(Part 2) Best middle east history books according to redditors

Firstly, a caveat. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Muslim. I have, however, studied Islam at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

That being said, let me point out just a few huge blunders in this article:

>Mohammed was in Mecca preaching to any who would listen that he alone was the Divine Prophet of the One God, Allah

False. Mohammad claimed to be one in a line of many prophets. Islam also accepts Jesus, Moses, Adam, Noah and other as prophets.

>traveled to the Jewish city of Medina

Medina wasn't called Medina then. It was known as Yathrib. There were Jews living there, from the Jewish tribes of the Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza and Banu Qaynuqah. But Arabs lived there as well. The name Medina is a contraction of the Arabic Medinat-ul-Nabi ( مدينة النبي ), meaning 'City of the Prophet'. It acquired this name only after Muhammad migrated there.

The author writes that, "Mohammed sneaked out of Mecca..." but also "Mohammed was consumed with rage over his being booted out of Mecca". Which is it? Did he sneak out or was he booted out? A serious contradiction.

>Even the Jews of Medina, who had shown him such kindness, were eventually driven from their homes while Mohammed's Muslim band pillaged the city

The three Jewish tribes I mentioned above were eventually driven out. This is usually based on betrayals of the conditions laid out in the Constitution of Medina, to which those tribes had agreed.

>In 630 A.D. Mohammed marched triumphantly into Mecca with 40,000 followers. His revenge was complete, but the horrors of Islam had only begun.

Inane. There were skirmishes between the Meccans and the Ummah (Muslim community) that culminated in the Battle of Badr, fought on March 13, 624 AD, when the Meccans attacked Medina. The Muslims won. A year later, in 625 AD, the Meccans attacked the Ummah in the Battle of Uhud, which the Muslims lost. In 627 AD the Meccans, allied with some of the Jewish tribes mentioned above, again attacked the Ummah in The Battle of the Trench. Ultimately the Muslims won the day and Mecca surrendered. To say all of this was 'revenge' for being driven out is simplistic, ignores the context of the event and shows no real understanding of the events leading up to the conquest of Mecca.

>In all, Mohammed had eleven wives, nine of them simultaneously, with the youngest being only ten years old. Eye-witness accounts claim that Aisha brought her toys with her when she was delivered to the Prophet of Allah.

Again, overly simplistic. Blood and family ties were--and are--central to Arab culture. We are familiar with marriage alliances in Europe, and in Arabia it was the same. Many of Muhammad's marriages were undertaken to cement alliances between tribes. Simply put, through this and other maneuvers, Muhammad united the Arabian peninsula in peace for the first time in its history. Yes, he married Aisha when she was young, but there is no real evidence to support sexual activity between them until she had reached the culturally-appropriate age for such according to Arab culture (this remains hotly debated...a debate beyond the scope of this post).

>Mohammed regarded women as nothing more than sexual toys and servants

Patently false. The Qur'an gives women rights they did not have before Islam. These included the right to initiate divorce; to inherit property; and to have their say in the governance of the Ummah. Additionally, the Qur'an forbade female infanticide, which was a common occurrence before Muhammad's prophetic career.

This entire article is full of invective, a lack of historical knowledge, and blatant fabrications designed to support an anti-Islamic agenda. It is fear and hate-mongering of the worst sort. It smacks of the kind of Bush-era paranoia and Islamophobia that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

You can find out more by following the links above. Also, the following books might be of interest:

Muhammad: his Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings

A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus

A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani

Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong.

Hope this helps.

Definitely an event that is often overlooked, but i'm not sure what you mean by the "beginning." 1979 Iranian Revolution is a much better starting date for modern U.S. policy in the Middle East. Check out Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East. It also contains excellent analysis of the Beirut bombing and associated events.

I understand this is reddit but, Honestly are you just repeating what you have heard people say or do you understand how guerrilla warfare and insurgencies work and their history? There is a vast amount of material to study on this subject and many history lessons (https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-Warfare-ebook/dp/B007P9M034) <great book on the subject and multiple expanses of how extremely hard insurgencies are to fight and why governments usually always lose in them including the United States. If the US military wanted to destroy the entire country and have just ashes left then yes they could win but, thats not what would happen and history shows us that. Tyrannical rulers do not want to rule over ashes.

Can you identify and address the moral, cultural, geographical, economic, and infrastructural problems the US government would face if it turned on its own armed populace?

A few examples would be...

Do you think our volunteer army (composed of citizens) would actually kill their fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, and fellow veterans just because they were ordered to (especially when most are there just to get a few years in and free college) ?

The US military only needs to lose 20% of its man power to become seriously degraded and at 30% becomes combat ineffective (source below). That means only 2/10 people would have to refuse to fight. If we can use Vietnam as a comparison for the unwillingness to fight an unjust war then, we know the tyrannical US government would be facing major problems right there

https://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/

Would the militaries civilian contractors and logistics arm continue to do the same?

Would regular citizens continue to produce the massive commercial productions of oil, food, munitions, etc... that are helping fuel the military that is killing and/or oppressing their own families?

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 90 firearms for every 100 resident. Do you know the history of governments trying to fight an insurgency that is way less armed (from your comment, you do not)?

Can you explain why the United States has never been able to win a counter insurgency war but, for some reason you think they would be able to win the one against their own populace which is heavier armed and more well trained than any in the history of warfare?

SECOND

What the "Iranian nuclear threat" was actually all about, was a pretext to impose regime-change in Iran, pushed by the Isreaelis and NeoCons, just as they pushed for the Iraq war with bogus claims about "WMDs in Iraq"

They exaggerated the iran threat
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-27/israeli-government-has-exaggerated-iranian-nuclear-threat-years

And the Iraq threat
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-04-israeli-iraq-threat_x.htm


The pushed for the Iraq war
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

and a war on Iran
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The pro-Israeli lobby had been pushing a PR war on Iran for a long time already, ie:
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

And AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) spent millions of dollars trying to undermine the deal

https://www.thenation.com/article/inside-the-effort-to-kill-the-iran-deal/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/06/429911872/in-iran-deal-fight-lobbyists-are-spending-millions-to-sway-12-senators

See, the Israelis (and Saudis) and their supporters in the US including the NeoCons and Iran hawks consider an improvement in US-Iran relations as coming at their expense, so they don't want to see the US and Iran getting along and they would rather see the US engage in regime-change in Iran

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-bolton-iran-regime-change-231586

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-time-to-pursue-regime-change-in-iran/

This book is all about that: http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338

On the other hand, there are people who say that the US should "go to Iran" just as Nixon went to China because that will promote US interests the best
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Note that when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US had to dump relations with Taiwan. Israel does not want to become a Taiwan if the US decides to mend relations with Iran.

Here's another book I plan to read once it comes out: https://www.amazon.com/Deal-Century-Iran-Blocked-Wests/dp/0997896507


FINALLY

The nuclear agreement called the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is not technically a "treaty" but is an "executive agreement"

Executive Agreements are more common in international affairs than treaties, they also don't have the same formalities such as a need to be ratified through the Senate. There's a lot of hype claiming that Obama somehow violated the constitution by entering into the agreement but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about executive agreements, they're actually VERY common. https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm

There's all sort of BS being claimed, namely that Iran did not "sign" the agreement and that it is not "legally binding" -- but in fact international agreements including treaties are not legally binding (there is no court, judge or police to enforce them) and instead they are political agreements that are "binding" only as long as each party agrees to be bound by it. International agreements are also not a car loan that require you to sign them to be valid.

It is also claimed that there were "Secret concessions" made to Iran which were "exposed" by the UN.
Example:

>U.N. watchdog exposes secret concessions in Obama’s Iran deal

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/25/u-n-watchdog-exposes-secret-concessions-in-obamas-iran-deal/

But in fact literally EVERY WORD in that headline is actually false. The documents were not "exposed", the signatories themselves decided to make them public so as to end the hype about "secret deals", there were no "concessions" just technical agreements like agreeing to not count unrecoverable waste Uranium in the amount that Iran was supposed to be able to keep, and in fact the IAEA is not part of the UN but is an independent agency, and it isn't a "watchdog" either its role in the NonProliferation Treaty is just as an accountant that measures declared nuclear material to make sure the declared amounts match the actual amounts, that's all (it isn't an investigative agency or an intelligence agency charged with finding WMDs, in fact its actual job is to promote the use of nuclear technology)

The JCPOA required certain measures by Iran for at least 10-15 years (after which the "normal" Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations will continue to be in place) ie to limit the number of centrifuges it operates that are used to enrich uranium before using the material to make reactor fuel rods, to only enrich to 3.65% which can't be used for bombs (Iran never enriched uranium to bomb-grade anyway) to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and to cease work on a heavy water reactor and to export any heavy water it produces beyond its domestic needs. Iran has done all of that and the IAEA has verified it in its reports. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16/11/gov2016-55.pdf

However the opponents of the deal have been claiming that Iran has supposedly "violated" the deal by producing 0.1 ton more heavy water than a the 130 ton "limit" contained in the agreement. The problem is that there is actually no such limit in the agreement.

Annex 1, Part C, Paragraph 14 of the JCPOA states that Iran is to keep enough heavy water to meet its domestic needs including contingency stocks (estimated to be 130 tons in total) and any excess is to be exported for sale.

All Iran is required to do under Paragraph 15 is inform the IAEA of its heavy water stock and allow occasional IAEA visits to the production facility to monitor the stock.

Iran has done all that too.

Note that neither paragraph imposes a specific upper limit on the amount of heavy water which can be produced.

See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf for the exact text I'm citing



And 24 extra gallons of heavy water is not a violation of that "estimate". Note that heavy water itself is quite harmless and can't be used as a weapon and furthermore without an operational heavy water reactor (Iran poured concrete into the reactor their were building so it can't ever work, as the agreement required) there is no way that heavy water can somehow be used to make nukes anyway (and, the reactor was subject to IAEA monitoring anyway.)

In exchange, the US is supposed to lift as many sanctions as it can and release Iran's frozen funds. OF course the Iranians and the Obama administration new that they could not lift ALL the sanctions since most of the sanctions were imposed by COngress, not the President. So some sanctions have been removed but the US and Iran still can't do business especially since existing sanctions prevent Iran from doing business using US dollars which is the international currency. And, Congress is pushing for new sanctions. The Iranians consider this a violation of the agreement which requires the US to do its best to remove all sanctions but the text of the treaty does not actually require all the sanctions to be removed.

So bottom line is that despite all the hype, neither side has "violated" the agreement.

Note however that the US and Iran are not the only parties to the deal: Russia, China, Germany, UK and France that have signed it too, and it has been endorsed by the UN Security Council. The European courts had already ruled sanctions on Iran to be illegal before the deal,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-eu-idUSBRE91514220130206

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-courts-insight-idUKBRE96E0M920130715

and the the other countries have told the US that they will continue to abide by the deal even if the US pulls out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/iran-nuclear-deal-vital-warns-theresa-may-donald-trump-vows/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/In-a-message-to-Trump-China-defends-Iran-nuclear-deal/article16767795.ece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-eu-idUSKCN0PU0S520150720

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Russia-Loss-of-Iranian-nuclear-deal-would-be-unforgivable-475468

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/06/china-warns-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-must-stand/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-nuclear-europe-idUKKCN0RA2H420150910

The fact that he'd write this book calling out Israel demonstrates that Jimmy Carter has more fucking sack than any present day western public figure.

The conflict is too politicized to find an 'unbiased' primer. You largely have to read the histories, be very critical in your thinking as you do so, and do background checks on who is telling you what and consider why they might lean towards a certain viewpoint.

I'm not sure where you want to start from... you could start with the Old Testament. But presuming you're looking for a more recent analysis, Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete might be a good starting point. It deals with the time frame of 1917-1948, i.e. the critical few decades just before the creation of Israel.

Because close US allies Israel and the Saudis object to the US and Iran getting along, since that would make them third wheels. Same happened to Taiwan when in 1979 the US to recognize Communist China. Taiwan is now not really recognized as a country by the US.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations#1949%E2%80%931979 Israel doesn't want to become Taiwan if any US president wants to "go to Iran" as many have urged the US to do https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

Iran is after all now a Republic, that overthrew the US-backed monarchy and claims to be Islamic -- this threatens Saudi Arabia which is not only a US-backed monarchy but also supposedly the TOP Islamic country, defender of the Faith etc. Israel, because Iran refuses to recognize Israel and supports the Palestinian cause, and so should Iran and the US get along then Israel may have to make a deal with the Palestinians. The US being at war with Iran or Iraq, gives the Israelis the chance to continue taking Palestinian lands: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4775662

So they've been pushing the US to attack Iran for a while now rather than risk the US and Iran getting along. They have powerful lobbyists and pressure groups spending a lot of money to get their way

​

https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=5970

​

\>Attack Iran the day after Israel, demands Israel

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/attack-iran-the-day-iraq-war-ends-demands-israel-gnggkk7pzbw

​

https://lobelog.com/three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/

John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that pays him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/24/john-bolton-wants-regime-change-in-iran-and-so-does-the-cult-that-paid-him/

​

​

Not OP, but I asked the same question years ago and I compiled this list:

​

1. This is the best book on the subject that I've read. It is as fair to both sides as one can be. In fact, I came away with a better understanding of how and why the Palestinians feel the way that they do after reading the book.
   
   ​
   
   
2. The Arab Spring. This is a great journey through all of the countries affected by The Arab Spring. It helps understand where we are now.
   
   ​
   
   
3. The Prize. Technically, it is the history of the oil industry. As you should expect, it covers a lot of ME history, too.
   
   ​
   
   
4. Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS This book helps you understand how radical ISIS really is compared to AQ.
   
   ​
   
   
5. Michael Oren has two good books: Six Days of War and Power, Faith, and Fantasy. Despite Oren's affiliation with Israel, his books are fair and interesting reads.
   
   ​
   
   A book on the fall of the Ottoman Empire is another good place to start. I have not read this one yet. I've heard that it is a good read.
   
   ​
   
   ​

Here what I've picked up
On War by Clausewitz

MCDP 1 Warfighting

FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfare

FMFRP 12-13 Maneuver in War

On Grand Strategy

The Art of War by Baron De Jomini

Just and Unjust Wars (apparently it's on the Commandant's reading list too)

Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle

Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla

Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century

The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan

Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat

Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations (Volume 5)

JP-1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States

DoD Law of War Manual

The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS

Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns

The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam

Strategy: A History

LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

MCTP 3-01C Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery

Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006

The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011

Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State

Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq

The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy

Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime

This is all I can name off the top of my head right now

• [Books] The first four Caliphs and Sahabah - Collection of books online on the first caliphs, and stories of the companions of the prophet (pbuh).
  
  
• [Video] Revival, Rejuvenation & Reform In Islam - Dr. Ovamir Anjum, A 6 hour seminar explaining some of the stages of the Muslims world from 2nd Century (AH) onward.
  
  
  
• [Video] 1914: The Shaping of the Modern Muslim World - Yasir Qadhi explains the abolishment of the Islamic Caliphate and the division of Muslim lands into the modern countries of the Middle East that we are all familiar with today. Part 2
  
  
• [Video] Omar video series - a historical Arab television drama, depicting the life of Omar ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam
  
  
• [Web] History of Islam Timeline - interactive website lets you scroll through the different stages of Islamic history. Extended prophetic timeline here
  
  
• [Video] Huda TV : Untold Stories of World and Islamic History - Dr. Abdullah H. Quick presents a series intended to bring untold stories from world history related to Islam.
  
  
  
• [Book] Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes - Tamim Ansary, for people looking for a comprehensive-but-approachable way to look at world history through the lens of Islam.
  
  
• [Book] Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilization from the Past - Concise summary of Islamic history by Firas Alkhateeb. Covers various aspects of Muslim contributions to the world. Recommended by MuslimMatters.org
  
  
• [Book] History of Islam (3 Vol. Set) - three volumes of Islamic history, presents authentic events based on the writings of other famous Muslim historians.
  
  
• [Book] The New Cambridge History of Islam - 6 volumes, history of Islamic civilization, tracing its development from its beginnings in seventh-century Arabia to its wide and varied presence in the globalised world of today (Doesn't rely on Quran and hadith).
  
  
  
  
• [Video] 13 Centuries of Islamic History - Online video series conducted by Sheikh Abu Ja'far Al-Hanbali on the history of Islam, from the period at the end of the rightly guided Khalifah, all the way up until today.
  
  
• [Video] 3 Minutes of Islamic History - expansion of Islamic empire in the last 1300 years.
  

Your last line is spot on - which is why Aquinas was able to BTFO them so hard that they basically gave up on philosophy entirely.

And yes, Christ is the Word of God, as is Scripture (which is not entirely analogous to a given translation of the Bible, perhaps).

> Nixon personally sabotaged peace talks between Ford LBJ and Vietnam...

FTFY.

Actually, it's worse than that. Nixon worked with foreign countries to subvert the peace talks and policies of the sitting American president.

If Nixon had done this all by himself and inside the US, one could call it a person exercising his political rights.

But since Nixon worked with foreign governments to do this, thus extending the war and causing thousands more American soldiers to be killed (and who knows how many more Vietnamese -- but we don't count them!), I'd say that would likely fall into the category of outright treason.

And perhaps even more important is that Nixon's actions set the political precedent for others to do this.

The Reagan/Bush election team in 1980 worked with Iran to keep Americans held hostage by a foreign government to subvert Jimmy Carter's chances for reelection.

We know this (source, another) from not only French and then-Soviet intelligence reports of Reagan/Bush officials meeting with Iranians in France, not only from Jimmy Carter himself saying he know of such "rumors" as president but felt it was best to let history sort the issue out, not only from Carter's NSC aide Gary Sick and his book October Surprise, but from the now-retired former president of Iran who said that both Carter and Reagan/Bush were offering Iran deals to release the hostages and that he took the deal he thought was best for Iran: the deal offered by the Reagan/Bush election team.

I've been saying this for ages... I know we think we are hot shit, but with as many silkworms as Iran has even if we tried we could not stop them. Any military action against Iran is likely to lead to an immediate barrage of silkworms against all major oil facilities within range, including the KAAOT, Suadi Arabia, etc. Oil would go to a minimum of 200/bar, and even that is pretty much garunteed depression for the US. When are we going to realize that Iran is probably the best genuine chance we have at maintaining stability in the area, unless we want to be there for the next 100 years or so that is...

Bob Baer has a really good book about Iran, if you are interested in the situation I highly suggest it. link

Depends on how much in-depth you want them to be, and if you're more into 'general politics', or into 'military-related affairs'.

For really good understanding of how Syria came into being, and what events and processes shaped it early on, you might want to read:

• A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East, and
  
  
• The Great Syrian Revolt: And the Rise of Arab Nationalism
  
  
• Syria: A Recent History
  
  Given your German flag, you might add
  
  
• Damaskus: Oase zwischen Haß und Hoffnung for a 'general overview'. This small volume is covering general Syrian history since ancient times until early 1990s. Similarly good (i.e. 'for general orientation'), is
  
  
• Die Araber
  
  Now, since much of recent Syrian history is dominated by the Syrian military, you might need some read in this regards. Ideally, there would be an English translation for the best - most detailled, most in-depth - book on history of Syrian armed forces, Pesach Malovany's big volume tittled something like 'Out of the North an Evil shall break Forth' (sorry, all the links I used to have to its publisher are down) - published (like, sigh, so many really good Israeli books on Arab-Israeli wars) in Hebrew only. But there is none. Word is that this might get translated to English by the University of Kentucky, sometimes next or the year after.
  
  Some might suggest you Arabs at War. Regardless how comprehensive, when it comes to Syria I find it hopelessly obsolete, onesided and largely based on 'battlefield heritage' (see: hear-say). Indeed, although anything than 'Syria-related', I found Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippour War much more useful for studying the Syrian military during the October 1973 War (and even after!).
  
  Namely, that one is largely based on Egyptian documentation captured during the October 1973 War, and cross-examination of related Egyptian and Syrian military literature.
  
  A 'short-cut' of sort (i.e. avoiding collecting all of these books) would be to go for the Arab MiGs books... though this is in turn an own series of six volumes, covering the history of Arab air forces at war with Israel in period 1955-1973.
  
  Good thing about these books is that they're based on hundreds of interviews, authentic publications (including several by top Syrian military commanders), and whatever documentation the authors managed to get. They're providing really unique insights: far from merely counting aircraft, describing their markings, or discussing claims, they're descibing political backgrounds, arms deals, training (including outright fist-fights between top Syrian pilots and Soviets supposed to instruct them), organization, tactics, weaponry, foreign influences (in the case of Syrians, this was foremost Czechoslovak and not 'Soviet' by nature, and in this regards these books are well-supported by - between others - loads of original documentation from Czech National Archives) etc.
  
  Finally, re. causes of the SCW: there is meanwhile a small myrad of related titles - with best example probably being a quite massive volume titled The Syrian Jihad: al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency. Where that title 'excells' is in showing 'local influence and flair' of the entire affair: in turn, that is often making it hard to follow. Right now, I wouldn't know a 'simplier', 'easier to follow' volume describing this affair, though (any recommendations are most welcome).

I don't understand what you mean by "he didn't.'

But either way, Reagan wasn't just criminal, he was a literal traitor -- at least if you believe the "October Surprise" conspiracy theory (which I do).

The "October Surprise" conspiracy theory is that Reagan worked with the Iranian revolutionary gov't to keep the American hostages held hostage.

We have lots of indicators that this actually happened. Consider:

• Jimmy Carter himself gave an interview with Playboy magazine that he had heard rumors that Reagan/Bush was working with the Iranians to keep the hostages held hostage. But Carter said he felt powerless to do anything about it for fear of being labeled an election whiner and not having enough proof.
  
  
• George H. W. Bush (Reagan's VP and the former CIA director!) lied about him being in Paris where he supposedly met with Iranians. Both French and Soviet intelligence confirmed Bush was there.
  
  
• One of Carter's NSC guys was so upset about the October Surprise that he wrote a book on the topic.
  
  
• The Iranian president of that time, long after he retired from politics, gave a candid interview where he was asked about the issue. He said he was offered deals by both Carter and Reagan, and he took the deal that was best for Iran -- Reagan's deal which required him to hold the hostages until Reagan was sworn in. (The hostages themselves told stories about sitting on the plane on the runway and the plane only taking off after Reagan was sworn in.)
  
  Later, during Reagan's presidency, he would do repeated similar deals with the Iranians -- the basis for the Iran-Contra scandal and other deals for hostages in Lebanon.
  
  To me, that adds up to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush working with a hostile foreign power to rig a US election -- i.e. being literal traitors.
  
  While people talk about Reagan's "landslide" victory, if Carter had freed the hostages in October the election would have been very, very different.
  
  Edit: Fixed typos on initials of rich people who think it's cool to give their kids 2 middle names.
  
  > "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.

If anybody has read books by Robert Baer, I'd recommend "The Devil We Know"

Baer suggests that replacing our regional Allies in the ME (Israel & Saudi) with Iran could potentially be the play that breaks the stupidity cycle in our foreign policy.

But there where People behind the "things beyond his control"

> Strong rumours have circulated that while Carter negotiated the release of the hostages. A representative for the Republican party convinced the Iranians that they would give them a better deal if they delayed their release till after the election

It's actually much more than just strong rumors. A few points:

• Carter's NSC guru Gary Sick has written a book on the so-called "October Surprise" election of 1980.
  
  
• French and then-Soviet intelligence put members of the Reagan/Bush election team in Paris meeting with Iranian officials (remember Bush was the former CIA director post-Vietnam, at a time when the CIA was under fire; Bush gained a great deal of loyalty from the CIA for his defense of the criminal agency).
  
  
• Former president Jimmy Carter has publicly said that he heard rumors that Reagan/Bush were working to torpedo a Carter deal to free the US diplomats who were held hostage.
  
  
• The (now-long-since-retired and out of politics) Iranian president of that time gave an interview where he bluntly said he was offered deals by both Carter and Reagan/Bush, with Carter wanting the hostages freed, and Bush/Reagan wanting the hostages kept prisoner until after the election. The Iranian president said he took the deal that was best for Iran -- Reagan/Bush's deal. The hostages were released literally minutes after Reagan/Bush was sworn into office (and only days later a plane load of US-made weapons and spare parts in route to Iran crashed in the Middle East).
  
  This is one of those issues in US history where there is no "smoking gun". But to me it's a no-brainer what happened: Like Nixon in an earlier election who worked with a foreign power to undermine a sitting American president, the Reagan/Bush election team committed outright treason in working to keep American diplomats held hostage by a foreign power.
  
  > "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.

Great book on it. https://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739

I just read Israel by Daniel Gordis. It is a history of Israel and Zionism from the 19th century to today. I felt it was very well written. The book is long, but I could not put it down.

I'm currently reading The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. This one is about dispelling common myths used to de-legitimize Israel. Since he is a lawyer, the book is written in a style that makes it read like a court case. It is a bit shorter but it might be what you are looking for if you need to take apart someone who argues that Zionism = colonialism.....

> Many experts and analysts believe that's precisely what should happen: https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

These aren't "experts and analysts". These are two, and they are on the fringe of analyst opinion.

> But then the US turned around and started arming and funding a military dictator in Egypt who took power in a coup

Well that's certainly false. The US actually cut military aid to Egypt following the coup, and didn't restore it for over a year. See here.

This was also 8 years after Rice's speech, and under an entirely different President.

> When Nixon decided to "go to China" he had to cut US ties with Taiwan, which until then was officially recognized by the US as "China". Today Taiwan is not even officially a country.

Yeah, but Nixon didn't withdraw US support for Taiwan. He just accepted a compromise in between, but the US has undoubtedly been more supportive of Taiwan than China since then, with arms deals and protection.

> However the pro-Israeli lobby is far more powerful

Oh goodie, conspiracy theories. For some strange reason, you think Israel just chose freely to be on the side of Saudi Arabia and the Arab world instead of Iran, as if it didn't get attacked by Iran's proxies multiple times, as if Iran didn't multiple times reject any idea of peace with Israel, including after Israel assisted Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

> and along with Saudi funding, makes it difficult for the US to "go to Tehran" as many analysts have said the US should do

Most analysts do not believe anyone should "go to Iran" right now.

> The last thing the Israeli and Saudis want is for the US and Iran to get along and they have powerful lobbyists who have been pushing for a US war on Iran instead on fake "nulear weapons" claims, just like how they pushed the US to attack Iraq on fake "WMDs" claims:

Ah, the old conspiracy theory that blames the Iraq war on Israel.

> CBS News - Israel prodding US to attack Iran http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/

The article has a clickbait headline. The text of the article doesn't actually make this claim.

> CBS News - Israel to US: Do not delay Iraq attack http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

Israel called on the US to attack Iraq based on intelligence of chemical and biological weapons programs. Iraq did have those for covert actions, and it was Saddam Hussein himself who wanted to play up biological weapons programs for the sake of deterring Iran. This led to other countries believing he actually had the weapons too.

Chemical weapons were also in Iraq. Chemical weapons shells were still being found in 2014, and they'd found thousands. They were all supposed to have been destroyed, and insurgents ended up stealing some and using them in small attacks on US forces in Iraq. Hussein had indeed planned to resume chemical weapons production.

Israel's statements were actually accurate about Iraq in the lead-up to the war. The only time they were inaccurate was when they were based on US intelligence, which we already know was wrong on nuclear weapons.

> These regular mailings from the Israel Project to "opinion agents" such as yours truly are, in effect, a public relations campaign for war. The monthly missives I receive from this one pro-Israel lobby are a small part of a broader effort to "secure the information stream" and prep Americans for the next exotic stop in the war on terror: sunny Iran. http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

This is absurd. Not only is this site not credible in the slightest, it claimed the war would begin in 2008. It never did. The website is clearly just publishing an extremely biased op-ed with little actual evidence.

For more information, I recommend you read

[Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond]
(https://www.amazon.com/Force-Fanaticism-Wahhabism-Arabia-Beyond/dp/1849044643)
Describes the history of Wahhabism and its effects. Author spent time in Saudi Arabia.

[The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State] (https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-Apocalypse-History-Strategy-Doomsday/dp/1250112648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875330&sr=1-1&keywords=The+ISIS+Apocalypse)

Self explanatory.

[Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection] (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Unjust-Behind-U-S-Saudi-Connection/dp/1944869026/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875675&sr=1-1&keywords=kingdom+of+the+unjust+behind+the+u.s.-saudi+connection)

Easy to read description of Saudi crimes.

[The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11] (https://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/1400030846/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875754&sr=1-1&keywords=Looming+Tower)

Excellent narrative history of Al Qaeda. Highly recommended.

[My Year Inside Radical Islam: A Memoir] (https://www.amazon.com/My-Year-Inside-Radical-Islam/dp/1585426113/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875857&sr=1-1&keywords=My+Year+inside+Radical+Islam)

Not a wide-sweeping narrative but a personal story of someone who worked for a Saudi-funded charity and slowly adapted their beliefs.

[On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines -- and Future]
(https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496875930&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Saudi+Arabia)

Written by a reporter who spent years in Saudi Arabia, gives a description of Saudi society.

[The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine] (https://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876042&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Siege+of+Mecca)

A great history of an almost unknown terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Goes into the relationship between the Saudi royal family and Wahhabi religious establishment.

[Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror]
(https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Enemy-Jihadist-Ideology-Terror/dp/0300122578/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496876149&sr=1-1&keywords=Knowing+the+Enemy)
Really good explanation of Salafi-Jihadism.


Edit: Added links and made it look nicer. If you want more, just ask. If anyone has any other recommendations, I would like to know. :)

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apartheid-Jimmy-Carter/dp/0743285026

I'd imagine that's a big part of it.

He's got to be about the only US President to bluntly denounce the policies in action in the Occupied Territories.

book link

I have a long list of books that I usually recommend to people who are interested in these types of subjects. Here are some that may be of interest to you. If you are ever interested in more books on the Middle East or international affairs issues, check out the r/geopolitics wiki.

As for the books that have been recommended to you, they are pretty good. I even repeated a few of them in my recommendations. The only ones that I would have reservations about are Gen. Daniel Bolger's because I have never read it.

Author | Title | Synopsis
---|---|----
Daniel Byman | Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone Needs to Know | A terrific primer on al-Qaida, ISIL, and jihadism. Its a brief outline of the history of al-Qaida, its ideological underpinnings, and the rise of ISIL in the shadow of the Syrian Civil War.
Lawrence Wright | The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 | Probably the most approachable and argueably the best book for outlining the pro-9/11 history of al-Qaida and why 9/11 happened.
Michael Wiess and Hassan Hassan | ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror | One of several recent books on ISIL, this one provides an overview on the history and organization of ISIL.
Charles Lister | The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency | Written by an expert on jihadism in Syria, this books looks at the history and evolution of jihadists in the Syrian conflict.
Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger | ISIS: The State of Terror | Written by two top experts in the study of terrorism, this book focuses on how ISIL radicalizes and recruits individuals from all over the world to join their cause.
William McCants | The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State | An examination of ISIL's worldview and how it influenced its growth and strategy.
Kenneth Pollack | The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America | An excellent overview of the history of relations and tensions between the United States and Iran over the decades. Pollack published a second book on U.S.-Iranian relations in the wake of Iran's nuclear program called Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy
Bob Woodward | Obama's Wars | Outline of the U.S. foreign policy decision making towards Iraq and Afghanistan in the early years of the Obama administration.
Michael R. Gordon | The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama | Follows U.S. strategic and political decision making process during the Iraq War and the U.S. occupation.
Peter R. Mansoor | Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War | An extensive outline of the development and outcome of the Surge during the U.S. Occupation of Iraq.
Mark Mazzetti | The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth | An overview of the CIA's targeted drone program against terrorist organizations.
Michael Morrell | The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS | Written by the former acting director of the CIA, this book examines U.S. counterterrorism successes and failures of the past two decades.

Not much of a conspiracy theory when there's a fair bit of evidence pointing to a whole lot of shadyness. Frontline did a whole piece on it, and there's been a few credible books written on it. It's a conspiracy in line with the conspiracy theory that the Russians colluded with the RNC and Trump campaign for the presidential election.

>Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq before G.W.Bush even assumed office

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he'd been duped. But this just makes his support for it that much more inhumane, knowing fully the history of how US invasions of third world nations had gone before that. So what I'm hearing here is that he was monstrous, not credulous. Cool.

>As for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, maybe it's because I'm not American but I take a much more nuanced view on the rationale for the United States going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq

No, it's not that you're not American, it's that you don't apparently see dead Iraqis as mattering that much, I guess? It seems like a pretty basic exercise in empathy to center the people who will suffer the most in your considerations of what actions to take or not take.

>As for Michael Moore getting people to 'wake up' to the truth IMO he's a bullshit artist and not a particularly good one either because anyone whose taken even more than a cursory glance at the history of Iraq, the Bush family connections he espouses and the motivations he suggests that the U.S government had for invading Iraq are almost all universally false and his entire case is misleading.

I mean, look at the genius speaking for himself:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

"He tried to kill my dad" was part of the case. Who the fuck cares, George?

We went into Iraq for oil. We only care about the Middle East in general because of oil. You're a naif if you think otherwise.

Strong recommendation for this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Greater-Middle-East-ebook/dp/B0174PRIY4

Written by a military man who became a military historian, who lost a son in Afghanistan, if you're wondering if he's qualified to write it.

We've been in the region in an openly militaristic set of operations since the Carter administration.

Michael Moore is no worse for democracy, and I'd say substantially better, than GW Bush, Colin Powell or Dick Cheney. We'd be much better off if none of those men ever rose to power.

Read it here. The author mentions that such voyages are mentioned in the geography text of al-Masudi from the 900s.

Now please send Hawaiian Punch.

>So what are good sources of information for current news and good books/articles for past history?

That's something that I'm currently working on. I've only begun to dive into the history of the world within the past year. There are innumerable books and documentaries that serve this purpose for innumerable regions and events in the world. But I believe the starting point for anyone should be a book on US foreign policy. Once you begin to learn about how the US has acted internationally, you will obtain a view of the world that is essential for understanding current events.

One recent pair of works that I recommend is "The Untold History of the US". It is a 800 page book alongside a 10 part documentary series that tells a story of the US not known to most people. Here is the first part of that series available for free. Here is the companion book.

>How did you learn about these sources?

I keep a journal and I've meant to do a write up of this for a while now, so I'll be as detailed as possible. The following is both for your sake, and for mine. This is also a story of how I came to hold the political views that I have, so bear with me if you disagree with my views. Reading about history will inevitably force you to form opinions, and as I've learned more, I was pushed further and further to the left. But anyways, here it is.

I took a class on Latin American history, and I learned about the history of the island in the Caribbean my parents come from, the Hispaniola (the island of the Dominican Republic and Haiti). I learned how the US occupied it repeatedly during the 20th century and installed dictators in each country, and how it became a trade slave of the US with its sugar production.

I was being more and more interested in politics and current events, after learning about Obama and drones. I didn't have internet access and I hated television, but I had to do something, so I vowed to only watch channels without commercials. So I was watching PBS, CSPAN, and Al Jazeera. One night I saw an interview on PBS done by Tavis Smiley. During this time, Martin Luther King was being celebrated. The interview centered around the "real" Martin Luther King, and how he is unjustly known for only a few words that he spoke during a march. So I read his last major speech, and his speech about the Vietnam War. In the latter speech, he says "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world is the US government", and I couldn't believe what I was reading. After some searching, I realized that he was actually a socialist. I learned that he had planned a march for economic justice that would join all races, to trump any march in the history of the country, and he did this with the two socialists who organized the march that made him famous. They were Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph.

Martin Luther King died while helping a union of black sanitation workers, a month before the march. I doubted the mainstream narrative of the killing due to what I learned the US was capable of when I read about the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and I came across COINTELPRO, the operation run by the FBI to stop leftist movements in the US. I was watching yet another channel with no commercials, and it's called LinkTV, which is a leftist channel that shows mainly documentaries. I saw one called "American Coup", which was about how the US toppled the government of Iran with clandestine CIA operations. Oddly enough, today is the day, 50 years after it happened, that the CIA admits to doing it. Anyways, at this point I was intensely both anti-government and anti-capitalist.

As I pondered all of the problems with the US, like its media, healthcare, the military industrial complex, the corruption of congress, etc, I came across this speech by an economist at the University of Massachusetts. He spoke of a new type of democratic economic enterprise called a cooperative, and how it solves many problems that traditional capitalist enterprises cause. the political atmosphere of Germany, that has a party called Die Linke, or the "Left Party". Their slogan is, "Germany can do better than Capitalism". Being from the US where questioning capitalism is out of the question, I couldn't believe that Germany had the political atmosphere for that, so I started learning about the politics of Germany.

That's really when my interest of international affairs and politics took off, and when I finally began to read about other countries. Inevitably, to understand the current events of a country you have to understand its history, so I started reading about the history of Germany. Once I saw its relationship to the USSR, I started reading about that. All the while, everything I learned about the US was brimming in my mind.

I learned about the media in the US because of a documentary I saw called "Shadows of Liberty". It will be available here for free here during the first two weeks of September. Because I refused to watch TV with commercials, I began watching Al Jazeera English. It covered the civil war in Syria extensively, and it frequently airs documentaries. One of them was "The Reckoning", which details the history of Syria during the latter portion of the 20th century to give a context to current developments in Syria. I then borrowed this book on the history of the modern middle east from a local library.

By this time it was around March, and Hugo Chavez died. He was a very controversial figure, and I wanted to learn why. Here in the US they paint him as a dictator, but my faith in US media was destroyed, so I questioned that as well. This video quite nicely sums up a few of the experiences I've had about learning about Venezuela and Chavez. While he did a few things I don't agree with, and I don't like his stances on a few issues, I learned that Chavez was a hero to Venezuela. This documentary goes into a overthrow of the government that happened in 2002 to oust Chavez, but was saved by the masses of Venezuelan people who wanted their leader back. By this time I was well aware of US involvement in Latin America, and could contextualize the events well, due to a book called The Open Veins of Latin America.

After this, I was ready to tackle history around the world with much more ease. I learned of the miners strikes in the UK, and the market socialism of Yugoslavia that was a socialism vastly different than others. I learned of some of the great feats of China and the USSR after only knowing what mistakes they made. I learned about Anarchism and Anarchist Spain during the 1930's, and the war between Iraq and Iran. I learned of Zimbabwe's agrarian reform, and Mexico's revolution in the early 1900's. I learned of South Africa's fight with apartheid, which put the US on supporting it and Cuba fighting it alongside Mandela. It was just historical event after event, and after some time, you really can't pinpoint specific avenues of thought that you've been taking through by reading and watching documentaries. History becomes just one large living organism that you begin to understand more and more fully as you go on.

I cut it a bit short because its late, but feel free to ask me anything now that you know me a bit more personally, haha.

Yeah, the history of the foundation of Israel is much more complex than you'd think.

I recommend One Palestine, Complete for a thorough and impartial, if rather dry, discussion of the period.

I have the book that you mention by Harms & Ferry, and I can confirm that it is a very good intro to the topic, and well worth buying.

Another good introduction is The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War by James Gelvin, which was a required textbook for me at Uni. It doesn't appear to be available from Amazon.com though, so you might want to look around for it. It is available on Google Books so you can have a look at it there.

Another good book for further reading (specifically about Palestinian identity) is The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi.

Hope that helps.

A classic Carlin rant, but the "fuck everybody" line at the bottom sums up how shallow it is.

If that's true, then the question to me would become how/why did those noble-minded baby boomers who broke so many barriers, did so much good, stopped the Vietnam War (along with a couple million dead Vietnamese!) turn into selfish semi-rightists?

And to me, there's 2 big factors in that: (1) the mass media, owned by the rich and constantly preaching capitalism and "greed is good," and (2) Reagan's seizure of power in the 1980 "October Surprise" presidential election.

Those 2 factors today are still impacting us.

That is not an accurate statement. For one, Saddam was a Sunni a Sunnis in general curried great favor under that regime. Once we went in and toppled the Baathist party, Shia's started to dominate the interim government. That in part FUELED the Islamic State uprising.

We very well could have gotten rid of Saddam and prevented the scale of the insurgency had we not done two fatal errors - The Interim Governor of Iraq (U.S. Paul Bremer) disbanded the ENTIRE Iraqi military and government workers. You essentially had an entire military (4th largest in the world at the time) and an entire working government worth of trained/educated folks completely unemployed, no pensions, no benefits - nada.

There was no indigenous fighting or government force left to help quell the obvious power vacuum that was left. A viable fighting force was one of the keys behind our initial and unprecedented success in Afghanistan only a year and a half earlier. Around 400-500 intelligence and Special Operations personnel in conjunction with the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan shortly after 9-11. We screwed the pooch by not providing and facilitating the other tools of statescraft to flourish after due to Iraq brewing on the horizon.

Many insurgent groups sprang up around this time (Circa 2004-2007 specifically) to include the sunni AQI which then morphed into ISIS. Conversely though, a young savey thug Jordanian buy the name of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi saw opportunity and gave rise to the sectarian (sunni vs shia) violence that swept across the region like wild fire with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 2006.

Shia's were absolutely NOT part of AQI or ISIS.

[Paul Bremer Source] (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1mmjpe/how_do_i_make_text_a_link/)

Rise of ISIS Source

[Shia Golden Mosque Bombing Source] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_mosque_bombing)

The Dictator's Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes by Caitlin Talmadge

The RAND monograph Why the Iraqi Resistance to the Coalition Invasion Was So Weak by Stephen Hosmer offers an overview of why Saddam's coup-proofing weakened the Iraqi Military and then gives a surprising amount of detail on specific examples with some very funny anecdotes regarding Uday and Qusay. :)

The Syrian Jihad by Charles Lister has some great information about the SAA's effectiveness during the Syrian civil war 2011-2015 if you're willing to wade through a lot of information about small jihadi groups.

Saddam Husayn and Civil-Military Relations in Iraq: The Quest for Legitimacy and Power by Ahmed Hashim has some great info on Saddam's defense policy of coup-proofing and its effects on military effectiveness.

The Iraqi Army and Anti-Army: Some Reflections on the Role of the Military by Faleh Jabar addresses much of the same things as Hashim's piece.

Finally, Iraq's Armed Forces: An Analytical History by Ibrahim al-Marashi and Sammy Salama is a broad overview of Iraq's military.

Ira Lapidus' tome A History of Islamic Societies is a well written reference and exactly what it says on the tin.

Not about my country, but I'd recommend reading [The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Hundred-Years/dp/0521888352) by James L. Gelvin. I used to think I knew what I needed to know about this conflict from watching news through the years, but after having read this I realize I didn't have a clue. Unbiased, interesting and at times witty. My favourite quote, about the Americans accepting Soviet participation in the Madrid Conference: "American policymakers believed, in the words of an old arabian proverb, that it was better to have a camel inside your tent pissing out than a camel outside your tent pissing in."

I'm reading The Closing of the Muslim Mind and it's really interesting. The main Muslim philosophy denies cause and effect.

Yep.

And has done so for over a thousand years.

Relevant
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

20 years after the Vietnam war ended, the US recognized Vietnam, even though 58000 Americans had been killed there. We are now coming up to 40 years of trying to impose regime-change in Iran, and not a single actual Americans has been killed by an actual Iranian, ever.

Ask youself, what fundamental US interest is promoted by eminity with Iran

October Surprise
Gary Sick, a credible source and an established person. There was also a Nightline episode on this many years ago.

If you've not read The Closing of the Muslim Mind you should.

Aquinas literally BTFO so hard that, well, the decided not to think anymore.

> These are all very rare occurrences in history and generally deal with inhospitable terrain and other factors that would have made it rather irrelevant here.

Nope. Guerrilla warfare was well understood in both the ancient and medieval world and became an increasingly frequent feature of conflict with the rise of gunpowder.

Here is the in depth wiki article on the subject.

Here is a work arguing that guerrilla warfare has been a defining feature of human conflict.

Beyond that there was a long standing tradition of guerrilla warfare in the America's stretching back to the Spanish expeditions in the mid 1500's. It was extensively practiced by the French and Indian war. In fact during the American Civil war it was practiced, the border regions Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee became hotbeds of low scale guerrilla conflict that later spawned more organized guerrilla units like Quantrill's Raiders.

Terrain most certainly would be a factor. The south has several mountainous regions, deep forests, extensive rivers etc. Beyond that the real advantage of terrain in Guerrilla warfare is that one side typically has a much more intimate knowledge of the area than the other, giving them more tactical options in relation to maneuver. The terrain need not be difficult itself for locals with an excellent knowledge of it to make it difficult for an occupying force.

>Guerrillas need to eat.

Everyone needs to eat. This isn't really a relevant statement the way you think it is. Typically Guerrilla forces don't require the extensive supply trains that standing conventional armies do to keep fed. Guerrillas typically source the provisions from local support, raiding, and foraging. Beyond that you are talking about the South in a time when the majority of it's populace practiced sustenance level agriculture, it would have been very feasible to keep small units fed than it would have been a standing army.
The Confederacy's trouble supplying it's armies was partially based on it's poor internal infrastructure and inability to transport what goods they had. This isn't the same kind of concern for a small force operating out of a localized area.

>Why not? The transcontinental railroad was built with less pomp and circumstance than you're proposing here.

No it wasn't. The transcontinental railroad was a massive undertaking that required tremendous funding, manpower, and planning.

>The north's moral position was that the south unconstitutionally tried to leave the union, and that then the south instigated a war. That position is unassailable.

The North's moral position was rooted in a political conflict over slavery. Had slavery not been the issue at hand it would have difficult to garner the support to continue the war in the early years as the North suffered a string of defeats in the first two years of the conflict that saw many wanting to draw a peace with the south. It required a great deal of political maneuvering and an involving of many church networks in the north to drive home the idea of the war as a moral issue of more than just succession. Turning around and selling off Confederate soldiers likely would have caused a crisis of public perception in a populace already shaken by the assassination of President Lincoln.

Pretty sure the pic is from the Lost Islamic History book.

Biographies of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

Martin Ling's "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources"
| Amazon
| PDF
| Audiobook

Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri "The Sealed Nectar"
| Amazon
| PDF (Older edition)


Autobiographies

Muhammad Asad "The Road to Mecca"
| Amazon
| PDF

Jeffrey Lang "Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America"
| Amazon

| PDF

Alex Haley and Malcolm X "The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley"
Amazon
| PDF

Other recommendations

Firas Alkhateeb "Lost Islamic History"

Hamza Tzortzis "The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage Of Atheism"

Given your background, some speakers you may find beneficial:

Sheikh Hussain Yee - From Buddhism to Islam

Abdur-Raheem Green - How I Came to Islam

Joshua Evans - How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister

October Surprise.

THE ‘OCTOBER SURPRISE’ WAS REAL, LEGENDARY SPYMASTER HINTS IN FINAL INTERVIEW.

Wa 'alaykum as salam wa rahmatul lahi wa barakatuh

I hope you're okay and in good health, brother /u/alienz225 - May Allah cure you and firm you upon the deen.

Bismillah...

Arabic books:

• Kitab At-Tawheed - Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab - PDF
  
  
• Al-Qawaa'id Al-Arba'a - Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahab - PDF
  
  
• Talbees Iblees [Devil's Deception] - Ibn Al-Jawzi - PDF
  
  
• 'Umdat Al-Fiqh - Ibn Qudaamah - PDF
  
  English books:
  
  
• Don't be Sad - A'id al Qarni - Buy from Amazon
  
  
• A Thematic Commentary on The Qur'an - Muhammad Al-Ghazali - Buy from Amazon
  
  
• Riyadul Saliheen - Imam An-Nawawi - English Commentary.
  
  
• Lost Islamic History - Firas Al-Khateeb. Buy from Amazon
  
  
• 40 Ahadith - Imam An Nawawi - Buy from Amazon -- AMAZING!!!!!!
  
  
• Gems and Jewels - Abdul Malik Mujahid -- Buy from Amazon
  
  
• Talbees Iblees [Devil's Deception] - [Translated by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips] - PDF
  
  ---
  
  Some of the best books, after the book of Allaah [i.e The Qur'an] in: Aqeedah, Hadeeth, Tafseer, Arabic Language, Seerah, Methodology of Da'wah etc According to Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool (May Allah preserve him):
  
  
• Tafseer for the beginner - Tafseer Al Baghawi - PDF - Arabic -- Then you can move onto reading Tafsir Ibn Kathir, even.
  
  
• In the issues of 'Aqidah required by the Muslim - Kitab At Tawheed - Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab [First Book - Look up there, inih]
  
  
• The Best explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari - Fat'hul Bari - Imam Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalaani
  
  
• Regarding the ahadeeth dealing with good ettiquettes (or manners) -- Riyadul Saliheen by Imam An Nawawi
  
  
• In the science of Hadith [Marifatu Anwaa' Uloom Al Hadeeth]
  
  
• Meanings of the word in the Arabic Language - [Mu'jam Maqayees Al-Lughaa - Ibn Faris] [BrentPurpose's Note: A good Arabic-English dictionary site is Almaany]
  
  
• Refutation against the Shia' : Minhaaj As-Sunnah - Ibn Taymiyyah
  
  
• The general prophetic guidance - [Zaadul-Ma'ad - Ibn Al-Qayyim]
  
  
• Acquaintance with the Sahabah - [Al-Isabaah' - Ibn Hajr Al-'Asqalaani]
  
  
• Seerah of the Prophet: As-Seerah - Ibn Hisham
  
  
• Explanation for Muwatta' Imam Malik - [At-'Tamheed - Ibn Abdul Barr]
  
  
• Methodology of Da'wah: Manahajul Al Anbiyaah Fid Da'wati Il-Allaah! - Shaikh Rabee'
  
  End Quote.
  
  Of course, the majority of these books are just beginner books. You could always try to find the works of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Al-Qayyim... considering their books are so well-known, it's safe to assume some of their books have English translations.
  
  A great Tafseer book is - Tafseer ibn Kathir.
  
  Also try to check out Al-Fawaa'id - Ibnul Qayyim.
  
  Lectures to follow:
  
  
• Tawheed Series - Sh. Ahmad Musa Jibril Link Here - English - Really beneficial!
  
  
• The Life of 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab - Anwar Al-'Awlaki Link here -ENGLISH
  
  I'm assuming the recommended sources will be of benefit, insha'Allah! I ask Allah to bless us and guide us and May Allah protect us from His wrath and punishment and May Allah admit us into Jannatul Firdous.
  

It all depends on what kind of angle you're looking for.

Here is by no means an exhaustive list. I must say I haven't read all of these but have come across them in research and from previous recommendations on here, but here goes:

Background/Social & Historical contexts/Other relevant stuff

Patrick Seale - Assad (rather old, good for history)

Tarek Osman - Islamism (2016, broad coverage of Islamism in theory and practice, good context)

John Robertson - Iraq (2016)

John McHugo - Syria (2015)

Sami Moubayed - Syria & The USA (2013)

Sami Moubayed - Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000, very good for Syrian history and experience with democracy)


Perceived pro-original opposition bias

Diana Darke - My House in Damascus (new version came out 2015)

Michael Weiss & Hassan Hassan - ISIS (2015)

Charles Lister - The Syrian Jihad (2016)

Perceived pro-government bias

Patrick Cockburn - Rise of the Islamic State (2015, this might not be as detailed as you'd want it to be)

Kurds

Michael Knapp, Ercan Ayboga & Anja Flach - Revolution Rojava (2016, the detail in this is beyond insane)

What? The book I cited is a work with it's own sources. The articles you are posting do not refute any point made or to be made. Call a sourced book a meme all you want, but you're wrong.

 

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804168938/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_f4oAzbBAQ37H4

The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis

The amount of arms provided to iran under the deal was tiny and amounted to a couple of shipments of anti-tank missiles.

NOTHING compared to the massive amount of financing, arms, and chemical weapons provided to Saddam

So the US was not really playing both sides, that's a lie

But in any case the book you want to read is "October Surpise" by prof. Gary Sick at Columbia U.
https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Gary-Sick/dp/0812920872

Soviet training for Iraqi internal security forces from Wikipedia. Original source is from Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Iraq/dp/0520214390

"As a result of this internal uprising Saddam Hussein sought a secret agreement with KGB head Yuri Andropov late that same year, which led to a close relationship that included intelligence exchange, Iraqi training in KGB and GRU schools, a thorough DGS reorganization under the advice of the KGB, equipment for surveillance and interrogation, and Iraqi embassy support of Soviet agents in countries without Soviet relations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_General_Security#cite_note-6

You don't get to take land from an population entirely innocent of the persecution of the European Jews without doing horrible things.

I urge you to take your own advice and read say The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War

You will get a far more balanced view of the conflict and get maybe a little insight to the Palestinian POV.

In that case, my nation-state (the US) could withdraw the billions of foreign aid we send to Israel every year. And to Egypt for not attacking Israel. (They're by far the top recipients, unless we count Iraq. And it's probably not even counting other forms of military aid we send them.) Let the mightiest and most militant survive without my nation's intervention.

Or, we could support the significant Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, and eliminate what president Carter calls "apartheid."

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War would do the trick. $11 on amazon. Covers everything guitarbro suggested and more.

Robert Fisk: The Great War for Civilization.

Nikki Keddie: Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution

Ira Lapidus: A History of Islamic Societies

And other good ones I know of that were mentioned in here:

A History of the Arab People" by Hourani

"All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer

The Palestinian People: A History

The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land

This is all a good place to start, I think.

Well you can start by thanking the United States for destabilizing the entire region when they invaded Iraq and created a breeding ground for chaos.

If you're actually interested in this subject, I'd recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.ca/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick/dp/0804168938

Really easy and thorough read on how ISIS came to be and the political context in which they exist(ed).

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War by James Gelvin is a good overview that tries to touch on both sides. I read it in 2008 though, so it's not 100% up to date, but it's a good account of how we got where we are.

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright is absolutely a great read. Gives a lot of background, history, and insight into the major players that led to the ideology of Al Qaeda and the perpetrators of the act.

The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine by Yaroslav Trofimov

I just started this one and it's very interesting. Almost reads like a thriller. This book more or less covers a major incident that isn't well know, but helped to lead to the modern Islamic terrorism we now have.

I read this book a while back, A History of Israel. I felt it was very accurate and well structured, and for sure does not let Israel off the hook. Only problem is that he is not impartial when it comes to religious involvement in Israel's politics, using very negative and unnecessary language about them.

I believe it is referred to in this book, though I might be wrong,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520214390/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i1_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0PNENVRTHBWAWQBV1FWS&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop

Ok look at Abu Ghraib then. They investigated it and marked it secret as an attempt to cover it up until it leaked in 2004. Page 264

I want to also recommend "The Case for Israel by Allen Dershowitz" all supporters and opposers of Israel should read it. Very well written in English.

The Case for Israel https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471679526/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_m-9OCbY9BZWSS

> The truth was he smothered jihadis in their cribs

No... he smothered everyone who he decided he didn't like for any particular reason that day. He was a complete lunatic

He took the most repressive elements of both Stalinism and fascism and fused them into an authoritarian state with all the trappings of a personality cult.

Here is just one example of the kind of things he was doing:

>Saddam convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on 22 July 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped,[40] Saddam claimed to have found a fifth column within the Ba'ath Party and directed Muhyi Abdel-Hussein to read out a confession and the names of 68 alleged co-conspirators. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently tried together and found guilty of treason. 22 were sentenced to execution. Other high-ranking members of the party formed the firing squad.

Read this book, written by an Iraqi who fled the regime if you want to know more

We’ve known about this for 10 years at least. There were cities in Iraq that American soldiers could walk around in without armor because Iran wanted them to remain peaceful. If you want a great book on Iran, read The Devil We Know by ex-cia officer Robert Baer. It was published in 2009 though so it won’t have the last ~ 10 years of current history but frankly, that’s probably the least important bit anyway.

https://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408671

Y'all should read The Siege of Mecca.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Holiest/dp/0307277739

• So basically, some dudes take over mecca in 79' and the Saudi government needs to take it back. But its not allowed to spill blood in Mecca so they ask the grand Imam to grant a Fatwa. he allows it but under the condition that they funnel money to Wahhabi mosques around the world for years to come. Wahhabi are fucking animals who reject all innovation and believe in the most basic and literal form of Islam. Basically they want the world to live in the stone age.
  
  
• Saudi Arabia is literally the worst place on the planet because they have the money and influence to fund radical terrorists around the world with immunity.
  
  
• Fun fact: both ISIS and the Saudi State are predominately Wahhabi.

And it worked, until Maliki's horrible governance undid everything we achieved. "Hearts and minds" is a key tenet of any successful counterinsurgency; it's why the surge was successful, it's why the British in Malaya were successful, and its absence was why Vietnam was such a disastrous campaign.

If you want to learn more about insurgencies and how they are defeated, I'd strongly recommend checking out this book.

On the note of Muslims, I learned a lot from this book below. It's a Pulitzer Prize winner and contains information that was collected directly from the military who served there.

To say all Muslims are the same is not true. There are Sunnis, Shiites, and various jihadist groups in nearly a dozen countries. A majority of them do not believe in Sharia Law. Some of these people are the reason we gathered the intelligence to kill Osama Bin Ladin, Zarqawi, and many others.

The situation in the middle east is horrifying, and we cannot afford to denounce them all as terrible people. We have allies there who help us tremendously.

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick/dp/0804168938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478742702&sr=8-1&keywords=black+flags

https://www.amazon.com/House-Saud-Said-Aburish/dp/0747578745
https://www.amazon.com/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/0743253396
https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287

All of these are really good. The Bush one does try to play politics, but its good none the less.

> Were you alive when Reagan was president

I'm ashamed to say that I voted for him twice.

But rather than try to discredit the allegation with the emotional smear of "conspiracy theory", why not deal with the substance of the charge that Reagan colluded with a hostile foreign country to keep Americans held prisoner and to undermine the foreign policies of a sitting American president?

• Why not address Jimmy Carter's public comments he has said about the Reagan-Bush election team talking with the Iranians?
  
  
• Why not address the then-Soviet and French intelligence reports of the Reagan-Bush election team meeting with the Iranians in Paris?
  
  
• Why not address the-then Iranian president's statements in interviews years after he retired from Iranian politics that he, as Iran's president, negotiated with both Carter and Reagan about hostage deals and that he took the best deal for Iran -- the Reagan-Bush offer of arms in order to keep the hostages imprisoned until Reagan took office?
  
  Once those issues are addressed, then you can examine other related issues, such as Bush's bogus claim about where he was when he was meeting with the Iranians in Paris, or the crashed plane of Americans weapons going to Iran immediately after Reagan was sworn in, or the details in Carter's NSC guru's book, or even Reagan's other "arms for hostages" deals that he did with the Iranians which later resulted in the "Iran-Contra Scandal"?
  
  > "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.

In the same lecture Hitchens recommends Kanan Malika's "Republic of Fear".

Hello! I'll suggest the following:

1. Please watch the 8-part Israel/Palestine for Critical Thinkers. It is a good starting point, detailing the genesis of the conflict (it stops short before WWII, though).
   
   
2. Read the following books:
   
   

• Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate
  
• Jonathan Schneer's The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
  
• Scott Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East
  
• James Barr's A Line in the Sand: The Anglo-French Struggle for the Middle East, 1914-1948, and
  
• Hillel Cohen's Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1929 and Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948.
  
  I hope this will help you understand the conflict. Have a enlightening read~!
  

"A History of Islamic Societies" by Ira M. Lapidus is an excellent survey of this field. It does a good job of addressing the more prevalent themes without getting bogged down in esotericism. Here is a link to amazon where you can get it for around $35 (Canadian). Hope that helps! Cheers.

I would recommend you to read a good book about Israel, for example A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time by Howard M. Sachar and base your opinions on solid historical facts.

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East is a good summary of Carter-to-present.

Yeah, the immediate negative reaction to "Western science" has more to do with many Muslims around the world having a bad taste in their mouths regarding the West in general (can't blame them, Europe did invade and carve up their nations).

Here's a few good books to look into:

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Challenge-History-Lectures-Series/dp/0300159110/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1404626540&sr=8-3&keywords=islam+science

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Enduring-Scientists-Thinkers/dp/1426202806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404626582&sr=8-1&keywords=lost+history

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Islamic-History-Firas-Alkhateeb/dp/1849043973/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390934800&sr=8-1&keywords=lost+islamic+history

Or what about the allegations that Reagan and Bush negotiated with Iran to keep the American hostages until after the election against Carter?

https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890

It has always been suspicious to me that they were released upon Reagan's inauguration. The Iran-Contra scandal was also consistent with the allegations.

Oh right, the same scandal covered up by William Barr.

Martin Lings is great! Also, if you're looking for a book that doesn't delve too much into the history of Islam's theological development but discusses Islamic history throughout the ages and Islam's impact on the world, Lost Islamic History by Firas Alkhateeb is gold!

1. (a) Source Of The Submitted Link: #2j at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/duwoo9d
   
   - Another link with some of/all of the excerpt: https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890
   
   - The excerpt is in the "CONCLUSIONS" chapter (page 208) in the book titled "October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan" by Gary Sick, published in 1991.
   
   (b) "'The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019' by Daniel P. Sheehan, Class/Lecture #11, 7 May 2019, 'Investigating the Investigation': Listen to Mr. Sheehan explain 'this dance' and 'the law schools' and 'this club' in the United States of America -- start at 52:20 (52 minutes and 20 seconds).": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/boouxv/the_trajectory_of_justice_in_america_2019_by/eniray0 (via https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m)
   
   Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEj2n_n7Gxc&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=12&t=0s
   
   Source For #1: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   
   
2. "A la France" by André Chénier (born in 1762, died in 1794)
   
   (a) "A LA FRANCE." (page 241, "HYMNES." "I.") in the book "POÉSIES DE ANDRÉ CHÉNIER, PRÉCÉDÉES D'UNE NOTICE PAR M. H. DE LATOUCHE" published in 1840 ("PARIS." "CHARPENTIER, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR" "RUE DE SEINE."): http://archive.org/details/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog
   
   PDF: http://archive.org/download/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf and http://ia802607.us.archive.org/8/items/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf
   
   (b) "A la France": https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
   
   Source: https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier
   
   English translation via Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
   
   
   
3. Read https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/asnmu1/washingtons_paralysis_requires_a_constitutional/egvet2g
   
   Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m

A really interesting book I read on Saudi Arabia once, On Saudi Arabia. Worth a read for anyone interested in learning more about the Kingdom.

The Modern Middle East is by far the best and most concise book I have read on the subject.

>but not with multiple different books.

You're out of luck then, your only hope at getting a solid basic understanding is reading at the bare minimum a few. I'd suggest reading one focusing on the Islamic State/AQI, one focusing on the Kurdish situation including Turkey and the PKK, one on the civil war (rebels vs regime), and one about the conflict in general.

Couple of recommendations

The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East

Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in the Syrian Kurdistan

The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency

If you really wanted to learn about the conflict, I would suggest reading two books. One pro-Israel, and one pro-Palestinian. That way you get a better understanding of both sides. I recently read The Case for Israel, and it gives really good arguments against many Palestinian arguments, but it is much better if you already have a lot of background knowledge about the conflict.

Do you mean The Modern Middle East: A History by Oxford University Press? I agree with you that I am looking for more of a textbook than a particular POV. In fact, I have been reading up on Wikipedia over the past few days.

"The Israel Lobby" sounds interesting. Will take a look once I understand the basics.

America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History

You're just ignoring the history. Why did any of this happen in the first place...western involvement dating back over 100 years. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Go read a book. Here's a good one](https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Middle-East-History/dp/0199766053)

Europe

Its a geopolitical history of the continent, not a social one. Not much on say, slavery, but a lot on shifting alliances and battles for position or power.


Private Empire: Exxon-Mobile and American Power

Big Oil & US foreign policy

Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present

goes into the difference between regular wars and guerrilla wars, sort of a history with tons of short chapters focusing on different wars, starts with Rome vs the jewish rebels

Sigh... sorry man. I want to keep going with this but you just don't know what you're talking about. You're just repeating "anti-war" rhetoric. My point is that if we had taken the "anti-war" route things would be worse for the Middle East.

Anyway, read "The Bomb in my Garden", or read this review of it. Or read Republic of Fear if you actually want to know something about Iraq.

I read this book by Howard Sachar in a course I took in college, though it covers the era immediately preceding the foundations of the modern state of Israel. It seemed pretty fair to me, but then I grew up in an evangelical Christian household where Israel could do no wrong. He also wrote a book about the modern state. While I haven't read it, it does look promising.

This looks like another good one and probably has a better mix of Israeli and Palestinian perspectives. Pricey, though :(.

This book is really thorough.

I've read great things about Andrew Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. It was just released a few months ago so I'm hoping it will help me better understand current events and Obama's presidency.

Also, I thought his book American Empire was interesting, which he published in 2002. Bacevich is, by the way, a conservative. I don't want to misrepresent his ideas, so I encourage you to read the book. But there's an idea I marked that I'll quote.

> When it comes to the fundamentals of U.S. policy...continuities loom large...In practice, Clinton and his advisers drew on basic ideas that Bush (41) and his team had already put in play and that, indeed, formed the received wisdom of American statecraft accumulated across a century or more.

> In that regard, five ideas stand out—each one embraced by Bush, each figuring in Clinton’s rearticulation of U.S. strategy: the identification of interdependence as the dominant reality of international politics; a commitment to advancing the cause of global openness; an emphasis on free trade and investment as central to that strategy and a prerequisite for prosperity at home; a belief in the necessity of American hegemony—while avoiding any actual use of that term; and frequent reference to the bugbear of “isolationism” as a means of disciplining public opinion and maintaining deference to the executive branch in all matters pertaining to foreign relations.

edit: i didn't mention the arab spring, as for that, i recalled a passage from a theory of international terrorism (free pdf can be found online)

> If Islamic political parties were allowed to contest elections, they are feared to win elections on anti-US and anti-Israel platforms.13 In Jordan and Egypt, for example, anti-Israel religious parties would easily sweep freely held general elections. If democratically elected Islamic parties come to power, they would denounce the peace treaties with Israel and adopt anti-US foreign policies. Knowing this, Israelis see an existential threat in democratization of the Muslim world. Since US national interests may diverge from those of Israel, a democratic Muslim world may drive a wedge between Israel and the US. If the US were to sacrifice its own interests for the sake of preserving the US-Israel alliance, a democratic Muslim world would be further estranged from the US. In either case, free democ- racy in the Middle East would pose new challenges to US military, security, and economic interests in the world. To avoid these developments, both the US and Israel support a distorted notion of democracy that suppresses religious parties from contesting elections and assuming power.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404223942&sr=8-1&keywords=seige+at+mecca

Read that.

> is link to a conspiracy website about how Reagan fixed the election and...

The site is the web site of a prize-winning journalist who has written for some of the largest corporate mass media in the country. The journalist/author in question broke many of these stories and stories about the Iran-Contra scandal.

The claim is not that Reagan "fixed" the election. You're constructing a straw man to obscure.

The October Suprise claim is that Reagan and Bush were traitors and worked to undermine Carter's efforts of freeing the hostages held by Iran (their freeing would have given Carter an "October Surprise" boost in the polls just before the Nov. elections).

What do we know as unequivocal facts about this?

• Years after the election, President Carter stated in a Playboy magazine interview that during the election he had intelligence that Reagan-Bush were in negotiations with the Iranians. Carter said he couldn't do anything about it because he'd be seen as a spoilsport/crybaby, and he would leave it to history to judge.
  
  
• Carter's Nat'l Security Advisor, Gary Sick, has written and said that Reagan-Bush cut a deal with the Iranians.
  
  
• Both Russian (then-USSR) and French intelligence reported meetings between members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and Iranians in Paris.
  
  
• Years after he was out of office, the former President of Iran at that time publicly said that both Carter and Reagan-Bush were trying to cut a deal to free the embassy hostages that Iran held. He bluntly said that he took the deal that was best for Iran -- that offered by Reagan-Bush.
  
  
• Iran held the hostages on a plane on a runway until minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president. Iran then allowed the hostages to go free.
  
  
• After Reagan took office, Israel started shipping American weapons and spare parts to Iran (we know because one flight crashed); such weapons were desperately needed because Saddam Hussein's Iraq had attacked Iran.
  
  
• Years after he was president, Reagan cut other deals trading "arms for hostages" with Iran (in this case, hostages held in Lebanon). (These arms-for-hostage trades are typically swept under the rug with the label of "Iran-Contra".)
  
  There is no debate on those points. Those items are all easily referenced, unequivocal facts.
  
  Given those facts and what the journalist cites in the link provided, it is patently obvious that the Reagan-Bush election team arranged a deal with Iran to keep Americans held hostage by a hostile foreign power -- a traitorous act.
  
  "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." US President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987. ("Facts" and "evidence" are such pesky things.)
  
  Edit: Clarity.

A history of Israel: from the rise of Zionism to our time gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the whole conflict and really help me understand it a lot better. But beware the book is about 1000 pages long so you should only read it if you enjoy purely historical literature.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Israel-From-Rise-Zionism/dp/0375711325

Hey, I got some recommendations for you!


The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Almaz's story and a redditor's comment.


As for myself, I am currently reading On Saudi Arabia by Karen Elliott House.

Yes because Wahhabis exist within and subvert the governmental structure it does not mean the government supports terrorists. There have been digressions in the past but they are most certainly not colluding with ISIS, as a government. It's a very complicated theocratic, monarchistic structure.

Saudi Arabia has been victim to plenty of terror attacks.

>Yes their population is ultra conservative but they don't want to spread terrorism worldwide like the Saud family does.

You literally have it precisely fucking backwards. I try not to swear but this is insane. Read some literature on the subject.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Saudi-Arabia-People-Religion-Lines/dp/0307473287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496609398&sr=8-1&keywords=elliott+saudi

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

Try this one:

https://www.amazon.com/History-Israel-Rise-Zionism-Time/dp/0375711325/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0375711325&pd_rd_r=GT7ZNFWCZ9F3CC1DF5SJ&pd_rd_w=hWSc0&pd_rd_wg=dQNrU&psc=1&refRID=GT7ZNFWCZ9F3CC1DF5SJ

yes i know about the mosque seizure , you can read this book The siege of mecca

>Also in December of 1979, the Soviet Union, an atheist state, invaded Afghanistan, an Islamic state.
Why do all of these tie in together?

and hence the saudis pakis and umerikans created the taliban

but pliss to tell me how is this guy a reformer ? and a great ruler ? and why the fuck should we mourn for this buffon ?

I would point you to this book. It's a great read that explains in detail why Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to achieve its regional goals. The conclusion argues that West has been itching to go to war with Iran and they are trying to scare the public into backing one. Iran knows this and they know that any action that could be seen as attempting to achieve weapons capability would be all the west needs to go in and destroy them. Contrary to popular opinion, Iran is a rational actor on the world stage unlike those who argue that they are willing to die if it meant taking down their "enemies."

http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8

This is a really good book on the subject.

ETA: I just got to that part of the podcast and had no idea this was the book he was referencing. This was a REALLY good book if you want to understand the roots of modern Islamic terrorism. The Saudis used French special forces and American pilots because none of the Saudis could do either. The Saudi military used American gear a REALLY buttfucked Mecca, like using TOW missiles against snipers in minarets.

I'd recommend One Palestine, Complete.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Palestine-Complete-British-Mandate/dp/0805065873

It covers how the Middle-East was split up after WW1 and looks into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Most of my knowledge comes from a college class on Middle Eastern history. I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Modern-Middle-East-History/dp/0199766053. It's refreshingly unbiased.

Read James Gelvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War

Also, this MERIP page is a good starter.

>I don't recall stumbling, though I do recall the chore of responding to someone who was being needlessly belligerent. As to why I indicated that the US was waging aggressive war, I did so because it is, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, neither the Taliban nor the Ba'ath party, declared war or initiated military hostility against the US.
Now we can say, "sure, but they were doing lots of naughty things the US didn't like," but that means very little in a world in which the one of the countries most actively engaged in doing non-war things that other countries do not like is the US.

Certainly you have a point in that overt military hostility was not probably apparent although it could be contested by the Taliban support of ALQ I would say the case there is much stronger than in regards to Iraq even if they were targeting the UN Jets in the north at the same time.

But again this here dichotomy arises in your argument you level against me: Either you fully support all US motives and rhetoric or you are against it all and the implications.

Its simply a false dichotomy: You can't say that someone must have been for Vietnam if they were for a post-Saddam Iraq in 2003. Therefore they are morally abhorrent. Its just frivolous reasoning.

Geneva convention states: Acts of genocide once evidence is found for must be prevented or if impossible punished. This is not some arbitrary reasoning to impose hegemonic rule. No one forced the US to sign the Geneva conventions yet they were in flagrant violation of it for leaving Saddam in power.

This is why Turkey and other nations allied do not want to admit to the Armenian genocide for instance because it opens up possibilities and obligations of litigation against the perpetrators who were a part of the official government.

You can decide for yourself which case is stronger--righting a flagrant wrong in reinstalling Saddam Hussein who was in direct violation of UN treaties and conventions. Or maintaining the status quo

>Interesting that when discussing whether or not the US should have invaded you get all realpolitik and suggest that the casualties of the war don't matter because the goals were worthy, but suddenly when actually detailing the direct known consequences of that same war, you want to pretend that the US has no or little responsibility for them.

Well if you want to have comfortable talking points of the likes of "Most casualties are caused by Coalition forces" you would simply be wrong its not to excuse or justify any criminal violence by stating facts of the matter.

And to the contrary the goals do matter because of the casualties of the disastrous policy before it which you have not taken into account.

"Estimates of excess deaths of children during the sanctions range from 100,000[7] to over 500,000.[8]" - Wiki

Those are only the numbers from the period where UN sanctions were leveled on the Iraqi people while Saddam built kingly palaces in the 18 provinces from 1991. Add al-Anfal and the Iran-Iraq war and you have well over a million dead Iraqis...

How many lives is it worth to waste to not reverse policy and intervene in a situation the US created? How many until you feel compelled to just say "Stop okay! You cannot murder your own citizens! People in the government before may have sat idly by but that time is over"

It's a personal answer but maybe you will see where I'm coming from

>I don't have to justify anything with my criticism. You've yet to support your initial claims

Well okay... I hope I've listed some reasons for my initial thoughts above

>You seem to misunderstand. You argument are not emotive because they are gruesome in detail, or because they are false, but because they seek an emotional reaction while explicitly failing to put that reaction in full context. If I went on and on about the children lying in hospitals with no limbs because of bombs dropped by US planes, without detailing the context of why that bombing took place and why that outcome might be preferable to the alternative, I would be making an emotive argument. You would be right, in that case, to set aside your emotional response to a maimed child who has been walking on their way to school when their life was destroyed by a "carefully targeted" bomb in favor of an analytical approach to exactly why the children were maimed and what would have taken place without the maiming. I'm only asking that you support your arguments, that isn't a lot to ask for.

Well since you think the Baath party and a well known dictator and criminal Saddam should be given the benefit of the doubt that's on you. I'm in no mood to have to force feed you well known information and history for you to see my point. I could kind of see how Halabja was analytical and can be contextualized... But that's only really through racism against Kurds :/

>This isn't how debate works. If you don't understand that the burden of proof is always on the individual making the claim, we can't build any kind of substantive discussion. Until you can at least acknowledge this very simple and widespread principle of philosophy and logic, I can't proceed.

Well of course you are correct on the burden of proof. But to me it's like arguing with a creationist who refuses to go to a natural history museum for his proof. I could try and bring the 'museum' to you but I think it will be disheartening if the only objection you can come up with is that the invaded regime's were simply being misunderstood and not "contextualized" enough against western hegemony. Not to sound rude but sometimes a spade is a spade :/

Edit: Recommended reading Republic of Fear (1989)

Even in the first Obama administration, Iran agreed to the terms of a deal negotiated on behalf of the US by Brazil and Turkey according to which Iran would have exported its enriched uranium in the hopes of receiving the reactor fuel it had been denied, only to see the Obama administration pull the rug out from under them AFTER Iran had said yes to the deal, upsetting the Brazilians and Turks so much they publicized the letter Obama had written to them just a week earlier endorsing the same terms that Iran had agreed to

http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_brazil-reveals-obama-letter-in-spat-over-iran-nuclear-deal_211443.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen.html

One American expert on Iran affairs, noted that the very day after Iran had agreed to these terms, the US proceeded to impose yet more sanctions on Iran

http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/611735702/giving-the-finger-to-iran-and-turkey-and

The Bush administration had started out imposing an unrealistic and illegal demand called "Zero Enrichment" -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/24/2823381/hawks-enrichment-war-iran/

which would have required Iran to give up her sovereign right as recognized by the NonProliferation Treaty to be able to make their own reactor fuel (which thanks to US sanctions, Iran was not able to import as usual.) This was a deliberate policy of the Bush admin, to prevent any deal by making demands that no country would accept.

The second Obama admin eventually dropped the zero enrichment demand, http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-backed-key-u-s-shift-toward-iran-nuclear-deal-1441753099?mod=rss_US_News

and thus signaled that it is willing to actually resolve the nuclear issue, which is what we're seeing today.

The significance of this is not in the details of the nuclear deal itself, but in that the US and Iran are POSSIBLY finding ways to get along rather than continuing towards a conflict.

That's why there are many forces opposed to such a deal and insist that the US and Iran should not be talking but that the US should be attacking Iran instead, including Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in the US which has been pushing for a war for a while now.

http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam

There are others who say that the US should not listen to the Israelis and should instead "Go to Iran" just as Nixon "went to China" and decided to open up relations with those countries rather than continue the emnity.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530

So you see the nuclear issue is not really about nukes but is just a part of a larger political dispute. There are no Iranian nukes just as there were no Iraqi WMDs.

To make up for the lack of evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program in the past, the issue is instead framed as concern about Iran's "capability" to make nukes in the indefinite future.

In reality, Iran's "capability" to make nukes is hardly unique -- 40 nations were already capable of quickly making nukes if they wanted to, back 10 years ago. More now, presumably.

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html

That's because the "capability" to make nukes comes with becoming technologically developed, not because these 40 nations want to make nukes. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There is a significant difference: the capability to make nukes is not illegal but the media coverage obfuscates this significant difference. In fact the NonProliferation Treaty is actually also intended to promote nuclear technology (which has to be shared "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination") -- thus having the "capability" to make nukes is not a violation of the NPT but actually an inevitable part of following the NPT.

The US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that while Iran was engaged in "nuclear-related studies" until 2003 (for which the actual evidence is very questionable - more below) there's no sign they're interested in nukes now -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

a conclusion that the Israelis agreed with, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

The Russians noted there was no evidence of nukes either http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/10/iran.russia

There's no reason to just assume that Iran wants nukes either http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802

There's zero evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program, ever.

>Despite growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate, and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran, diplomats here said. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Most-U-S-tips-fingering-Iran-false-envoys-2646358.php

According to IAEA Director Elbaradei:

>I have been making it very clear that with regard to these alleged studies, we have not seen any use of nuclear material, we have not received any information that Iran has manufactured any part of a nuclear weapon or component. That’s why I say, to present the Iran threat as imminent is hype. http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2009/10/elbaradei-interview-language-of-force.html

And

>With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-sb-idUSTRE58G60W20090917

and

>The IAEA is not making any judgment at all whether Iran even had weaponisation studies before because there is a major question of authenticity of the documents. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article28114.ece

Even the new, US-backed IAEA Director

>The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms. "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/03/us-nuclear-iaea-iran-exclusive-idUSL312024420090703

and lets remember that Iran has bent over backwards and has actually allowed more inspections than legally required, in addition to suspending enrichment of uranium entirely for more than 2 years in the past, and currently.

>"Any country, I think, would be rather reluctant to let international inspectors to go anywhere in a military site," Mr. Blix told Al Jazeera English about Parchin in late March. "In a way, the Iranians have been more open than most other countries would be." http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0420/Iran-s-Parchin-complex-Why-are-nuclear-inspectors-so-focused-on-it

Konflikten mellan Israel och Palestina är långt mer mångfacetterad (boktips) än så, så det är ett dåligt exempel. Jag skulle för övrigt vara väldigt intresserad av att se ditt resonemang bakom hur religion var orsaken till t ex Andra världskriget, eller något annat av de krig som tagit flest människoliv.

This is my favorite book on Mandatory Palestine: One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Segev was a journalist for Ha'aretz and he writes incredibly engaging social history as only a journalist can.

/u/gingerkid1234 did a fantastic job summarizing the political developments in the 20s, 30s and 40s, but if you want some social history from the period, I like Segev.

EDIT: Ignore the 3.5 star rating on Amazon: most of the 1 star reviews are from people who are pissed off that Segev wrote a book with "Palestine" in the title. The book is very solid, and the history is very good. It's not chronological political history, but you will have a feel for what life was like.

People like writer and former CIA agent Bob Baer have been advocating dropping the Gulf Arabs states for some time as allies. They treat us like shit and fund terrorism, not mention they are all despotic assholes perfectly comfortable with slavery. In one of his books he advocates moving towards Iran as the dominant regional power and makes a decent case for why an alliance with them might make more sense. With how the fight against ISIS is progressing, I've been wondering if he isn't on to something.

Fairly balanced and objective:

The Palestinian People: A History

The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land

Israeli Perspective:

The Case For Israel by Prof. Alan Deshowitz

Palestinian perspective:

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Prof. Rashid Khalidi

>The palestinians?
I do not hate the Palestinians, simple enough? I believe that they have a claim to some of the pie, but not all of it.

>Israel wasn't a country. The jews that are in Israel are foreigners. So what exactly is your point? The people who lived in that land do not count, but hordes of jews from around the world have claim to that land? You are just making bullshit palestine-denial statement. Your argument is no different than saying the holocaust never happened. You are a joke.

Did I ever say that Palestinians should have no land? I think they do, I prefer a two state solution. 30% of the population was Jewish pre 1946 Are you saying that they deserve no land? At the bar minimum the Jews deserve 30% of the land.

>How "generous" of them. Why should palestinians give up half their land?

If they want peace. That land was concurred fair and square; should we return all of Canada and the US to the natives then? Its a done deal, it happened over 70 years ago. Israel has built an oasis of democracy and technology in a desert, no small feat.

I have already established that Israel has legitimate claim to a portion of the land, a fact that you seem to deny.

>There were plenty of jews helping the nazis during the holocaust also.

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

>What's your point? Holy shit, people like you are the first to whine about holocaust denial and yet the first to use the same tactics to push your bigotry.

I am not quite sure the relevance. The Jews are not systematically killing the Palestinians. If you are not aware of the fact that they are very capable of wiping the Gaza strip and associated territories off the map, you are willfully ignorant.

>Yes. It's called Israel...

A good portion of the land was already owned by the jews. Plenty of arabs live in Israel peacefully, and get to keep their homes and citizenships. They enjoy all the advantages of an advanced democracy. So what is the difference between them and those who live in the gaza strip?

>That's so pathetic. That's like whining that the jews do not live nicely with neo-nazis and therefore jews don't deserve sympathy.

Your on the losing side of history. There is no scenario where Israel does not exist. I would refer you to read a lovely written book called the case for Israel which I am not doing justice.

Keep in mind that Israel was a jewish state over a thousand years ago. It was the surrounding arabs, driven by the pogroms which sent them into Europe. If you can say the Palestinians have a right to that land, because it was initially there's; then you must see the Jews are entitled by the same logic.

I don't think you are pathetic. I respect your opinion. World history is brutal and unfair, I get that.

The problem with your side is that you are unwilling to accept a two state solution. The majority of Israel supporters favor a two state solution, while the Palestinians want the who place to be Palestine. The major difference is that they do not have the arms do make those dreams a reality. They are not proponents of technology are dictated by a tyrannical theocracy which is anti science. For that reason, freedom will always win out against those who wish to oppress it. In this case the lines are blurred. Many innocent people are being caught up in the mess. Jews killing arabs, arabs killing jews. Its just a shame, more pointless blood shed in the quagmire that is the middle east.

Israel is the only nation in the area that supports womens rights, homosexual rights, and democracy. Don't get me started on the clumsy democracies that are Egypt and Turkey. There is an actual separation between religion and state, and people are allowed to live freely without the threat of governmental violence. You can be a Christian, Muslim or jew and live in Israel, granted it is harder to get citizenship if you are not Jewish. But it is also fairly hard to get citizenship in most western nations.

Why are you so obsessed with destroying this beacon of democracy, this one country which is at peace with itself where we have civil war and strife all around it? Civil war in Syria, civil unrest in Syria and Lebanon. People actually want to live in Israel, they are not trying to move to Canada to claim refugee status.

*Why does Egypt not take these people in? Why do they not support the Palestinian cause?

Just some food for thought. Religion is good and all, but once it mixes with politics it becomes messy. Just look at the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, or ISIS in Iraq and ISIL in Syria?

I've got Howard M. Sachar's A History of Israel and Ilan Pappe's A History of Modern Palestine. So far so good.

e: Shlomo Ben-Ami's Scars of War, Wounds of Peace looks promising, too.

You're welcome

This book is an excellent resource on the topic.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid By Jimmy Carter (of presidential fame) is a pretty good overview of the history of it all. He comes down pretty harshly on Israel iirc. The information is all there and he has a very unique perspective to share and personal stories that you can't get elsewhere.

Iran never betrays their allies unlike the US. They always support their allies no matter what, look at their support for Hezbollah - even while they were fighting a dificult battle with IDF, Hamas - despite being heavily outgunned by israel and Iran not achieving much by supporting them, Syria - even when it looked like Damascus would fall and the Syrian government will never win. Iran has always been consistent and in more cases than not turn out to be successful because of their perseverance. Check out former CIA operative Robert Baer's book about Iran; The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower

Because Saddam Hussein. If you agree that WW 2 was necessary to stop the holocaust against the Jews, you must accept that Iraq was necessary to stop cleansing of Shia and ethnic cleansing of Kurds. I've yet to meet anyone that has argued or would argue that the US and allied forces should not have gotten involved to stop the holocaust.

The exact extent of the murders in Iraq is still not fully known. The records were destroyed. However, the number of mass graves we've found proves demonstrably that mass killings took place in the hundreds of thousands, and there is no way to know how many we've missed. 1 million would be conservative based on all available evidence.

If you don't understand how Iraq was necessary, then you need to study the history of Iraq starting with the rise of the Baath party with the help of the CIA and the foolishly abandoned Gulf War. That war should have been fought--to the end--back in the early '90s, and Hussein should have met his fate at the hands of an international court for crimes against humanity.

Read this and make up your own mind. But Iraq was necessary, and the only types of people that could claim otherwise are sociopaths and the ignorant.

https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Modern-Updated/dp/0520214390

One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, by Tom Segev

http://www.amazon.com/One-Palestine-Complete-British-Mandate/dp/0805065873

"Tom Segev is one of Israel's most notable historians and journalists--one of the few to strive for any sense of objectivity in his writings--so a new book by him is always worth waiting for. One Palestine, Complete is a detailed account of Palestine under British rule from 1917 to 1948, the critical period in the modern history of the region that led up to the creation of the state of Israel. Segev begins by carefully detailing Britain's well-known inconsistencies in dealing with both the Jews and the Arabs--to both of whom it had appeared to promise, if not the world, at least the country after independence was granted--and goes on to make a convincing case that because Palestine fell into the category of an emotional rather than self-interested colonial possession, the Brits hoped the situation would unwind to everyone's advantage."

How would we do that, if I may ask? Sorry, I am forced to downvote your comment since it is extremely vague as it stands now. Do explain your position further. I will subject it to scrutiny and cross examination. If it passes my scrutiny, I will give you an upvote.

Nonetheless, I doubt that would work.

The Mutazilites in the 11th century tried to promote a slightly less literal interpretation of Islam. They were brutalized and killed and their books burned by the Asharites. Do read the following book when you get the chance:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Closing-Muslim-Mind-Intellectual/dp/1610170024

It has also been documented by economists that Muslim terrorists are not poor and uneducated as some in the media and the ruling elite would like the rest of us hoi polloi to believe. Do read the following when you get the chance:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Terrorist-Economics-Terrorism/dp/0691138753/

Afghanistan and Iran were much more liberal once than they are now. Islam crushed liberalism there.

Something seems to be fundamentally problematic with Islam as opposed to any other religion.

What do you think?

Read this then tell me Iraq wasn't a hellhole. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Politics-Updated-Edition/dp/0520214390

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Israel-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0471679526

I do my research. Palestine kills more civilians than Israel. Most of the deaths caused by Israel are Hamas fighters.

If you look into its history you realize most of the "facts" pushed by academia are false. The firs wave of Jewish immigrants came in 1880 (the first Aliyah). Most of the land they settled was bought from absent land owners and real estate speculators. After the First World War the British decided to give them their own land within the Arab state (treaty of Balfour). At this point the European Jews stated coming due to Russian persecution. After the Second World War the British tried to set up a two independent states. This failed and culminated with the Yum Kippur War where Syria and Eygpt invaded. While Israel won, the gave all the land back they gained, which is unprecedented for a defensive war. In 2000, the Prime minster Barak tried to make a deal with Arafat by giving Palestine its own state with a capital in Jerusalem and 30 billion in reparations. Arafat turned it down because he perfected War.

TL;DR Israel is a nation of returning Jewish immigration and has made multiple attempts at peace.