Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

supernice wrote (edited )

I don't disagree with you in principle, in an ideal scenario. This is far from that though. Consider who he is: An American Wahabbi from New York, who has gone all the way to Syria, to help create some fictional Islamic Caliphate without the consent of the Syrians. Syrians be damned. I've never met a Syrian who wants to live like the Saudi's do, and I have never met a Wahabbi Syrian (though I am sure there are some, they are not the majority). Syrians from what I've seen are pretty secular people for the most part, and nominally religious, like most people around the world who claim to be Christians or Muslims or whatever. They are born into a religion, follow it loosely if at all, and just try to get on with life and have a good time. The devout, or zealots even, are a minority in any religion in any place. So setting up an Islamic Caliphate in Syria is unlikely the desire of most people there. This guy came all the way from fucking New York to do that. Who is he? Why does he think he knows what's best for Syrians? Why the hell doesn't he focus on problems in his native New York if he's so insistent on making the world into his ideal vision? Typical American mentality if you ask me....we know whats best for everyone! He is no different than the American who shows up in an army uniform illegally in Syria, sets up a military base, and proceeds to bomb the hell out of the country. Why? Because he knows best of course! He's an American. Syrians be damned.

I differentiate between people who are fighting for the betterment of their country, as I'm sure many Syrians have done and will continue to do, and the filth who flocked there from all over the world to live out their fantasies at the expense of the Syrians. It doesn't matter to me if they are American soldiers, or American Jihadi's...fuck them all. They'll get no sympathy from me. Have a look at the article below. There's some intersting info there. It's no the only article about this asshole, but it's the first one that came up in my search. I honestly couldn't care less about what precedent people think this sets or doesn't set. I'd just like to see the Americans go home and quit fucking up other peoples lives.

https://www.alternet.org/world/bilal-abdul-kareem-us-journalist-syria-aleppo-propaganda-extremist-rebels

1

_0_0_ wrote

... and I have never met a Wahabbi Syrian (though I am sure there are some, they are not the majority).

Define "Wahabbi" or BO things you have no knowledge about.

1

supernice wrote

Not sure what you mean by "BO", but a Wahabbi is anyone who follows the Saudi brand of Islam. Or should I just come right out and say, the Saudi corruption of Islam? In other words, the extremist, backward as fuck, most destructive form of Islam.

1

_0_0_ wrote

Not sure what you mean by "BO",

"back out"

but a Wahabbi is anyone who follows the Saudi brand of Islam.

There is no such thing as a uniform Saudi (a state) brand of Islam.

Or should I just come right out and say, the Saudi corruption of Islam? In other words, the extremist, backward as fuck, most destructive form of Islam.

By "destructive" I think you're referring to terrorism, and I think that - as such - your statement is very untrue, I know many Saudi Islamic scholars who are outspoken against terrorism and ISIS (as an example). I can give you some examples and their words if you're skeptical about that. (This nice book mentions some of them)

2

supernice wrote

I understood back out/back off, what I don't understand is why you assume I have no knowledge about Wahhabis and/or Syrians, considering you know nothing about me. Posting a couple of PDFs about Islam doesn't make you a scholar friend. I certainly don't claim to be one, do you? And besides, my comments in this thread are not about Islamic jurisprudence, I'm talking about the Wahabbi scum named Bilal Abul Kareem the linked article is about specifically. So perhaps stick to the topic if you have issue with what I say?

As far as a uniform Saudi brand of Islam, I never claimed all Saudis are Wahhabis, I said it's a Saudi brand. It was founded by a Saudi and is only dominant in Saudi Arabia. So it's Saudi. Obviously not all Saudi's are Wahabbis. Nonetheless, the dominant form of Islam (if you can even call it that) in Saudi Arabia is Wahabbism.

To your third point, I'm sure you are right. Although I've never seen any myself (thanks for the link btw), it would be foolish to think that every one in Saudi Arabia agrees with the Wahabbi view. By destructive, I mean a few things actually. For one, they are simply the modern day Khawarij, nothing new in Islamic history, just a new name for the same extremist beliefs. Second, they are intolerant, violent, oppressive, murderous, and vile...hence, destructive to the Islamic community as well as non-Muslims. Everywhere they have taken root has seen nothing but chaos and destruction, to the degree that the Sunni Islamic conference in Grozny that was held in 2016 made a public declaration that Wahabbis are NOT Sunnis.

1

NeoliberalismKills wrote

"I'd just like to see the Americans go home and quit fucking up other peoples lives."

Couldn't agree more.

And I wasn't trying to play devil's advocate. The article made it sound like he was just a reporter. And the US has a large and useless definition of terrorist. I was doing due diligence with someone who probably has access to sources less biased to me in the heart of the empire.

2

supernice wrote

No worries, I appreciate the article anyway as it's always good to read up. That's what I like about this place the most, all the info that I might miss. I just have to speak up when I see something I know is misleading, and it's not on you, it's the article writer. Journalists are partisans too. My only interest in saying what I said is for like minded people, like you and I, to have as much info as possible.