On September 26 2014 06:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:46 Nyxisto wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:22 pretender58 wrote:
On September 26 2014 05:27 Jormundr wrote:
On September 26 2014 04:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 26 2014 04:25 Jormundr wrote:
On September 26 2014 02:09 Nyxisto wrote: [quote] The US is actually supporting the fight against Boko Haram, so is France as well as many other countries.
Given the fact that the US will be a big net exporter of oil and gas very soon there is no basis in reality for the "we want to steal their oil, imperialism!11" argument.
Good article. I guess we're sending them bricks or maybe just several copies of 'How-To-Not-Create-A-Caliphate-For-Dummies'. Pretty sure that step one of that isn't murder Muslims en masse. You remember World War 2? Yeah that was started because your economy was trashed by the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler offered a return to greatness. Now, imagine that + the indignity of being slaughtered like pigs by the west and you have muslims in places currently exploited by us getting a wee bit prickly. But hey, throw more fuel on the fire.
Also, if it isn't about oil, it's about something equally or more valuable. We're not just dropping bombs on them for the hell of it. They are endangering something very valuable to the US (not Israel) and we (and most of the EU) have become very concerned. If we gave a shit about humanitarian concerns we would have went in when Assad was gassing his people, but we didn't. Now we're bombing the people we're supposedly liberating from teh evi1 ISIS in an ironic attempt to create the next ISIS.
Well i think they were trying to go there when Assad started gassing the syrian people but backed down. But tell me whats your solution to ISIS ? should the us just let them be?
Solution? Is there a problem? As far as I can tell there is no American soil in or around Syria + Iraq. As far as I can tell (judging by the current situation), the muslims don't take too kindly to us bombing them. I would say it is damn near impossible to form a logical argument that murdering innocent people in distant lands is going to ingratiate us with the population being murdered. Especially when we're just gonna pick up and leave in a few days.
A problem? An extremely aggressive and violent militant group of religious zealots armed with looted advanced weaponry, which is perfectly capable of genocides (see Yazidis or imagine Kobane falling). A group which furthermore draws extremists from all over the world to join their ranks, which in return pose a risk to their home country when coming back, and has repeatedly vowed to attack the US and other western countries as well as arabic nations. Better let them grow and spread, they ain´t no problem.
Also, your link doesn´show a graph unless you´re a premium member. Besides that, i don´t see how the the development of the "number of fatalities due to suicide attacks worldwide" can support your point?!
As of right now, "we" (the western world), are too heavily involved as to just retreat, lean back and watch. Whether the reasons why IS grew so strong are linked to earlier western activity in the region (Sykes-Picout, 2003 invasion etc.) is highly debatable. But, as a matter of fact, the situation in the Mid-East needs to be addressed and resolved, preferably by globally coordinated actions.
I don't think there's any debate. If we didn't put the first full embargo in history, on Iraq, for 12 years and then destroy them with war for 8 years, including the deposition of the entire military and government, ISIS would have been decimated the second they cropped up and Iraq would probably be one of the noticeably better-off countries in Asia today. Iraq was the premier anti-Islamist country before we destroyed it. It had no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic terrorists. It had a very organized and professional military, a non-sectarianized society, and a competent and effective bureaucracy, even during the embargo. All things that have not existed since 2003.
So yes, you are right in saying that the Western countries are responsible for the rise of ISIS, but it's not at all a matter of debate
The Syrian dictator is still breathing, it doesn't look much better than Iraq. The West has meddled with politics in Iran but largely the country has remained stable compared to its neighbours. There wars war in the middle-east a thousand years before "the West" and especially the US existed, and the Arab Spring was not a Western invention. I mean you can claim that the West may have caused this or that, but it's essentially meaningless because the idea that it would look better if we hadn't is a fantasy.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Syria was always an unstable and weak nation. Iraq was significantly more consolidated and stable, even during the embargo. It's like saying the USA would collapse because the USSR did. I guess if you were to impoverish and conquer the US, execute the government, disband the security forces, formulate ethnic tensions, then you'll have a shitton of chaos. Otherwise, I don't see that happening to the US any time soon.
Refrain from comparing apples and oranges. Also, we're talking about the modern era, not 1,000 years ago. Crazy Muslims from 1,000 years ago doesn't mean the continuation of a pre-2003 stable and powerful Iraq would have crushed crazy Muslims today, as they were very good at crushing Islamic extremists.
The only logical point you made in your argument is, "There are crazy Muslims today just as there were 1,000 years ago". Okay. So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.
Why? Because it does not fit into your worldview? Crazy muslims started conquests thousand years ago, they're doing it now and they probably still will in a thousand years. And how is Iraq a stable country? The country saw three coups in ten years (late 50's to 70's) and since its creation has had an extremely complicated ethnic constellation. There's nothing stable about the country.
So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.
It's relevant because people in this thread have advocated that if we stay out of it and let IS massacre children everything will be cool because we've created all the evil people in the first place. We haven't and thus we can at least try to save as much innocent life as possible.
You better keep an eye on the B-52s in the sky. Them crazy germans, startin conquests 'n genocides and all wasn't even 1000 years ago either might have to bomb em
Oh wait that's fucking stupid
You bombed the shit out of Nazi Germany and I'm thankful for it, I don't see your point. There's a lot to criticize about the US, but liberating Europe is not one of them.
On September 26 2014 06:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:46 Nyxisto wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 26 2014 06:22 pretender58 wrote:
On September 26 2014 05:27 Jormundr wrote:
On September 26 2014 04:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On September 26 2014 04:25 Jormundr wrote:
On September 26 2014 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:
On September 26 2014 01:58 Millitron wrote: [quote] Its more similar than you think. Those civilians are in the way of our imperialism.
The ONLY reason we care about ISIS is that they threaten to destabilize the oil market. There are other groups just as vile as ISIS in other regions of the world, like Boko Haram for instance, but no one cares because there's no oil there.
Terrorist is a buzzword, just like McCarthy's "Communist".
The US is actually supporting the fight against Boko Haram, so is France as well as many other countries.
Given the fact that the US will be a big net exporter of oil and gas very soon there is no basis in reality for the "we want to steal their oil, imperialism!11" argument.
Good article. I guess we're sending them bricks or maybe just several copies of 'How-To-Not-Create-A-Caliphate-For-Dummies'. Pretty sure that step one of that isn't murder Muslims en masse. You remember World War 2? Yeah that was started because your economy was trashed by the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler offered a return to greatness. Now, imagine that + the indignity of being slaughtered like pigs by the west and you have muslims in places currently exploited by us getting a wee bit prickly. But hey, throw more fuel on the fire.
Also, if it isn't about oil, it's about something equally or more valuable. We're not just dropping bombs on them for the hell of it. They are endangering something very valuable to the US (not Israel) and we (and most of the EU) have become very concerned. If we gave a shit about humanitarian concerns we would have went in when Assad was gassing his people, but we didn't. Now we're bombing the people we're supposedly liberating from teh evi1 ISIS in an ironic attempt to create the next ISIS.
Well i think they were trying to go there when Assad started gassing the syrian people but backed down. But tell me whats your solution to ISIS ? should the us just let them be?
Solution? Is there a problem? As far as I can tell there is no American soil in or around Syria + Iraq. As far as I can tell (judging by the current situation), the muslims don't take too kindly to us bombing them. I would say it is damn near impossible to form a logical argument that murdering innocent people in distant lands is going to ingratiate us with the population being murdered. Especially when we're just gonna pick up and leave in a few days.
A problem? An extremely aggressive and violent militant group of religious zealots armed with looted advanced weaponry, which is perfectly capable of genocides (see Yazidis or imagine Kobane falling). A group which furthermore draws extremists from all over the world to join their ranks, which in return pose a risk to their home country when coming back, and has repeatedly vowed to attack the US and other western countries as well as arabic nations. Better let them grow and spread, they ain´t no problem.
Also, your link doesn´show a graph unless you´re a premium member. Besides that, i don´t see how the the development of the "number of fatalities due to suicide attacks worldwide" can support your point?!
As of right now, "we" (the western world), are too heavily involved as to just retreat, lean back and watch. Whether the reasons why IS grew so strong are linked to earlier western activity in the region (Sykes-Picout, 2003 invasion etc.) is highly debatable. But, as a matter of fact, the situation in the Mid-East needs to be addressed and resolved, preferably by globally coordinated actions.
I don't think there's any debate. If we didn't put the first full embargo in history, on Iraq, for 12 years and then destroy them with war for 8 years, including the deposition of the entire military and government, ISIS would have been decimated the second they cropped up and Iraq would probably be one of the noticeably better-off countries in Asia today. Iraq was the premier anti-Islamist country before we destroyed it. It had no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic terrorists. It had a very organized and professional military, a non-sectarianized society, and a competent and effective bureaucracy, even during the embargo. All things that have not existed since 2003.
So yes, you are right in saying that the Western countries are responsible for the rise of ISIS, but it's not at all a matter of debate
The Syrian dictator is still breathing, it doesn't look much better than Iraq. The West has meddled with politics in Iran but largely the country has remained stable compared to its neighbours. There wars war in the middle-east a thousand years before "the West" and especially the US existed, and the Arab Spring was not a Western invention. I mean you can claim that the West may have caused this or that, but it's essentially meaningless because the idea that it would look better if we hadn't is a fantasy.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Syria was always an unstable and weak nation. Iraq was significantly more consolidated and stable, even during the embargo. It's like saying the USA would collapse because the USSR did. I guess if you were to impoverish and conquer the US, execute the government, disband the security forces, formulate ethnic tensions, then you'll have a shitton of chaos. Otherwise, I don't see that happening to the US any time soon.
Refrain from comparing apples and oranges. Also, we're talking about the modern era, not 1,000 years ago. Crazy Muslims from 1,000 years ago doesn't mean the continuation of a pre-2003 stable and powerful Iraq would have crushed crazy Muslims today, as they were very good at crushing Islamic extremists.
The only logical point you made in your argument is, "There are crazy Muslims today just as there were 1,000 years ago". Okay. So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.
Why? Because it does not fit into your worldview? Crazy muslims started conquests thousand years ago, they're doing it now and they probably still will in a thousand years. And how is Iraq a stable country? The country saw three coups in ten years (late 50's to 70's) and since its creation has an extremely complicated ethnic constellation. There's nothing stable about the country.
So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.
It's relevant because people in this thread have advocated that if we stay out of it and let IS massacre children everything will be cool because we've created all the evil people in the first place. We haven't and thus we can at least try to save as much innocent life as possible.
We didn't create the evil people, but we destroyed the people and organizations who did a great job of destroying them.
We didn't create ISIS, but we generated the environment for them to thrive. There would be no ISIS in Iraq if we didn't remove everything in Iraq that did a good job of keeping those nutjobs out. You seem to be entirely missing the point.
I see you've entirely shifted your argument from "We didn't do anything to influence the situation" to "We didn't create the jihadists". Well, obviously we didn't do the latter. We certainly had the paramount role in the former though.
You're also very ignorant. 3 coups, one of which was to establish the republic, one of which was organized by the CIA in '63, and another which was a bloodless hand-off of power more than anything else in '68. So the last time there was political instability was in '63 really. And following that, there was 40 years of political stability. Even in the late 50s and early 60s, there was still nothing even close to social collapse we've seen since 2003. Extremely complicated ethnic constellation? They got along pretty fine, even during the monarchy. There was a good degree of social stability especially by 3rd world standards. Also, there weren't coups in the 1970s... and ya know, even top Iraqi Christian leaders blame the US for all the bullshit that's happened since 2003, including the rise of ISIS. Why? Because the former Iraqi regime kept stability and order and put down jihadists the instant they came up.
So, you were saying?
But you're detracting from your original point: Please tell me how the US completely overthrowing the order in Iraq would not have changed anything in regards to ISIS. Because so far, you have made no argument besides talking about jihadists from 1,000 years ago.
There's nothing stable about the country.
Not anymore. But I was never talking about the present lol. And people say Americans are ignorant. XD
On September 26 2014 07:11 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But you're detracting from your original point: Please tell me how the US completely overthrowing the order in Iraq would not have changed anything in regards to ISIS. Because so far, you have made no argument besides talking about jihadists from 1,000 years ago and historical ignorance.
My point is it doesn't matter what we do, even if we did create terrorism in Iraq, if we didn't it probably would have popped up somewhere else. Islamic imperialism isn't a Western invention, there is no historical evidence that the West plays an important role in the middle-east at all, or that isolationism would solve any problems. So we can as well just take the pragmatical approach and fight terrorism as well as we can.
You're just making shit up, you don't know whether absence of American interventionism would have led to peace or not, it's a guessing game.
On September 26 2014 07:11 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But you're detracting from your original point: Please tell me how the US completely overthrowing the order in Iraq would not have changed anything in regards to ISIS. Because so far, you have made no argument besides talking about jihadists from 1,000 years ago and historical ignorance.
My point is it doesn't matter what we do, even if we did create terrorism in Iraq, if we didn't it probably would have popped up somewhere else. Islamic imperialism isn't a Western invention, there is no historical evidence that the West plays an important role in the middle-east at all, or that isolationism would solve any problems. So we can as well just take the pragmatical approach and fight terrorism as well as we can.
You're just making shit up, you don't know whether absence of American interventionism would have led to peace or not, it's a guessing game.
Israel Toppling governments (illegally) Propping up governments (both legally and illegally) Doing the above in order to facilitate oil trade that is good for us but bad for the people who live there Drone strikes Bombing runs Wars
So guys whats the solution right now to the crisis ? we know how it all started but can we debate about ways to end the conflict ? People here are saying that the US shouldn't bomb IS so whats the plan of action here?
On September 26 2014 07:15 Nyxisto wrote: My point is it doesn't matter what we do, even if we did create terrorism in Iraq, if we didn't it probably would have popped up somewhere else. Islamic imperialism isn't a Western invention, there is no historical evidence that the West plays an important role in the middle-east at all, or that isolationism would solve any problems. So we can as well just take the pragmatical approach and fight terrorism as well as we can.
Sure, I completely agree with you, but it certainly wouldn't have popped up in Iraq. Also, influence is a big thing. Iraq had established itself as a staunchly pro-secular, anti-Islamist nation. Ironically, an majority-Muslim nation was the foe of Islamic extremists and state sponsors of Islamic extremism. Basically, it was keeping a lot of the crazies in check, because it wasn't the place to be fucking with if you were an Islamic extremist.
Are you aware of Eisenhower's domino theory about Communism? Well obviously the theory didn't really turn out to be too real. China was the first domino in East Asia. If we're to discuss a domino theory about Islamism, Iraq was the first domino to topple, but the difference is, it was the United States that did that. With the biggest enemy of Islamic extremists destroyed, we can see how Islamic extremism has grown exponentially since, the "Arab spring" being the most striking example. Iraq fell, and suddenly we saw Islamic extremists cropping up not just in Iraq, but everywhere else. Besides Iraq, we also directly are responsible for Islamist takeover in Libya as well when we bombed the Libyan military to hell and back.
On September 26 2014 07:11 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: But you're detracting from your original point: Please tell me how the US completely overthrowing the order in Iraq would not have changed anything in regards to ISIS. Because so far, you have made no argument besides talking about jihadists from 1,000 years ago and historical ignorance.
You're just making shit up, you don't know whether absence of American interventionism would have led to peace or not, it's a guessing game.
I'm not making shit up. I'm stating historical facts. You're the twisting it lol. The US devastated Iraq with the embargo and then the war, where it also overthrew its government, disbanded its military and security systems, formulated a new sectarian system, formed a regime of completely corrupted and incompetent idiots, didn't secure the borders, etc. basically everything that kept the nation orderly and stable. That's all fact of US actions.
In the absence of American interventionism over that 20 year span, I am about 100% sure ISIS would not even exist in Iraq in the present day. Elsewhere? Most likely. Iraq? Hell no
On September 26 2014 07:25 ImFromPortugal wrote: So guys whats the solution right now to the crisis ? we know how it all started but can we debate about ways to end the conflict ? People here are saying that the US shouldn't bomb IS so whats the plan of action here?
The US NOT bombing ISIS is the silliest solution. It's completely counter-productive, even for US interests. Islamic extremists taking over more and more countries, like they've been doing since the Arab spring, is completely against US interests. Like Colin Powell told Bush, "You break it, you own it", whether or not they admit it, the US knows it turned things into a total clusterfuck, and that's why to this day, the US is involved in Iraq.
For what it's worth, the removal of Maliki from power has been, in my observation, the greatest milestone in Iraq since 2003 in re-stabilizing the country. He is more responsible than anyone else for the extreme degree of the sectarianism in the country. The new Iraqi regime's policies marks the first efforts by Iraq to reconcile and abolish the sectarianism. They're even reaching out to former competent politicians and generals who had gone into hiding due to de-Baathification.
Meanwhile, the US originally had zero interest in Syria, until it realized that not attacking ISIS in Syria meant a continuation of ISIS aggression in Iraq, which is why we're also now bombing in Syria.
On September 26 2014 07:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: The US NOT bombing ISIS is the silliest solution. It's completely counter-productive, even for US interests. Islamic extremists taking over more and more countries, like they've been doing since the Arab spring, is completely against US interests. Like Colin Powell told Bush, "You break it, you own it", whether or not they admit it, the US knows it turned things into a total clusterfuck, and that's why to this day, the US is involved in Iraq.
And this is basically all I have been saying, too. I don't know if ISIS would exist if the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq,I'm not an oracle, but I'm pretty sure the bigger picture wouldn't have changed. The position that the evil Euro/America/Israel invaders are causing all the bad things in the world has popped up several times over the last few pages, and that was basically all I was trying to address.
As opposed to this "the barn would have caught fire even if I didn't pour gasoline on it" argument that is prevalent in the last 235 pages? You can point to structural defects in the barn, you can point to the hay you left next to the broken electrical outlet, and you can say that the stable boy smokes, but ultimately you are the one who poured gas over the damn thing and set it on fire. There's a point at which you have to take responsibility, and bombing is pretty much the opposite of that. Throwing more gasoline on the barn isn't going to fix it, it's just going to make it easier to cover up quickly. People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
On September 26 2014 07:57 Jormundr wrote: As opposed to this "the barn would have caught fire even if I didn't pour gasoline on it" argument that is prevalent in the last 235 pages? You can point to structural defects in the barn, you can point to the hay you left next to the broken electrical outlet, and you can say that the stable boy smokes, but ultimately you are the one who poured gas over the damn thing and set it on fire. There's a point at which you have to take responsibility, and bombing is pretty much the opposite of that. Throwing more gasoline on the barn isn't going to fix it, it's just going to make it easier to cover up quickly. People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
On September 26 2014 07:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: The US NOT bombing ISIS is the silliest solution. It's completely counter-productive, even for US interests. Islamic extremists taking over more and more countries, like they've been doing since the Arab spring, is completely against US interests. Like Colin Powell told Bush, "You break it, you own it", whether or not they admit it, the US knows it turned things into a total clusterfuck, and that's why to this day, the US is involved in Iraq.
And this is basically all I have been saying, too. I don't know if ISIS would exist if the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq,I'm not an oracle, but I'm pretty sure the bigger picture wouldn't have changed. The position that the evil Euro/America/Israel invaders are causing all the bad things in the world has popped up several times over the last few pages, and that was basically all I was trying to address.
Yeah I see what you mean. The bigger picture per se may not have changed, but I'm more than certain that the Islamic extremism side of things would be significantly weaker than it is in the actual world. Not only was Iraq a strong country that crushed Islamic extremists, and even defeated the greatest jihad in Islamic history, but besides that, one cannot undermine the power of influence. A strong country with a very clear agenda is frightening to its opponents. It makes them less compelled to do stupid things. Think of US influence in regards to Chinese political aggression in the Far East. Without the US in the picture, the Chinese would probably be doing a lot more than just having pissing contests and shit-flinging with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Korea, etc.
Let's have an alternative view of World War 2: it would be like if the US made some big collapse in the Soviet Union before Operation Barbarossa, and then the USSR was facerolled and defeated in 1941 by the Axis nations, and people wondering why there's no longer anyone powerful in Europe to contest Fascist domination of the continent . Hmm, maybe because the only real opponent to Fascist domination in the region of Europe was wrecked beforehand?
That's kind of like what happened with Iraq in regards to Islamic jihadists. The US devastated it since '91, it was overrun by terrorists and sectarian violence when the US overthrew its whole political and security facets, and then people ask why there's no powerful nation in the Mideast/N. Africa that takes a stand against Islamic terrorists.
When you consider that impoverishment is a big factor in promoting radicalization and crime/violence, well the mass deaths, collapse of the economy, education, social services, etc. during the embargo did an amazing job of that in Iraq. The US invasion in '03 destroyed everything else keeping the nation in place.
On September 26 2014 07:57 Jormundr wrote: As opposed to this "the barn would have caught fire even if I didn't pour gasoline on it" argument that is prevalent in the last 235 pages? You can point to structural defects in the barn, you can point to the hay you left next to the broken electrical outlet, and you can say that the stable boy smokes, but ultimately you are the one who poured gas over the damn thing and set it on fire. There's a point at which you have to take responsibility, and bombing is pretty much the opposite of that. Throwing more gasoline on the barn isn't going to fix it, it's just going to make it easier to cover up quickly. People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
Obama's taking responsibility, and at least in his administration's view, that involves supporting Iraqi forces in fighting ISIS. Our role is pretty limited.
People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
At the end of the day, Iraqis still probably hate us, and I can't blame them. Even the Christians apparently blame us for burning the barn, despite the fact they like us infinitely more than they like jihadists or Islam (obviously, we're a Christian nation and our life-goal isn't to exterminate Christians like some of these jihadists).
When you consider this, Obama shifting from Bush's policy to a policy of cooperation and reconciliation with Iraq, and this is what we need to improve our relations with Iraq and the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi leaders have publicly stated that American ground forces are unacceptable. Why? It would enrage the Iraqi people and would be seen as an occupation. However, I've yet to hear Iraqis complain about US airstrikes supporting Iraqi military operations. In fact, from what I've seen, it's perceived more as a token of goodwill and friendship by the USA.
So how are these airstrikes making things worse? These bombs are not fire. These are water balloons man. This is how we start to reconcile ourselves with the Iraqi people, who we've destroyed more than we've destroyed anyone else. We need to show to them we're not out to slaughter them with embargo and bombs any longer, just like Germany came out and showed everyone it wasn't going to kill everyone it didn't like after WW2.
On September 26 2014 07:57 Jormundr wrote: As opposed to this "the barn would have caught fire even if I didn't pour gasoline on it" argument that is prevalent in the last 235 pages? You can point to structural defects in the barn, you can point to the hay you left next to the broken electrical outlet, and you can say that the stable boy smokes, but ultimately you are the one who poured gas over the damn thing and set it on fire. There's a point at which you have to take responsibility, and bombing is pretty much the opposite of that. Throwing more gasoline on the barn isn't going to fix it, it's just going to make it easier to cover up quickly. People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
Yes we got that already.. so whats the solution?
Well a proven solution is to not set people's barns (or children) on fire. Unfortunately that is a long term solution, and the US does not like those. We want things now. We don't want to lose any of our influence or any of the dominance in trade partnerships we already fought so hard to achieve. So, letting it work itself out is out of the question. We're completely against occupying the countries for 50 years, and we're probably not even capable of doing while also loosely adhering to a watered-down version of humanist ethics. So voila! We have the present solution of throwing gas on the fire and hoping that the people in these countries come to terms with the fact that we consider their lives worthless.
On September 26 2014 07:57 Jormundr wrote: As opposed to this "the barn would have caught fire even if I didn't pour gasoline on it" argument that is prevalent in the last 235 pages? You can point to structural defects in the barn, you can point to the hay you left next to the broken electrical outlet, and you can say that the stable boy smokes, but ultimately you are the one who poured gas over the damn thing and set it on fire. There's a point at which you have to take responsibility, and bombing is pretty much the opposite of that. Throwing more gasoline on the barn isn't going to fix it, it's just going to make it easier to cover up quickly. People are still going to be mad that you burned the damn barn.
Yes we got that already.. so whats the solution?
Well a proven solution is to not set people's barns (or children) on fire. Unfortunately that is a long term solution, and the US does not like those. We want things now. We don't want to lose any of our influence or any of the dominance in trade partnerships we already fought so hard to achieve. So, letting it work itself out is out of the question. We're completely against occupying the countries for 50 years, and we're probably not even capable of doing while also loosely adhering to a watered-down version of humanist ethics. So voila! We have the present solution of throwing gas on the fire and hoping that the people in these countries come to terms with the fact that we consider their lives worthless.
Like in my last post, this is why the US is now focusing on a policy of reconciliation with Iraq and the Iraqi people, because the government has seen its own legacy of coups, slaughter, war, and destruction in Iraq. This is why we fully respect the refusal of Iraqi leaders for US ground forces, which would enrage the Iraqis, for obvious reasons. This is why we are relegated to a support aerial role in support of Iraqi military forces when they ask for it.
A HUGE difference from the Iraq War, wouldn't you say? This is the time and opportunity to show the Iraqi people we will no longer treat them like they're Slavic and we're Nazi Germany, and simply completely pulling away is not the way to do that. If we're to foster good relations with them, then we're going to stick around, but do things as they say so that they're happy.
Still, how this country is 73rd in terms of GDP per capita (according to World Bank information) is beyond my understanding. Besides the embargo, Iran-Iraq War, and Iraq War, it has a larger youth population percentage than most places in the world outside Africa (meaning many people are not working age), terrible unemployment, millions displaced, top 5 worst corruption in the world, and all sorts of terrible things as a result of the embargo, war, 2003 regime change, etc. that drove down its potential economic growth.
Let's leave the Iran-Iraq War alone but let's say after the Gulf war Saddam realized he had to suck Uncle Sam's impressive penis and the embargo and Iraq War never happened. We'd probably have the only wealthy and secular Muslim-majority nation in the world today. It would be a much better ally than these crazy, terrorist-backing Gulf Arab states or Israel that we have to deal with (no offense to Israel, but politically speaking they cause us a lot more trouble than we'd like to deal with). Egypt used to be a very important friend, but we're on pretty bad terms with Sisi's regime. Also, Egypt is very destitute :/
Quran is more complicated and human dominating book compared to Bible. It has its own law system, own punishments, social - daily life orders, and its own major goals about expanding itself. REAL ISLAM thing is a lie. Even if muslims on the internet curse ISIS, what they are doing right now is totally legit. You cant be secular if you are Muslim, you simply cant. If you act like you are, for example if you dont punish a woman who cheated on her husband, you are also going to hell. A nation who does not setup an islamic justice system is simply apostate or kuffar. (nonmuslim)
Islam is a war religion, or peaceful one. Choose yourself :
This guy was in my junior high class in Calgary in grade 8. He was declared dead 6 weeks ago, now he was interviewed. We used to make jokes, talk about geography together... Absolutely unreal.
On September 26 2014 10:27 pls no ty wrote: > Secular - Muslim. > Westernized Muslim
Thats impossible.
> Secular - nonMuslim > Westernized former Muslim
Thats possible.
Quran is more complicated and human dominating book compared to Bible. It has its own law system, own punishments, social - daily life orders, and its own major goals about expanding itself. REAL ISLAM thing is a lie. Even if muslims on the internet curse ISIS, what they are doing right now is totally legit. You cant be secular if you are Muslim, you simply cant. If you act like you are, for example if you dont punish a woman who cheated on her husband, you are also going to hell. A nation who does not setup an islamic justice system is simply apostate or kuffar. (nonmuslim)
Islam is a war religion, or peaceful one. Choose yourself :
Well, I guess it's safe to say such people weren't actually Muslim then. I know even many of these "Muslims" would disagree with you, but even aside from Islam, by your argument, very few people across all religions are actually religious. It's one way to look at it, I guess. Anywho, while related because ISIS are jihadist nutcases, let's not get too off-topic from the Iraq and Syria wars.
Yup. I really wonder todays fake kobane report tweet or bullshit kurdish propaganda. I have a kurdish friend coming to visit me - journalist - ill update here by this night.
On September 26 2014 13:53 pls no ty wrote: Yup. I really wonder todays fake kobane report tweet or bullshit kurdish propaganda. I have a kurdish friend coming to visit me - journalist - ill update here by this night.
What's the "bullshit propaganda"? That ISIS is being pushed back from Kobane? I hope that is true. We'll see what your friend says though.
This guy was in my junior high class in Calgary in grade 8. He was declared dead 6 weeks ago, now he was interviewed. We used to make jokes, talk about geography together... Absolutely unreal.
He promises to destroy the US and Canada? Jeez, some guy you knew. May heavenly explosives from the sky send him to his "martyrdom" he wants so badly.
On September 26 2014 10:27 pls no ty wrote: > Secular - Muslim. > Westernized Muslim
Thats impossible.
> Secular - nonMuslim > Westernized former Muslim
Thats possible.
Quran is more complicated and human dominating book compared to Bible. It has its own law system, own punishments, social - daily life orders, and its own major goals about expanding itself. REAL ISLAM thing is a lie. Even if muslims on the internet curse ISIS, what they are doing right now is totally legit. You cant be secular if you are Muslim, you simply cant. If you act like you are, for example if you dont punish a woman who cheated on her husband, you are also going to hell. A nation who does not setup an islamic justice system is simply apostate or kuffar. (nonmuslim)
Islam is a war religion, or peaceful one. Choose yourself :
You know that one of the arguments against jews in occidentals society was that the torah considered god's law above men's law (constitution, etc.). It's an argument that dates back to Hobbes' Leviathan, where he point out that the jews are the only people who cannot accept the leviathan (the state) because according to their holy book - the Torah - god's law are above everything else. He even point out that the jews destroyed the first atheist society in history.
Now that is viewed as antisemitic for some people today (what the fuck does a war that dates back to prehistory is relevant to the place of jews in the occidental society of the XVIIth century ?), but saying the same for muslim is not a problem somehow - while the quran is different that the torah, has different surat that can be added or removed (it's not a complete book). The main problem with islam - if there is one - is that there are no "church" like institution that can regulate the interpretation of the quran (at least for the sunni islam).
Iraqi PM: Islamic State planning attacks on US, Paris subway systems
Iraq has received credible intelligence that Islamic State militants plan to launch attacks on subway systems in Paris and the United States, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Thursday.
Abadi said the information, which he received on Thursday morning, came from militants captured in Iraq. He said he had asked for further details and concluded it appeared credible.
.....
"Today, while I am here, I am receiving accurate reports from Baghdad where there was (the) arrest of (a) few elements and there are networks planning from inside Iraq to have attacks," Abadi told a small group of US reporters.
The prime minister was in New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
"They plan to have attacks in the metros of Paris and the US," he added. "I asked for more credible information. I asked for names. I asked for details, for cities, you know, dates. And from the details I have received, yes, it looks credible."
Two senior US security officials, contacted by Reuters following the comments from Abadi, said the United States had no information to support the threat.
New York City's police department said it was "aware" of the Iraqi prime minister's warning and was "in close contact with the FBI and other federal partners as we assess this particular threat stream."
John Miller, deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York City Police Department said the city "normally operates at a heightened level of security and we adjust that posture daily based on our evaluation of information as we receive it."
Earlier on Thursday, France said it would increase security on transport and in public places after a French tourist was killed in Algeria, and said it was ready to support all states that requested its help to fight terror.
Meanwhile here in NY DeBlasio and Cuomo came out today and tried to downplay the whole thing.
On Thursday afternoon, after the Iraqi prime minister warned of Islamic State plots to attack subway systems in the U.S. and France, New York's elected officials summoned the press to let people know everything is probably going to be alright.
Governor Andrew Cuomo took a rare subway ride from the World Trade Center to Penn Station, disembarked before a crowd of jostling reporters, and reassured them that "there is no specific credible information about any specific threat to the New York City subway system."
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/1gjdAX7.gif)
