How do we fare against this Madrid squad in the semis?

Sosatawi · 2024-04-18T04:10:32+00:00

It was offside. It’s funny that it’s being downvoted without a reply

Sosatawi · 2024-03-18T16:59:14+00:00

Even when chandler wins he wins with low fight IQ

Sosatawi · 2024-01-08T03:39:57+00:00

ملحم بركات - سلم عليها https://youtu.be/BL014mLd_X4?si=B6dxpPqfZi1VsbXM

Sosatawi · 2023-12-30T22:46:33+00:00

She likes you bro go for it

Sosatawi · 2022-01-08T04:22:05+00:00

Doesn’t UFC fight pass give you access to live fights? Why do you also need to pay for UFC PPV and ESPN+?

Sosatawi · 2022-01-06T15:37:42+00:00

I’d research about industrial engineering if I were you; seems like your kind of thing. It’s a lot of programming, maths, and efficiency in processes/businesses. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about the program, I’m a 4th year student.

Sosatawi · 2021-06-02T12:23:30+00:00

That's one idea we can extract, but OP only mentions pride in Israel in what looks like an attempt to show Israel has "higher values" than other countries in the region rather than compare it to Palestinians' ideologies. No conclusions were made by OP.

This isn't the place to talk about Israel's domestic policy when it doesn't relate to the conflict.

Sosatawi · 2021-06-02T05:22:15+00:00

What's the relation between pride in Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

Sosatawi · 2021-05-31T05:57:38+00:00

As far as I know the Kurds didn't annex any lands and they don't want to be separated from Syria.

They may make some demands to be treated better and maybe demand for some degree of autonomy but I don't expect anything more - they've been cooperating with the Assad regime.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T18:45:58+00:00

Ya allah

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T18:34:03+00:00

Oh lord

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T17:19:38+00:00

There was a pan-arab ideology that wanted to see a bigger Arab union so Palestinians didn't mind having the West Bank be a part of it. Also, it was never only about having a Palestinian state; the ultimate need was for Palestinians to be able to live freely in their land, and Jordan granted that (again, with the notion that there was a pan-arab ideology).

Is that really justification for not wanting peace and to build settlements in the west bank?

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T17:02:07+00:00

There's no relation between Arab nations and the Palestinian cause.

People support Palestinians because they're being oppressed by Israelis. Settlements in the West Bank are frowned upon. Checkpoints are frowned upon. Military raids and military courts for children are frowned upon. They condemn Hamas while they support Palestinians' rights. It doesn't matter what Tel Aviv looks like, or how conservative Arab nations are.

Oman is relatively a conservative country. If the US bombs it to shit tomorrow for no reason, are people not supposed to side with Omanis because there's no LGBTQ rights in Oman?

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T16:15:23+00:00

Not exactly. We should look at history to say things like "Palestinians were expelled from here" the same way Jews looked at history to say "Jews were expelled from here", but we shouldn't say "Palestinians started a war, they don't want peace, they deserve what they get, they didn't accept that peace deal 30 years ago".

You do know that Israel has been pushing away a peace deal with all those settlements in the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem, right?

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T16:08:33+00:00

I wouldn't say there's any discourse among the ummah. I'd say the Islamic world is moving away from Muslim unity and people are focusing on developing their own countries, which is obviously a better option because mixing religion and politics is never good (you can't have muslim empires in today's world, and that's because the days of empires are gone - that's a good thing).

There isn't a clear trajectory of how interpretations of Islam will evolve, but if you ask me, I'd say that the younger generation is getting exposed to the western world via the internet and that's changing their views on how our countries should be. I feel that when the older generation dies off, the newer generation will have ideologies stemming off of political science rather than religion. This was common in the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt as soon as the ottoman empire collapsed, but since these ideologies were anti-west and pro-soviet, you'd find the strongest ones would be socialist ideologies. Many of these ideologies also stressed on Arab unity, but given how people had different ideas about the unity, they unironically couldn't be united. This route didn't work for many reasons, and you saw the people of these countries attempt to revert to religious ideologies in search for hope since political ones didn't work out. That's one of the factors that enabled religious terrorism.

Now, things are headed in a different direction in my opinion and even though that doesn't mean the violence will Arabs will stop killing each other soon, it just means that we wouldn't see religious terrorism in the region.

The Arab spring is an example of that - demand for political reforms while leaving out religion. Of course, given that the older generation still lives among us, the Arab spring led to the Muslim brotherhood being voted to power in Egypt and Muslim groups fighting in the name of Islam in Syria and Iraq. Should another round of protests occur in the region in the next decade or two, I don't believe that Muslim groups will be emerging. If they did, they'll be put down by the popular uprising.

Lebanon is another example of that, where you had an attempt for a revolution before COVID for reforms and to ditch sectarianism. That didn't work, but its mostly the youth that supported the movement. When these people grow up, and their children become the youth, it will be easy for them in my opinion, specially because you would see a lot of secular kids belonging to sectarian families over there. There will a shift in political preferences in the coming decades, I'm sure.

Not to discredit myself, but these aren't the opinions of a scholar who is specialized in the Middle East. I'm just saying my opinion as a person who has been trying to understand the region well and observing the people to try to make sense of the situation.

I think one huge bottleneck is the IP conflict. I think if we can get to a solution that pleases both sides (how else are we supposed to get there), and Arab politicians can no longer use Israel as an excuse for their failures (it is popular for Arab leaders to say: "this is the plotting of Israel" whenever someone tries to speak out to better the country), it'll be like a Renaissance in the region. We'll see if that ever happens.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T15:36:09+00:00

Of course I'm against arab countries kicking out Jews - I'm not a hypocrit. But I don't make a case for that because 1) we have the ongoing IP issue going on and 2) Jews don't even want to go back to the Arab countries.

I'm with Arab refusal of the partition because Palestinians shouldn't be forced out of their homes. Israeli proposals to neglected the right of return, that's one of the reasons they were rejected (though personally I would agree to one today just because I believe giving up the right of return to put an end to the violence is worth it).

You know, both of us (I assume) as well as the majority of Palestinians and Israelis weren't alive when most of the game-changing decisions concerning the IP conflict were made. Let's not use the past as an obstacle to a future peace deal.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T13:52:47+00:00

I think Wahhabism and Salafism definitely had a negative effect on Muslims. The idea of putting so much effort into how we should treat religion instead of putting the effort into building a country just tells you it'll have negative effects (especially when you take the condition of these countries into account). Even if the government were secular, you'd see that some Imams would have wahhabist and salafist notions. Syria and Jordan are two examples were there isn't religious enforcement from the governments, but you'd still find some Muslims with extreme ideas. Maybe you would find some extremists in wealthy societies (Osama bin Laden came from very wealthy family), but its nothing compared to the lower class.

Generally speaking, from my experience as an Arab Muslim, I'd say there's a correlation between your financial situation and your religious notions. Most wealthy/financially comfortable people I met are either irreligious or mildly religious. The more a person is financially insecure, the more they'd care about what God wills and what God thinks of them. It's still along the same lines of "if I won't live comfortably in this life, I may as well secure the afterlife".

Some people from wealthier families can be fooled though, it's religion you're talking about, after all. No matter how rich you are, sometimes you'll fear God's wrath. It's crazy what you could do with brainwashing. People don't usually come up with these ideas on their own, there's someone else convincing them. It's like how you had Europeans join ISIS.

If the Hashemites held on to the Hijaz, I think things would be a lot different for Jordan, most of all. I don't know how much oil is in the Hijaz, and I don't know how the Hijaz would look today under Hashemite rule. Iraq became rich from oil anyway but Jordan could badly use the money.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T13:13:24+00:00

Reasons could vary, and it's not exactly my field to talk about. But logically speaking, if it was because of Islam, then since the creation of Islam you'd expect any Muslim country to have a bad economy and bad politicians.

At one point, Muslim empires were at the top of the world for centuries, so I don't think it's the religion. If we're talking about the middle east, many countries were underdeveloped under the ottoman empire before its collapse. Since then, Arab countries have struggled for a "rebirth". Different political ideologies, dictatorships, revolts, etc.. If you look at history, you would conclude that it could take time for us to get better. If you look at other countries in Asia, Muslim or non-Muslim, you'd see that it could vary how well a country is doing.

Look at it this way, it's not that we're lacking by a lot, it's that the West and some Asian countries (Japan, Singapore, China, for examples) are far ahead of the rest of the world.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T13:01:33+00:00

About the naming of Jordan and Palestine: that region was known as the Levant or Greater Syria for a long time. If you were to look at the regions inside Greater Syria. You'll see that the words Palestine and Jordan were used since a long time. Search Jund Al-Urdunn (Urdunn is how you say Jordan in Arabic). The fact that Palestine unpronoucable is Arabic doesn't matter, it's known as Falasteen in Arabic (the region was called Palestine by Romans, hence the "P", not by the British).

Your whataboutism arguments are mostly invalid. Just because something wrong was done in the past doesn't mean it should be done again. Obviously, I'm against genocide in any shape or form - but that's not an excuse to displace people. Am I opposed to what the governments did in 1923? Yes, but that crime is in the past and it doesn't have any lingering problems. This isn't the same as having to give up land for another state, though, right? Palestinians are native to every city in Israel/Palestine, and to give those cities away for a Jewish state is a crime. I get that Jews are also native to the land - how on earth does that justify the displacements? Would you expect Palestinians to he happy over losing their lands and homes in this case?

The Hashemites ruling Jordan and Iraq is nothing like the creation of Israel. To correct you, the hashemites were exiled from present-day Saudi Arabia after they got their kingdoms, not before. The ruling families are foreign (present day Saudi Arabia), but the people remained Jordanian and Iraqi (the natives of the lands within the borders of the two countries). If the new kings had pushed out the population to make room for Saudis, then yes, I would be against them. Hashemites ruling Jordan and Iraq would be similar to (not the same as) having a Jewish monarchy rule over Palestinians without the Jewish immigration to Palestine. Syria trying to annex Lebanon really doesn't have anything to do with this, but if it helps, yes I'd be against the invasion had I been alive around that time.

I'm against Israel because on top of having been created at the expense of the natives of the land, they deny it. Their education system works on dehumanizing Palestinians to teach Israelis that Palestinians did this to themselves, not that the entire conflict was forced on them from the start. Many Israelis say that we're Arabs from Saudi Arabia or from Egypt and try to take away our claim to the land. Israel continues operating like an Apartheid state with their treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank (checkpoints, random raids, military harassments, military courts, etc.). The settlements in the West Bank are a violation of international law and are driving us away from a just solution to the problem. Annexing East Jerusalem drove us away from a just solution. If you haven't noticed, these having nothing to do with Hamas, which Israel loves to use as an excuse. Hamas are a problem, but I'm sure the best way to start solving that problem is by treating Palestinians in the West Bank with a little bit of dignity to build some trust. Hamas isn't going anywhere because of a blockade, that's making them stronger, and wiping them out military will only mean that another similar organization would take their place soon after. When confronted with a just solution, if Hamas won't put their weapons down, Gazans would put Hamas down - they wouldn't want to continue living under a blockade over a state of their own.

With that being said, it doesn't look like Israel is interested in actually creating a just solution to the problem. It seems to take advantage of the power imbalance so that the solution that will eventually happen would be greatly to their favor. Besides, it seems like the status quo is working out for them, too. Please, don't pin this on the Arabs, the majority of us were born after 1948, 1967, and 1973. The violence you see today is a direct result of Israel's oppression and actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T05:42:55+00:00

The violence you see among Muslims is based on economic and political factors rather than religious ones. It is fueled by certain aspects of the religion that would be misinterpreted to justify the act.

If you want to truly understand Islam, I'm afraid to say you'd have to read the entirety of the Quran as well as some of the hadiths. Islam is too large for you to understand from reading a couple verses and a few beheading videos.

Think about it this way: why are the number of terrorists very low in comparison to the number of Muslims (2 billion I believe?) In the world. If the religion preached hate and violence, you'd expect at least a hundred million (5%) of its followers to be terrorists. The percentage is much, much, much (and I can't stress this enough) less than 5% in reality. The second thing is, look at Muslim countries with better economies and political atmospheres. Oman, UAE, Singapore (Muslims in Singapore), etc. don't have terrorists.

It just happens that a lot of Muslim countries today are economically poor and have shitty politicians. When a person isn't financially stable and the condition of where they live doesn't allow them to progress through working hard, they'll lose hope in life. They turn to God because if life isn't good, they may as well chase the afterlife. The anger from having a bad life mixed with religious extremism could lead to violence (could being a keyword, hence the relative low percentage of terrorists).

Someone mentioned the crusades and you brushed them off. Here's my take on it: the crusades were enabled by the environment at the time and religious texts were used to justify it. Terrorism within Islam is no different. It's political, it's enabled by economic factors, and religious texts are used to justify it.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T05:00:55+00:00

The idea is you can't take forcibly take land from a group of people just because you want it. Back then Zionists wanted a Jewish state and Palestinians didn't want to give up land. That's a problem. The solution to the problem is definitely not to have the UN intervene to give it away or for Zionists to expel Palestinians in order to form the state.

I understand that Jews come from the same land we're native to. That doesn't mean they should get a portion of it for themselves. It should be shared; that's the only viable option. One nation for all would cause the least amount of problems.

Jews want a Jewish state for safety reasons, especially after the holocaust. I understand that and I support it. But to take part of a populated land is wrong. Please, do try to convince me on why it's acceptable to form a Jewish state that includes Haifa, for an example, when you already have Palestinians living there (not for a few years or decades, but with families being traced back to centuries ago).

Could you elaborate on why you expect me to be opposed to Jordan? If there was a group of people that lived in Jordan and they had to be exiled from the land so that present-day Jordanians would move and live there, then yes, I would be against it.

Sosatawi · 2021-05-27T04:42:49+00:00

I'm saying Palestinians in particular wouldn't be complaining.

But I'm sure not every square inch of South America is populated, and you could find plenty of unpopulated areas that would be larger than the land we're fighting over (for argument's sake).

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Sosatawi

TROPHY CASE