Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

Essay talk:Global jihad

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Apples and Oranges[edit]

Comparing assets against GDP is a little disingenuous. They are so not the same thing. Similarly, saying that Saudi Aramco is "the world's largest corporation" - what metrics are you using? Sure, they have the largest proven reserves of oil but in a list by revenue they come a mere seventh.

Do I gather that MUSLIMS, MUSLIMS, MUSLIMS has replaced REDS, REDS, REDS. We've always been at war with Eastasia. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your misgivings, but it is a fair comparison in US dollars with the proper labeling a "comparative value". The valuation must be made in some form; for example, US & World GDP could have been expressed in terms of volume equivalent of a 10,000 barrel crude oil futures contract closing average annualized from a base year for any given currency. Bottomline, WP reports Saudi Aramco assets (proven reserves in the ground, primarily, plus ongoing equipment, operations, and stocks) at $30T, roughly equivalent to slightly half world GDP or two times US total economic output. Not hard to understand, and really not incredible to believe, either. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 23:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally: it is an interesting point you raise. The $30T valuation presumably was based on proven reserves x $100 per barrel adjusted for realistic consumption rates and price projections over many years. With the collapse of prices to half - $50 per barrel - World GDP forecasts & Saudi Aramco asset valuations also must be revised if these trends persist for a prolonged period of time. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

to be clear on the matter[edit]

and in the interests of clarity, there are three different ways asset value could be represented, two of them somewhat misleading.

  • year end closing price. All this gives is year-over-year percentage increase.
  • daily closing price averaged for the year. More work to calculate a "closing average" for the year, but still misleading.
  • total volume for the year divided by the daily closing average. This would be the correct method to determine what the "average price" for the year is, times Saudi Aramco's resevres = asset value. The Wikipedia article I do not believe uses this method to arrive at $30 trillion @ $102 per barrel (now revised without sources to say $36 trillion). nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Resisting Islamization." Really?[edit]

You've got to be kidding me. You got caught up in a 2001 era collectivist revenge fantasy, and back-dated the hard-right excuses for that 1400 years. It's kinda sad. Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Time is not relevent for people to find excuses in order to justify bigotry. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
To nip this in the bud, I'm sure he'd make an argument that Muslims aren't the target, that it's "Islamists" and he'd point to the inclusions of Saudi Arabia as a "good guy" as evidence. The point I'm trying to make is that the fear of "Islamification" in the heritigate institute western world was nonexistent until September 11, which any sort of serious examination of suggests that expansion of Islam(or it's international dominance) was not, the point. So it became an excuse, and he's making a seriously tenuous extension of that excuse back to before the crusades. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It reads like a conspiracy theory of "secret Islamic" organizations to take over the world. Not friendly countries like Saudi Arabia. However, using resources like that Saudi Arabia are primary producers who are Islamic in faith. They were just taken over by the bad Islamics in something "secret" for the last 1,400 years. Kind of like what was done in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, and anti-Catholic conspiracy theories, McCarthyism. It is finding justification in incoherant crap for hating a group of people. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the whole point of the essay - the Saudis - the Custodian of the Two Holy MosquesWikipedia's W.svg - are not Muslim, according to TakfiriWikipedia's W.svgs. That is what the global jihad is all about. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so it is just "Islam is bad and everyone should stop Islam" in which case, grow up. Ikanreed (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a war. There is lots of confusing and conflicting information from media and experts who don't understand or can't explain it. The net result is apathy. In the larger scheme of things (tell me cause I'm really interested and you don't have to answer if you don't want to), what is a more pressing human rights issue for this generation to confront, gay marriage or this? nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 08:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Within a democracy there is a direct obligation to get your own nation's moral imperatives sorted that is higher than any demand to militarily intervene and assert a resolution to other nations'. This isn't to be contested, it's a recurring story through history. And there are moral and pragmatic reasons to support the notion. Rather than make that argument, I'm going to assume it's true, and assert that apathy towards specific abuses in a world full of them is normal. Arguments for military intervention need to make 1 of 2 cases: A. That the target for intervention is the root cause of numerous domestic concerns. or B. That the target for intervention is the single biggest current moral crisis in the world, and that the best guess of net harm for intervening is substantially less than the net harm of letting it play out. Some arbitrarily dismissive comparison to equal protection of rights inside the US doesn't cut it. Ikanreed (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should fight violence in the name of religous extremism. The problem is that you seem to think all Muslims are violent extremists, and those that are not from the same religion are somehow not Muslim. It's an excuse to hate Muslims while pathetically trying escape looking like a bigot by claiming people who don't fit the stereotype are not Muslim. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, after arguing with him, the "Just a bigot" answer now makes more sense than the "sorta bigot in denial who jumped on board a speeding train of hate because of one of the excuses" Ikanreed (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It just struck me that he was redefining the word for a major religion as just the extremists in his mind. So every time someone identifies as Muslim, since it's a common term like saying Jewish/Christian, the role for them in his essay is the extremist stereotype. The moderates are not Muslim in the essay, and don't even have a term, as any Muslim that isn't an extremist doesn't even fit in the worldview. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't fairly clear this essay is about belligerents and belligerent groups? These belligerent groups are rather amorphous, they keep changing shape, forging alliances, merging, mutating. New ones appear regularly. Each group has defined objective and allegiance. Sometimes its purely local. Often they don't take to wearing uniforms or insignia, they're idea of warfare doesn't follow Helmuth von Moltke. The Geneva Convention is a kufr paradigm, and trying to sell that idea will get you beheaded in some neighborhoods in that part of the world. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As much as I hate to play devil's advocate -ok normally I do but I don't like playing it when it's in favor of bigotry-, this really isn't to far from the worldview of Salafism. And the Salafists make up something like 50m muslims, more if you include the Muslim Brotherhood as quasi-Salafist. Once you are talking whole percentage points of the Islamic world, it's no longer "extreme". And then there are the Iranian Shia fundamentalists with their own counter-version. Really, if we could get rid of Salafism the Mideast would be a safer place. Probably. Maybe. Eh, not really. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Let me clarify. If a population takes up at least a whole percentage point, even if it is just a couple percentage ponts, then it is okay to declare the entire world population violent extremists and go to war with them in order to make the world a safer place? Even though the violent extremists are killing the same moderates so they don't stop them? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia's troop strength estimates of ISIS, for example. It lists 3: CIA says 30,000; the Russian military analysts say 70,000; the Kurds say 200,000. With such wide ranging estimates from such qualified and authoritative sources, knowing concerted action is in offing, what numbers should military planners use? Lindsey Graham says (actually not Graham, but the textbooks say) to retake Mosul, a city of 1,000,000, you need 100,000 boots on the ground. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No. If they make up a large enough percentage of the population to be mainstream, by definition they aren't extremists. And let me reiterate; Islam itself is not the problem, it's the nutters' interpretation of it.CorruptUser (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the purpose of this article: ISIS burns alive a Jordanian pilot so Jordan executes 2 al Qaeda members. ISIS and al Qaeda are at war with one another. So what is the purpose of taking revenge against the wrong perpetrator other than to satisfy the public's bloodlust or convince the US public you are serious about thist fight. And a third possibility, the damn journalists don't know what the fuck their talking about and simply are not informing the public with the information they need. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

various strategies of the infidels[edit]

@CorruptUser: While I agree, the previous comment implied that as long as the nuts make up a whole percentage we should be fighting against the entire population. While I don't think it was more than a random thought, not serious, it does seem like some of the airways are clogged with pundits asking that question (as Ann Coulter has). Even if 51% of a group of people, with Muslims being ~1.67 billion, were extremists being assholes...we don't start exterminating random people in random places for what those crazy people do. Rob in a rare moment of clarity that executing 2 random prisoners convicted of violent crimes seems like bloodlust for what was done by ISIS. It seems like several steps beyond to go after an entire population of people (soldiers, civilians, allies, enemies, children...) for what ISIS does. If they were 51% of the worlds population or 1%, 20,000 or 1,000,000, is not relevent. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I'm assuming an idea like a Fuel air bombWikipedia's W.svg over the city of RaqqaWikipedia's W.svg to bring an end to this ordeal is off the table, for now. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not do a massive invasion with ground troops? Preferably with less-lethal weaponry and incapacitating agents used in civilian areas. (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In no particular order 1) expensive, 2) incredibly dangerous and you'll lose your own people, 3) we reeeally don't want more Iraq War, 4) less lethal weapons useless against tanks and armored vehicles, and much less effective than regular weapons (otherwise police wouldn't bother with real guns), 5) incapicitating agents are deadly if not monitored (there is a reason anesthesiologists aren't cheap), 6) poor supply lines/logistics — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


  1. So is spending millions worth of US dollars to drop some bombs on/fire some missiles at them (and this approach has been very ineffective so far). And after a circa-month-long campaign (about as long as the 2003 invasion of Iraq took) to liberate the area from ISIS control, you can pull out most of your forces to let the local army, allied rebels and Peshmerga handle it.
  2. So is letting the situation fester. Why join the army (of a nation at war) if you're not willing to put your life at risk? Nationalities aside, the point is to stop ISIS from killing innocent people.
  3. Whether you want it or not, it's already happening. The choice now is how you want to resolve the situation.
  4. Their amount of armoured vehicles/tanks is pretty limited and I did specify that it'd be [morally] preferable in civilian areas. If using them would jeopardize the operation or prove too expensive, by all means just use the conventional stuff (though I do think more effort should be put in developing less-lethal weaponry into a viable alternative).
  5. Some can be deadly and thus shouldn't be used indiscriminately in civilian areas. Not all of these incapacitate by making the subject lose consciousness, though.
  6. Just drop everything from airplanes. (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Everyday that passes the cost increases in both dollars and innocent lives. The alternative is living with the Islamic State, ultimately legitimizing it.
  2. Agree with Anon 141 above.
  3. Again agree.
  4. Defer momentarily; the global jihad has many more fronts and battlefields, Yemen, Nigeria for example. Why deal with ISIS and leave Boko Haram alone? And what is Iran's role and standing if DAESH is eliminated? the crisis still would be far from over.
  5. This is a political question. Harry Truman was faced with the same decision. Give Robert Oppenheimer his due, he was not working on theoretical physics to make the world better. He wanted to nuke Hitler to kingdom come.
  6. poor supply/line logistics to Syria/Iraq, yes. Worse for Yemen, Nigeria, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Waziristan, etc. Again ultimately, a political problem.nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 20:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

orbital psychic death ray[edit]

We have too many indents. @EmeraldCityWanderer, ISIS is not all of Salafism. It's a product of Salafism. If you were to develop some sort of orbital psychic death ray that with the press of a button could kill all Salafis and only Salafis, it wouldn't be moral to press that button. Most Salafis aren't "evil" even if the philosophy they hold to for the most part, well, is. Most people are trying to be good people, they just might have a definition of "good" which... doesn't include egalitarianism, liberty nor equality. If your orbital psychic death ray could target all of Daesh and only Daesh, yeah press away; we could argue if literally all of Daesh deserve it or if there are some that may not meet the threshhold of 'kill on sight', but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Where it becomes tricky is the point between "All of Daesh" and "All of Everyone" lies. A lot of it does depend on what options are available; if you had the option of using your orbital psychic death ray to only kill the murderers and rapists within Daesh and spare the misguided youths who aren't yet "beyond redemption", but choose to kill everyone anyway, your moral high ground ain't exactly Mt Everest. So your orbital psychic death ray has a few quirks; maybe it'll give a false positive 1 in 10,000 times. Is it still OK to fire it? What if the false positive is 1 in 50? 1 in 3? 9 in 10? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Man, now I'm both terrified by the prospect of an orbital psychic death ray and want to control one, because come on, it's an orbital psychic death ray! (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I thank everyone for their comments, and I do want this essay to be relatively non-controversial and informative. So please, if anyone sees any language which can be interpreted as "Islamophobic", please help out on talk - with even suggestions for alternative language if you feel motivated or creative.

One purpose of this article is simple: in the past month we've an Al Qaeda (AQIP) operation in Paris which they sought to blame on ISIS to motivate the French public and the French airforce to take their revenge against Al Qaeda's enemies - ISIS; now the Jordanian government, in an effort to convince Al Qaeda that they can be held accountable for ISIS's actions, executes two al Qaeda operatives as a reprisal against ISIS. My point here is, the Western powers (and members of the "infidel alliance") and their publics should not allow themselves to be manipulated like this, particularly when Use of Force options are being discussed. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't one of those executed the one ISIS was trying to get Jordan to release, though? Or was ISIS just pretending so they'd target that prisoner in the reprisal? (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, they both were al Qaeda operatives, which reason would dictate ISIS would refuse (meaning they both swore allegiance to Zawahiri, and not al-Badri aka Baghdadi). It would make no sense to release an enemy (the Jordian pilot) for 2 more enemies they, in the end also would execute, (unless they repented, etc etc and swore allegiance to the Caliph). But it's early, and information is still sketchy. (one real story here is, there are back channel line of negotiation between both ISIS and Jordan, as well as Baghdad & ISIS, cause there has been at least one other prisoner swap and one other failed prisoner swap AFAIK. Prisoner swaps require some degree of bona fides). nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It certainly reads a whole lot better, and not like Muslim = bad. A little broad but it's hard to speak about sectarian groups that move so fluidly. The execution of 2 random prisoners of another group kind of shows the danger of overgeneralizing stereotypes. Both are nasty groups, but they might have done ISIS a favor by killing those in a rival group. As for the death ray above that, I agree it's immoral without discresion...but the US did that in real life in Iraq. The US attacked a country for a lie and killed tens of thousands of people trying to stop bad guys without much discernment. Till people got it through their heads to work with the people there, and by that time the damage and anger caused just made worse groups. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
One theory is AQIP did a slight of hand in the Paris Kosher Supermarket killings, so Jordan (with their infidel intelligence advisers) did a reprisal against AQIP. The actual reprisal for the Jordanian pilot may not have occurred yet. Then we got this coming across the news wires this morning. Remember, the pilot burning video may have been shot a month ago. So whether it's ISIS, AQ, or the infidels - virtually all news is aimed at public opinion. Further, it appears DoD's Cyberwar division has effectively shut down ISIS internet contact with the outside world, and the only information ISIS gets out is what global infidel intelligence planners want, or allow to get out. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

discussion on Salafism[edit]

I agree, Salafism is mainstream and presently in some forms may even be honorable and a worthy scholarly, intellectual pursuit (I hesitate to say jurisprudential). It's current form is a relatively new phenomenon. It generally is distinguished from Salafi-jihadism (perhaps introducing an idea like Salafi-laityWikipedia's W.svg apart from Salafi-jihadis might help).

Here's a problem: Wikipdeia Abd al-Aziz bin BazWikipedia's W.svg says:

was a Saudi Arabian Islamic scholar and a leading proponent of the Salafi (also known as Wahhabism) form of Islam. He was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999.
This covers the period between the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia (cause of the 9/11 attacks) and the period of 9/11 planning. It also covers the period the term, 'Salafi jihadismWikipedia's W.svg', came into existence. Reading bin Baz's Intro however, one does not see that eminent "Salafi scholars" are at war with Salafi-jihadists who have their own "Salafi-jihadi scholars" . As a reaction against "Salafi scholars" such as bin Baz, the whole "Safali-jihadi" movement was provoked into existence. (Recommended reading: the Grand Seizure Mosque, Gulf War, and Osama bin Laden sections of that bio for background on the pressing issues of our time.)

The point here is, Wikipedia has much good information sitting in its lap, but it needs some clarification and gets sidetracked in discussions of a flat earth and feminism, which just isn't helpful in its present context to understanding either Salafism or Salafi-jihadism. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Truth be told, wikipedia shouldn't be doing a great job providing insight into the motives of anyone. That's just very much outside their mission. Ikanreed (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yah but their corrupting and distorting the term 'Salafi', and 'Wahhabi', at a time when understanding is sorely needed. It's a disservice. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Not fiddling about the exact content of the essay for now, but I think this essay would be significantly better off if it specified in the title that it explains the idea of a "global jihad" as it's espoused by jihadist propaganda. (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gimme some ideas. The idea of this essay wasn't really to get into narrative context, it was more like the ol' time Wikipedia lists with a little bit of explanation.
In war, there are so many things Americans are naive about, like there being only two sides or two belligerents, good guys and bad guys. It never occurs to them it is entirely possible for four belligerent powers to be at war with each other simultaneously, each belligerent fighting three enemies who are all fighting each other at the same time. Another thing they are sooo naive about is some idea of "winning" a war. Most wars, nobody wins; a few wars in the past, retroactively you could say there was a decision, victory. Most of the wars the US has been involved in since Franklin Roosevelt the US is just playing policeman. There was nothing to "win" in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just putting "jihadist propagandist concept/perspective" in parentheses at the end could work. And yeah, most Westernerners just think their enemy is "bad/fundamentalist Muslims", who supposedly spontaneously organize themselves into terrorist movements. (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to apologize for making some harshly critical personal comments at you without having considered this framing of intent for the essay. So, uh, sorry. Ikanreed (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize, at all. I thank you for calling to my attention something I'm trying hard to avoid. It does need clarity, I'm just trying to not overload with text and focus on these ever shifting names and movements.
I was thinking of another User:RobSmith/Essay:From the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate to the rise of the Islamic State to give some background narrative and context; that might take some time, but I could provide a general outline relatively quickly and definitely appreciated feedback and suggestions before going public. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sure the problems were real, but the tone was still uncalled for. Ikanreed (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I added some disclaimers, tell me what you think. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it makes the intent clear. That always helps. Ikanreed (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the need for this Essay[edit]

From TIME magazine:

On September 11... Abu Sulayman [al-Muhajir], an official leader within AQ al-Nusra Front in Syria, tweeted, “On this day, in 2001, the USA’s largest economic shrine, the idol of capitalism was brought to the ground.."

To this tweet, by the AQ official, the [US State Department] jumped in, tweeting, “Nobody’s a bigger fan of the fruits of capitalism than so-called #ISIS Caliph” and provided a picture pointing out IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s watch, stating it was a “Rolex.”

Now, [Abu Sulyaman] al-Muhajir, an AQ and al-Nusra Front religious leader, is among the most prominent opposing figures of Baghdadi and IS, who has been fighting IS and its leadership for more than a year, and constantly fight against the group physically and religiously. So why would the State Department tweet to the AQ leader bashing a figure he already opposes?

Even worse, Sulayman is not just another AQ supporter, but an AQ official! The irony is ugly: When State Department makes a series of tweets about the horrors of 9/11 and attacking those that committed it, it also tweets directly to an AQ leader, providing legitimization to the account of the same people who committed the attacks.

Any competent foreign policy analyst knows that the al-Nusra-IS feud is one all jihadists are attuned to, so the State Department’s tweet to Sulayman and his 18,000 followers could only suggest that the U.S. is clueless to the jihadi landscape.

More about Sulyaman (no Wikipedia bio on this guy yet). nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 01:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dar Al Salam[edit]

The word "Islam" isn't a contraction of Dar Al Salam. Islam is etymologically derived from the root word for peace. Dar Al Salam (where Salam is derived from the same root word as Islam) is mentioned once in the Qur'an where it specifically references Paradise, and was used after by an Abassid Caliph to refer to Baghdad as the center of the Islamic world. Stile4aly (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

hmmm, maybe you're right. It's the word "Allah" that is a contraction. (35 years ago when I started researching some of this stuff English language sources were very poor - I had to use a lot of stuff translated from French - and now my memory is playing tricks on me). Thanks. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Major error[edit]

ISIS and Al Qaeda do not have the same long term goal. AQ wants everything that was once Muslim territory to be controlled by a theocracy, but don't give a shit if the Shia are in it. At least, that was ObL. ISIS wants the extermination of the Shia on top of this.StickySock (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, al Qaeda is or at one time was in the forefront of what maybe called, "the Muslim Unity movement". But both also are Salafi-jihadists & Wahabi purists (unlike the official Saudi regime clerics who also call themselves Salafists & Wahabbists). Both want the overthrow of the Saudi regime and the establishment of the Caliphate, Isis wants it now, AL Qaeda can wait til the Saudis are removed. nobsLewinsky 2020 03:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, this page has consistently been #15 of 2.4 million Google results for the past year.nobsLewinsky 2020 03:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well AFAIK Sufis were to "mystical" for Al Qaeda to tolerate; the Taliban has been killing them in Afghanistan for some time now.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Sufi not to be confused with Salafi. nobsLewinsky 2020 03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, regular religious Muslims had no problem with murdering the shit out of Sufis that pulled a Taliban and defaced priceless ancient monuments. CorruptUser (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Right now the Taliban is said to control upto 1/3 of Afghanistan, but their kicking the shit out of the Islamic State's Vilayet Khorasan. As long as they don't threaten Kabul, no need for Western "boots on the ground". nobsLewinsky 2020 04:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


In ancient times, there were no trade deficits between East and West. Business was not done on credit. The trade caravans exported something of equal value for popular items in demand from the east. So yes, while there was global trade that affected living standards, I'm not certain many people "complained" about it.nobsLewinsky 2020 14:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your essay your rules, but I'm going to just leave this hereWikipedia's W.svg StickySock (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks good article. Gotta love this one, "Roman exports to China from Egypt and Syria". nobsLewinsky 2020 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


This Essay hovered at #16 for three years, but now has moved up to #6 on Google. I need some advice: should it just be left alone, or should I do some updating? Is there a risk of it dropping if I start tampering with it? nobsAloha Snackbar 06:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Time to update?[edit]

There is now for the first time as far back as I can remember open speculation of war between Iran & Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will not allow Iran to get a nuke without a fight, it appears. nobsAloha Snackbar 22:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)