islamist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has done everything in its power to make sure that the Arab republics (e.g. Egypt) are ruled by secular-leaning heads of state instead of Islamist-leaning heads of state. For example, Saudi Arabia supported el-Sisi's overthrow of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013. Saudi Arabia also supported the removal of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood from power. And, currently, Saudi Arabia is quietly supporting the secular-leaning Libyan general, Haftar, against the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood alongside the Emiratis.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country by law and constitution. Yes, it also happens to be one of the most extreme Muslim countries in the world. But that's the irony. The irony is that, despite Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative Islamic identity, the kingdom has promoted a foreign policy of helping secular Arabs rule over the Arab republics instead of Islamist Arabs.

The same goes for the UAE. The UAE is also a Muslim country by law and constitution, and yet the UAE has promoted an anti-Islamist / anti-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy in places such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

The reason for these policies is actually very simple. The UAE is a very open/liberal country by regional standards. It allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in other Muslim countries. Its economy depends on its openness. The rise of Islamism in the region will inevitably affect the UAE's economy, especially the tourism sector.

Saudi Arabia, however, prefers secular Arab rule in the Arab republics for other reasons. The Saudis don't want a rivaling Islamic power elsewhere in the Arab World. Secular rule in Egypt and other Arabic republics won't pose an existential threat to Saudi Arabia. Islamist rule in a country like Egypt, on the other hand, will eventually pose a huge threat to the House of Saud because the Islamists in Egypt will eventually encourage their Saudi counterparts to emulate their political success.

Turkey is a secular country by law and constitution, but the ruling party in Turkey is using Islamism as a means to expand its influence in the Arab World. The Turks can't use nationalism to do that since that clearly won't work, so Islamism is the only viable alternative. Erdogan and the AKP might not genuinely care about Islamism, but they'll use it as a useful tool to spread their influence into many parts of the Arab World.

On a final note, I agree with your last statement. I think the only solution to the Middle East is EU-style integration.

Sooner or later, there has to be an EU-style "Middle East Union".

The people of the Middle East will fight one another until they get tired of fighting, similar to what the Europeans went through in the early 20th century. Nationalism and religious fanaticism will die out. Regionalism will replace all these ideologies and prevail in the end, just like it has in other parts of the world.

I see you are spreading your points all over the place about virtually every country. You do have your fair share of accurate information, but where is Iran in your thoughts? Are you pro-Iran?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a pro-Islamist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has done everything in its power to make sure that the Arab republics (e.g. Egypt) are ruled by secular-leaning heads of state instead of Islamist-leaning heads of state. For example, Saudi Arabia supported el-Sisi's overthrow of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013. Saudi Arabia also supported the removal of the Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood from power. And, currently, Saudi Arabia is quietly supporting the secular-leaning Libyan general, Haftar, against the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood alongside the Emiratis.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country by law and constitution. Yes, it also happens to be one of the most extreme Muslim countries in the world. But that's the irony. The irony is that, despite Saudi Arabia's ultraconservative Islamic identity, the kingdom has promoted a foreign policy of helping secular Arabs rule over the Arab republics instead of Islamist Arabs.

The same goes for the UAE. The UAE is also a Muslim country by law and constitution, and yet the UAE has promoted an anti-Islamist / anti-Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy in places such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

The reason for these policies is actually very simple. The UAE is a very open/liberal country by regional standards. It allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in other Muslim countries. Its economy depends on its openness. The rise of Islamism in the region will inevitably affect the UAE's economy, especially the tourism sector.

Saudi Arabia, however, prefers secular Arab rule in the Arab republics for other reasons. The Saudis don't want a rivaling Islamic power elsewhere in the Arab World. Secular rule in Egypt and other Arabic republics won't pose an existential threat to Saudi Arabia. Islamist rule in a country like Egypt, on the other hand, will eventually pose a huge threat to the House of Saud because the Islamists in Egypt will eventually encourage their Saudi counterparts to emulate their political success.

Turkey is a secular country by law and constitution, but the ruling party in Turkey is using Islamism as a means to expand its influence in the Arab World. The Turks can't use nationalism to do that since that clearly won't work, so Islamism is the only viable alternative. Erdogan and the AKP might not genuinely care about Islamism, but they'll use it as a useful tool to spread their influence into many parts of the Arab World.

On a final note, I agree with your last statement. I think the only solution to the Middle East is EU-style integration.

Sooner or later, there has to be an EU-style "Middle East Union".

The people of the Middle East will fight one another until they get tired of fighting, similar to what the Europeans went through in the early 20th century. Nationalism and religious fanaticism will die out. Regionalism will replace all these ideologies and prevail in the end, just like it has in other parts of the world.

I disagree. KSA has actively been supporting Muslims all across the world and spent billions on this in the process by building mosques, aid, supporting Muslim countries/regions at war from Afghanistan, Caucasus, Somalia, Arab world, Balkans (Bosnia), South East Asia etc. In fact all over the world, including in almost every Western country. Since at least the 1960's. I don't know of any such Muslim country in modern history that has been doing that for so long and so consistently.

KSA (as in House of Saud) fear opposing Sunni Islamist factions that somehow could threaten the legitimacy of the House of Saud and monarchies that rule by Sharia or which are heavily influenced by Sharia. GCC, Morocco, Jordan etc. Basically a club of monarchs that ironically Iran was a part of until 1979.

MB comes to mind. At the same time the MB fears/does not trust the Arab monarchies as they have a much bigger economic clout and a much more firm history in the region and legitimacy. If the GCC moved towards Jordan and Morocco (the political changes that have been happening there - positive ones) the legitimacy of the MB would only appeal to people with an exclusively Islamist outlook. If those same monarchies at the same time allowed the people to have a bigger say directly, by, dare I say it, becoming constitutional monarchies with limited powers, they would lose even more opponents.

However greed is a problem for every dynasty and can be their downfall. I won't exclude the removal of the House of Saud (and that of every monarchy in the Arab world) at some point if they fail to make the necessary reforms. Goes for every regime/government regards of their form. Be they Al-Sisi or Al-Abadi.

Anyway I saw that you touched upon that later in your post.

As for the rest I don't agree fully although I can follow some of your points.

As for your last remark, let us hope that this occurs for the sake of not my ideology or anyone else but for the common man and woman. They deserve better and I can easily "renounce" my ideology if that occurs. I am not that stubborn.

 

[Aramagedon]

Turks, as in people of Anatolia are and have never been Persians, lol. Genetically they cluster with people of Balkans, Caucasus, Arabs and Iranians (Azeris mostly). Just like all people of the Middle East cluster with each other before anyone else. However unlike Turkey other Middle Eastern countries do not cluster much with peoples of Balkans but a lot of this has to do with the fact that there are millions of Turks of Bosnian, Albanian etc. origin.

It is like saying that Southern Turks are Turkified, former Semites. Does not work like that.

Mongols and Turks are two different peoples. Let alone Turks of Turkey and Mongols of Mongolia. They have very little in common genetically if anything.

Lol, no one asked the zSaudi textbook guy.

Anatolis are 80% Iranians. They are common in J2 and many other dna groups with Iranians.

J2:

Anatolia was a province of Persian and Byzantine Empires for 2 millenias. Seljuks defeated byzantine and rescued Anatolis. 300 years later an Oghuz genetically Turkish leader as an emigrant from Kazagistan named Osman established Ottoman empire in Anatoli so that's why Anatolis became Turkish people.

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


All of Turkish glory is utterly fake. They even didn't rule themselves but Persians, Greeks, Kurds, Kazakh Turkish did.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

A final remark.

Whenever people are discussing separate countries we have to remember that there are 100's of different views inside each single country discussed and even very often opposing views within the governments. In KSA you have quite a few different opposing and competing views. I won't call them ideologies but let's say differences of opinion.

Let me give a few examples:

Within the late King Abdullah administration you had people who were willing to support and aid the Muslim Brotherhood from Tunisia to Syria and others who opposed this fiercely.

Within Islamist groups in KSA you have people who want to see the end of the House of Saud as their first and foremost priority before anything else and then you have supporters of the system who view the House of Saud and clergy as protectors of status quo. Then everything in between.

Nor is a country's policy static. KSA has changed its regional policy quite a lot since King Abdullah's time and I suspect that post- King Salman it will be no differently.

Lol, no one asked the zSaudi textbook guy.

Anatolis are 80% Iranians. They are common in J2 and other dna grouos with Iranians.

Anatolia was a province of Persian and Byzantine empires for more than 2 millenias. Seljuks defeated byzantine and rescued Anatolis. 300 years later an Oghuz genetically Turkish leader as an emigrant from Kazagistan established Ottoman empire in Anatoli so that's why Anatolis became Turkish people.

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

J2 has nothing to do with Iran. It is not an "Iranian" haplogroup as it predates the notion of Iran and Iranians by 15.000 to 20.000 years.

BTW that map is very inaccurate as J2 is found in KSA at 15-20% on average which is among the highest rates.

Yes, and millennia before anything called Persia and Byzantine much of current day Turkey was ruled by Semitic dynasties and empires and before that by indigenous ones that we know not too much about.

To say that Turks are Persians makes less sense than saying Iranians are Arabs.

In fact using that logic we must conclude, given that haplogroups J1 and J2 descend from haplogroup J, which originates in the borderlands of Southern Levant/Northern Arabia/Iraq that all people that have haplogroup J are Arabs, lol.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you Iranians have more Mongol genetics than Turks (Turkish citizens) have and Arabs.

But anyway I will let your live in your bubble and allow you to say that Turks are Persians.

What to expect from a guy who once wrote that Prophet Muhammad (saws) and Prophet Ibrahim (AS) and most of the other Arab/Jewish/Semitic Prophets were Iranian, lol.

I am deeply surprised that you are yet to claim kinship to Scandinavians and Chinese.

The "Axis of Resistance", what a sweet lie...

I tend to call it the "Axis of Deception and Illusions". Much more accurate.

BTW that supposed "resistance" what is it exactly aimed at? Currently it seems to be the Syrian people and populations living inside the "Axis of Resistance".

 

[Attila the Hun]

Lol, no one asked the zSaudi textbook guy.

Anatolis are 80% Iranians. They are common in J2 and other dna grouos with Iranians.

Anatolia was a province of Persian and Byzantine empires for more than 2 millenias. Seljuks defeated byzantine and rescued Anatolis. 300 years later an Oghuz genetically Turkish leader as an emigrant from Kazagistan established Ottoman empire in Anatoli so that's why Anatolis became Turkish people.

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


All of Turkish proud is utterly fake. They even didn't rule themselves but some Turkish emigrant did.

Anatolians being 80% Iranian lol.
Stop being a troll bro.
You do this all the time!!! I don't think we share much with Iranians. But, a lot will say we do. This is just my personal opinion. I think we share more with Pakistanis than we do with Iranians.
Turks and Anatolians are mixed together, there's no denying this.

 

[Attila the Hun]

One more point, you are proud of Mongols, Chinese etc.... while they are not even common with 5% of your people! Much strange!

Yes, of course, we Turks are all Chinese. @wanglaokan you are the only Chinese I know, so going to tag you. is this true bud?? lol

 

[Aramagedon]

A final remark.

Whenever people are discussing separate countries we have to remember that there are 100's of different views inside each single country discussed and even very often opposing views within the governments. In KSA you have quite a few different opposing and competing views. I won't call them ideologies but let's say differences of opinion.

Let me give a few examples:

Within the late King Abdullah administration you had people who were willing to support and aid the Muslim Brotherhood from Tunisia to Syria and others who opposed this fiercely.

Within Islamist groups in KSA you have people who want to see the end of the House of Saud as their first and foremost priority before anything else and then you have supporters of the system who view the House of Saud and clergy as protectors of status quo. Then everything in between.

Nor is a country's policy static. KSA has changed its regional policy quite a lot since King Abdullah's time and I suspect that post- King Salman it will be no differently.



J2 has nothing to do with Iran. It is not an "Iranian" haplogroup as it predates the notion of Iran and Iranians by 15.000 to 20.000 years.

BTW that map is very inaccurate as J2 is found in KSA at 15-20% on average which is among the highest rates.

Yes, and millennia before anything called Persia and Byzantine much of current day Turkey was ruled by Semitic dynasties and empires and before that by indigenous ones that we know not too much about.

To say that Turks are Persians makes less sense than saying Iranians are Arabs.

In fact using that logic we must conclude, given that haplogroups J1 and J2 descend from haplogroup J, which originates in the borderlands of Southern Levant/Northern Arabia/Iraq that all people that have haplogroup J are Arabs, lol.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you Iranians have more Mongol genetics than Turks (Turkish citizens) have and Arabs.

But anyway I will let your live in your bubble and allow you to say that Turks are Persians.

What to expect from a guy who once wrote that Prophet Muhammad (saws) and Prophet Ibrahim (AS) and most of the other Arab/Jewish/Semitic Prophets were Iranian, lol.

I am deeply surprised that you are yet to claim kinship to Scandinavians and Chinese.

You are one of those rare Jahiliyya guys. Very rare.
Dummy J2 origins is in Iran not Arabia, even J1 origin is caucus.

J1:

J2:

Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) born in Ur which one of cities of "Iran's Elamite Kingdom".

You said "J2" map is incorrect I hope you don't say this map is from wikimedia is also uncorrect:

Mongol/Turkish dna map:

You tazis badly lack of identity. so you steal identity of Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Syrians, Anatolis, African,... while your people hardly knew anything other than camels and rugs some 50 years ago.

 

[Attila the Hun]

Can moderators ban this troll for spreading nonsense and trolling every single Arabic topic?

No lets not, he is hilarious. and my friend. lol

 

[帅的一匹]

Yes, of course, we Turks are all Chinese. @wanglaokan you are the only Chinese I know, so going to tag you. is this true bud?? lol

I'm sorry to tell you that Turkic is mix of Hun with European. Chinese Han fought with Hun's invasion for nearly thousands years, and the Hun empire was defeated by the great Han empire at the end. Hun had to migrate from North China to Europe in order to survive. Chinese Hans has long history fighting with Hun's and Turkic, but it was long long long time ago. Chinese nowadays have very special feeling towards Hun's invasion in Europe(the Hun won't be there if they were not defeated by Han empire), we more inclined to incorporate it as memorable clip in our history. Many Chinese in the north may have Hun's blood in the vein, maybe my wife as well who knows?maybe my son has as well. Maybe some of the Chinese are distant relative with Turkic.