Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 224

On September 11 2014 09:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
This civil war has been a 3-year military coup in the making, joined by tens of thousands of barbaric Islamic extremists from every corner of the world where people think anything positive of Mohammad. I hate to accept it but I think Syria as a nation will not be in a good place within the next 6 years.

For Iraq on the other hand, there is a huge possibility to go one way or the other. The two greatest threats to stability in Iraq are 1) the Islamic State, and 2) Iran. The Islamic State is obvious why. With Iran, their influence and backing is literally what inspires all the crazy asshole Shiite clerics and terrorists who keep violence and sectarianism at the social and political levels alive and well, almost as well as former dictator Maliki did. The Iranians are entirely up to no good and like the Islamic State, they must be stopped.

I believe the only solution is to sanction and undermine terrorist nations in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar who are responsible for almost all the backbone and power that Islamic terrorist organizations have. It is the only way to bring stability and prosperity once again to places like Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast.

Also, I saw a pretty good AMA and also an interview with Tim Arango, The New York Times’s Baghdad bureau chief, discussing the current situation in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/world/middleeast/tim-arango-iraq-reddit-questions.html (contains link to the AMA)
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347391620/islamic-state-was-fueled-by-epic-american-failure-in-iraq-reporter-says

On September 11 2014 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]


You just love Iran :D rly dude very thread about this subject (terrorism, middle east) you talk about your disdain for Iran.

On September 11 2014 09:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
This civil war has been a 3-year military coup in the making, joined by tens of thousands of barbaric Islamic extremists from every corner of the world where people think anything positive of Mohammad. I hate to accept it but I think Syria as a nation will not be in a good place within the next 6 years.

For Iraq on the other hand, there is a huge possibility to go one way or the other. The two greatest threats to stability in Iraq are 1) the Islamic State, and 2) Iran. The Islamic State is obvious why. With Iran, their influence and backing is literally what inspires all the crazy asshole Shiite clerics and terrorists who keep violence and sectarianism at the social and political levels alive and well, almost as well as former dictator Maliki did. The Iranians are entirely up to no good and like the Islamic State, they must be stopped.

I believe the only solution is to sanction and undermine terrorist nations in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar who are responsible for almost all the backbone and power that Islamic terrorist organizations have. It is the only way to bring stability and prosperity once again to places like Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast.

Also, I saw a pretty good AMA and also an interview with Tim Arango, The New York Times’s Baghdad bureau chief, discussing the current situation in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/world/middleeast/tim-arango-iraq-reddit-questions.html (contains link to the AMA)
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/10/347391620/islamic-state-was-fueled-by-epic-american-failure-in-iraq-reporter-says

On September 11 2014 10:19 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Dude, their infinite support for Islamic radicals and terrorist organizations comprises much of the problems plaguing Iraq since 2003. And considering Iran is very much related to terrorism and events in the Mideast, I think it's very important to discuss. And trust me, I don't dislike Iran at all. Especially not the people. However, the nation is led by a pariah regime whose sole focus is to create terrorism and undermine stability and peace in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Along with regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is the root of the Mideast's problems.

On September 11 2014 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]


You just love Iran :D rly dude very thread about this subject (terrorism, middle east) you talk about your disdain for Iran.

On September 11 2014 10:27 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]

Sure.. but western countries do the same, the tools are just different. You see russia doing the same and annexing land, you see america building bases everywhere , funding terrorists and whoever they want to reach their goals.

On September 11 2014 10:19 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Dude, their infinite support for Islamic radicals and terrorist organizations comprises much of the problems plaguing Iraq since 2003. And considering Iran is very much related to terrorism and events in the Mideast, I think it's very important to discuss. And trust me, I don't dislike Iran at all. Especially not the people. However, the nation is led by a pariah regime whose sole focus is to create terrorism and undermine stability and peace in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Along with regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is the root of the Mideast's problems.

On September 11 2014 10:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
I'm very well aware of American imperialism and Russian border security conflicts. But this thread is about the Mideast, specifically Iraq and Syria, and while the US and Russia do not make it their primary focus to back Islamic terrorists to cause as much death and destruction as possible (if you want to get nitpicky, the US supports Islamic terrorists like most recently in Libya when it serves their political interests, not to enhance Islamism), rogue regimes in nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar do.

On September 11 2014 11:00 redviper wrote:
[quote]

There is 0% chance that Iran is backing ISIL. Or that Iran backed Al-Qaida.

On September 11 2014 11:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]


Well Iran backed Syria (pretty secular for middle east standards) , They back hezbollah in lebanon.. they aren't anything like isis and the Lebanese government is pretty secular as well...

On September 11 2014 11:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]

I never said that. But they sure as hell back tons of Shiite radical groups within Iraq, Hezbollah, the Syrian regime, and others. Don't attack strawmen please if you can't make an actual point in response.

[quote]
They back Assad because he's Shiite, not for any other reason. He's also a brutal dictator. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and is strongly demeaning the particular secularism and Westernism that Lebanon is known for. The various radical Shiite groups in Iraq that Iran backs to the hilt are terrorist organizations known for many acts of terrorism and brutality during the Iraq War and even back to the Iran-Iraq War. They backed Maliki, who was a sectarian and ruthless dictator.

Iran's record just looking at the current day and age is pretty shitty if you ask me.

On September 11 2014 11:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]

Saddam was also a brutal dictator and was backed by western powers.. havent' seen the iranians gazing people yet like Saddam did to the Kurds. When was the last time you heard about hezbollah causing trouble in Lebanon? Western record just looking at the current day and age is pretty bad if you ask me.

On September 11 2014 11:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, he was "backed" alright. They "backed" him so much that they destroyed the country and put a genocidal embargo in place followed by a very devastating war in what is possibly the most devastation the US has caused to any country in the last two centuries. They really backed him, alright. You're talking about Western record looking bad? There you have it. Saddam Hussein was literally the core stabilizing force in the Mideast, and led one of the few progressive nations in the continent until the embargo. Most of his brutality was during the Iran-Iraq War, against Shiite terrorist group and Kurdish insurgents, and most of it was on the basis of demonizing him for Gulf War propaganda. And I don't know about you, but fighting violent insurgents while fighting against a Muslim a lot crazier than bin Laden isn't too easy. Like Maliki was terribly murderous and brutal in peacetime on the basis that there were people who happened to be Sunni Muslims, but you don't hear about it too much since the propaganda machines didn't demonize him to all hell.

The Kurds in Iran or Syria, for example, haven't led violent insurgencies and murders during crucial times of war. There's a huge difference in that regard. The Kurdish radicals in Iraq (nor any Kurdish people) would not have been touched if they didn't feel it their duty to start fighting their own country while it battled Islamic history's greatest jihad. However, the whole issue regarding the Kurds was only made an issue of any kind to demonize Iraq following the Gulf War. There's the "Western record" you were looking for.

On September 11 2014 11:34 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]

Yeah the Kurds totally deserved to get gazed by Saddam. They backed him while he was useful and you can't deny that your beloved leader was a western backed dictator. Also regarding the "saddam was keeping the crazy islamits at bay" so was Assad, but for you he is just a brutal dictator. You forget the meddling of western powers in Iran that led to the islamic revolution. Just admit they all suck and don't try to defend the evil you like so much.

On September 11 2014 11:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Like I said, nothing would have happened to any Kurds if the radicals and terrorists didn't decide to make war against the state of Iraq. And I never said they deserved it. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're just digging a deeper hole. I think if there are insurgents within your country who are attacking your people, you don't just high-five them, especially when you're fighting the most hated and most determined Islamic extremist in the world at that time. The collateral was tragic but the entire focus was to eliminate Kurdish terrorists and traitors of the state. But like with American wars, collateral is inevitable when insurgents are hiding right in the midst of civilian populations. In fact, up until the Gulf War, defeating violent domestic insurgencies within Iraq like the pro-Iranian Shiite terrorists and Kurdish insurgents was backed by the West.

So you are against battling against violent insurgents, but ignoring the complete devastation of every fact of Iraq and deaths of millions of innocent people, completely undeserved, over a 20 year period? Great job mate.

I thought you condemned the "western record". Why are you supporting it now?

"My beloved leader"? You mean George Washington? What does he have to do with any of this? Not sure why you're bringing up 18th century figures, but whatever floats your boat. What you're making very clear though is you are absolutely in love with Islamist regimes and Islamic terrorists. I'm simply stating how things were and how they are now. I don't see how that has anything to do with supporting anything.
Stating the simple fact that there were entities in play that kept progress, secularism, and stability alive and well doesn't mean I love them. But if you want to go for ad hominems, go for it.


Assad was in bed with crazy Islamists. Ever heard of Iran? Lol.

Also, I am defending secularism and Western efforts in the present day to bring stability where Islamism is trying to take over. Is that so evil to you? So far, you are defending terrorism. You have damned the West. You have damned the fight against terrorists and Islamic extremism. I'm sorry mate, but the West and counter-terrorism are a lot less evil than you think. If you want to see evil, you should go give the Islamic State a visit.

On September 11 2014 11:54 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]


Dude stop trying to deflect im not trying to attack you or anything i don't care about you why would i waste time making personal attacks against you? lol. I'm expressing my opinion and pointing facts, you say Iran is the devil but i pointed out the fact that your beloved leader was the one using chemical weapons against civilians.


"So you are against battling against violent insurgents, but ignoring the complete devastation of every fact of Iraq and deaths of millions of innocent people, completely undeserved, over a 20 year period? Great job mate."

you are just 2 funny.. i was one of the few mentioning just that on this thread and i have talked to you about it as well (the sanctions, the wars,etc.. so stop pretending i don't know what you are talking about).

On September 11 2014 12:14 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
Dude, General Washington didn't use chemical weapons against anyone. You keep saying "beloved leader", and you're just making yourself look like a dolt since Washington is I guess the leader I prefer a million times over even my second place Roosevelt.
And to reiterate for the third time, I certainly do not support overkill suppression of insurgencies that includes thousands of civilian deaths as well, just the same as Iraq. To quote myself from my last post:
+ Show Spoiler +
But the Kurds fought like Hamas and Iraq War insurgents. Even if the Iraqi military, which had its hands entirely tied down pushing Khomeini into submission to accept peace at that stage of the war, did everything it could to prevent civilian deaths (which it didn't to a degree) you can't fight without civilians being at risk, especially when you're spearheading the fight with airstrikes and artillery. To put things in perspective, I can entirely assure you that all the God knows how many civilians who died as a result of American forces in Iraq were almost always collateral from heavy firepower like aircraft in zones fighting against enemy insurgents. If the US wanted to deliberately murder tons of people like many claim, Iraq would be severely depopulated. Fortunately, the US always had the resources available such that it never needed to go total overkill to quash insurgent positions, which allowed the minimization of civilian casualties.

But we're talking about the present-day. America knows it's fucked Iraq for 5-6 decades. America understands that the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast is largely a direct result of its actions since the 50s, and that includes the rise of the Islamic Republic in Iran we've been discussing, where we deposed a democratic regime to reinstall the brutal Shah that ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution.

So what is America doing now? It's supporting unity and prosperity in Iraq, which it sure as hell has not done before. This is 2014. The "Western record" is irrelevant, because the Western record in the today and now is doing everything right in the Mideast.

EDIT: I can tell your ass is extremely sore. I can't even say a regime was the paramount opponent to Islamic terrorism without you insisting it's my beloved leader. LOL. Yes Saddam was brutal, but you cited a poor example. There's much better examples of actual, unjustified brutality. But I have no idea why you keep on calling him my "beloved leader". It's ludicrous and comical.

But I don't see how this has anything to do to the fact I was originally discussing which was the fight against Islamic extremism and Iraq's critical role in that in the past. Then you went on completely random tangents to hate on the West.

Mate, I don't know how to break it to you, but at this point, you're at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. You are so deep, not even Adele can roll in you.