On February 24 2015 05:32 lastpuritan wrote: I have seen some ISIS supporters just because ISIS is anti-US, not because they are fighting Assad or they want to build Caliphate, and those supporters were not Syrian but arabic, some even has flatmates or friends who joined ISIS, from Belgium par exemple. I think that is mainly because they see themselves as 3. class person when they step out of their homes, this is unlikely to change but can evolve positively, whether you like it or hate it, Germany dealt with the Turks better than any nation in Eu when it comes to the Arabs. Correct me if im wrong but, Germany has turkish politicians in their parliaments and none of those have ideas like supporting a Turkish terrorist group in Germany or establish an autonomy inside German soil but instead, new generations tend to be more and more friendly to Germans, this article is very negative but when you read it, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html you see girl calls Germany as "home", not Turkey. Apart from those, i believe their economic situation is way more better compared to other minorities in EU, with government aid of course.
ISIS supporters from Syria and Iraq are a different case that i am more likely to reason their hatred for "cross". Not because they are right to kill anyone or with their cause, but some of them -iraqi ones- spent their entire lives under US bombing / or its war legacy when they were kiddos. They are easy to be misdirected about any subject, you cant explain them Saddam was a crazy dude who was willing to cleanse "some citizens" of his own and why US had to declare war when some counter propaganda reminds them US killed more citizens than Saddam had done, while those citizens are CLOSE RELATIVES of thousands. But there is a chance to convince and shape current society, US played the war game by old rules, defeated its enemy and replaced it with a "friendly / annex" one, and that one - today we all agree - is a bad one, with its sectarian violence and fancy dancing with Persians, now IF we can help them build a better society, with better roads and schools whatever* (im not an expert on these things) but WITHOUT forcing, indoctrinating them to believe anything they dont want to, we may win their hearts and minds. Can you do this when majority of their society believes their government either US or Iranian puppet?
xDaunt wants to destroy every moderate Muslim, or any moderate muslim who is capable of doing anything radical, which will takes us into another world war, as i previously asked him and he said there is no need to such act but eventually, his ideology is declaring war to Quran, and there are countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and their possible supporters China, Russia and many, whom are also capable of turn whole Europe to ashes before totally being terminated. Is it really worth to sacrifice many to end this pile of sh*t we name terrorism? Lately he says maybe Turkey or Iran should do that, as i understood and this is an oxymoron. Not shiny with history stuff but Wahhabism/Salafism started in Ottoman times, when Arabs were under Otto-rule. United Kingdom supported those terrorist groups to revolt against Ottomans, in order to cut arabic support when turkish caliph, the sultan calls arab to army. There is even a movie about that, an oscar winner: Lawrence of Arabia, story of british agent in Arabic lands, maybe you should watch. They revolt against sunni Turks, guess what would happen if Iran intervenes.
Fun part:
- I will blame UK for this, again. lol
Two wars and a genocidal embargo are not easy to forget.
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote: Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898
And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland.
Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?)
After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote: lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
Another false analogy. So do football teams in south america.
On February 24 2015 12:32 lastpuritan wrote: I know something called Hartz IV, if you have no job, no education and you have children to look after, government pays you some amount of money to protect human dignity, but i have no clue about whether this is for immigrants or any citizen. http://www.dw.de/berlin-to-give-german-states-up-to-500-million-euros-for-refugees/a-18096970
@Gotunk, so you think they born yelling DEATH TO INFIDELS?
This is the colloquial term for welfare payments. All German citizens without income and assets as well as everybody who legally resides in Germany is entitled to it. The only exception I'm aware of are EU-citizens that have worked for less than 3 months in Germany or lived for less than 5(?) years in Germany.
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote: Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898
And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland.
Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?)
After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote: lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
Another false analogy. So do football teams in south america.
All of them are human groups ?
Apparently, torture, murder, finance through criminal activity, oppression of any kind of opposition, total neglect for human life and dignity are not enough of a common denominator between ISIS and drug cartels.
Please, do explain what sets them apart and makes them so extremely different.
On February 24 2015 12:32 lastpuritan wrote: I know something called Hartz IV, if you have no job, no education and you have children to look after, government pays you some amount of money to protect human dignity, but i have no clue about whether this is for immigrants or any citizen. http://www.dw.de/berlin-to-give-german-states-up-to-500-million-euros-for-refugees/a-18096970
@Gotunk, so you think they born yelling DEATH TO INFIDELS?
This is the colloquial term for welfare payments. All German citizens without income and assets as well as everybody who legally resides in Germany is entitled to it. The only exception I'm aware of are EU-citizens that have worked for less than 3 months in Germany or lived for less than 5(?) years in Germany.
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote: Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898
And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland.
Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?)
After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote: lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
Another false analogy. So do football teams in south america.
All of them are human groups ?
Apparently, torture, murder, finance through criminal activity, oppression of any kind of opposition, total neglect for human life and dignity are not enough of a common denominator between ISIS and drug cartels.
Please, do explain what sets them apart and makes them so extremely different.
Drug cartels and the italian mobs are mainly interested in making more money, and engage in violent and unlawful practices with that end. ISIS is mostly interested in spreading their particular view of Islam troughout the world.
Drug cartels objetive is directly related to poverty, while poverty is only a tangent to ISIS's and their individuals concern.
On February 24 2015 12:32 lastpuritan wrote: I know something called Hartz IV, if you have no job, no education and you have children to look after, government pays you some amount of money to protect human dignity, but i have no clue about whether this is for immigrants or any citizen. http://www.dw.de/berlin-to-give-german-states-up-to-500-million-euros-for-refugees/a-18096970
@Gotunk, so you think they born yelling DEATH TO INFIDELS?
This is the colloquial term for welfare payments. All German citizens without income and assets as well as everybody who legally resides in Germany is entitled to it. The only exception I'm aware of are EU-citizens that have worked for less than 3 months in Germany or lived for less than 5(?) years in Germany.
On February 24 2015 12:41 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:27 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:15 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote: Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898
And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland.
Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?)
After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote: lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
Another false analogy. So do football teams in south america.
All of them are human groups ?
Apparently, torture, murder, finance through criminal activity, oppression of any kind of opposition, total neglect for human life and dignity are not enough of a common denominator between ISIS and drug cartels.
Please, do explain what sets them apart and makes them so extremely different.
Drug cartels and the italian mobs are mainly interested in making more money, and engage in violent and unlawful practices with that end. ISIS is mostly interested in spreading their particular view of Islam troughout the world.
Drug cartels objetive is directly related to poverty, while poverty is only a tangent to ISIS's and their individuals concern.
I'm not so sure that's what the leaders of ISIS actually want? Several of them seem more like that they are trying to reclaim power and prestige lost after Saddam was overthrown? Not that they don't use the ideology and such to motivate their soldiers (not like they are going to pay them much), just a global sharia law type ambition doesn't really seem like what the leadership is really after (other than nominally).
On February 24 2015 12:32 lastpuritan wrote: I know something called Hartz IV, if you have no job, no education and you have children to look after, government pays you some amount of money to protect human dignity, but i have no clue about whether this is for immigrants or any citizen. http://www.dw.de/berlin-to-give-german-states-up-to-500-million-euros-for-refugees/a-18096970
@Gotunk, so you think they born yelling DEATH TO INFIDELS?
This is the colloquial term for welfare payments. All German citizens without income and assets as well as everybody who legally resides in Germany is entitled to it. The only exception I'm aware of are EU-citizens that have worked for less than 3 months in Germany or lived for less than 5(?) years in Germany.
On February 24 2015 12:41 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:27 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 12:15 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:25 lastpuritan wrote: Why do you think its racist, i was trying to say Germany put great effort to help them economically. But of course you know better, forgive my ignorance, im new to this subject and started searching after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30742898
And it sounds very normal to me if they behave different, do you think russians and chinese in United States are completely integrated? As long as they dont act hostile and harass the law, they should be free to practice anything what they were doing in their homeland.
Every minority and diaspora have major problems and its own interests root or stack with their ex-government, like jews in US, or as you mention, mosques in Germany. (i believe they prepare some sorta speeches to counter German policies?)
After all, i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims, i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant or any major protest against German government by german turks, though their population is above 2-3 millions right?
Do you have something specific in mind when saying: "Germany put great effort to help them economically"? I do not claim to be an expert on the topic but the alleged German failure to aid Turks' integration has been covered extensively in German media in the recent 5 years. "Behaing differently" is probably the wrong wording. What I have in mind are problems such as the fact that there is a significant amount of people of Turkish ancestry in Germany who were born here, and whose parents were also born in Germany and even then they can only speak Turkish.
"i still think Germany dealt with this immigration problem way more better than any nation who welcomes muslims" I am not aware of Germany doing anything differently from other nations in their treatment of Muslim immigrants. The only different circumstance is the fact that basically every Turk who came to Germany in the 60s and 70s had a job lined up for him (even though mostly poorly paid jobs with shitty housing conditions).
"i havent seen any dead-turkish from Germany as an isis militant" According to the German government there are 320 Germans fighting or having fought for the ISIS. I am not aware of any statistic with their origins being published, but chances are that there are some of Turkish origin. At the very least, it is known that there are people of Turkish origin openly supporting ISIS in Germany (without having gone to a war zone).
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
On February 24 2015 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
On February 24 2015 10:57 GoTuNk! wrote: lastpuritan`s argument is completely ridiculous
The idea that someone will emigrate to engage on warfare supporting a brutally evil entity because they are poor and/or feel segregated is just non sense.
ISIS militants are religious nutjobs with a completely different set of beliefs that has no resemblance to anything in the western world. They don't care about roads, schools, jobs or a functioning government.
When people do not see any option in life they often turn to radical beliefs. Poverty and being on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is a major reason for criminal behaviour (or in this case: bloodthirsty religious zeal). I can guarantee you that if every current ISIS member used to live in a mansion with a pool, was driving a sports car and did not have to worry about food and security, basically none of them would have engaged in warfare - the ISIS army would have probably consisted of no more than half a dozen schizos and a handful of homicidal lunatics.
Except you are wrong. Someone posted the statistics back that the majority of ISIS militants from foreign countries were way above poverty line and many attended college or had a higher degree education.
I obviously didn't mean only Western ISIS supporters. I believe you will agree that the vast majority of the ISIS militants were neither "way above poverty line" nor have attended college.
As from the people from ISIS territory, brainwashing and religious fanatism (and warfare) cause poverty. Poverty does not cause brainwashing from a young age, religious fanatism or war.
Poverty strongly increases radical influences and criminal behaviour. In the middle East, religion happens to be an easy motivator. However, poverty can turn people into homicidal monsters even when religion is not involved e.g. Mexican drug war, US gang crime.
Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
All of them dwell on recruiting the poor.
Another false analogy. So do football teams in south america.
All of them are human groups ?
Apparently, torture, murder, finance through criminal activity, oppression of any kind of opposition, total neglect for human life and dignity are not enough of a common denominator between ISIS and drug cartels.
Please, do explain what sets them apart and makes them so extremely different.
Drug cartels and the italian mobs are mainly interested in making more money, and engage in violent and unlawful practices with that end. ISIS is mostly interested in spreading their particular view of Islam troughout the world.
Drug cartels objetive is directly related to poverty, while poverty is only a tangent to ISIS's and their individuals concern.
Just about any member of ISIS profits from it. Starting with the regular grunt that used to live in the middle of nowhere in some war-thorn hellhole without a functioning economy and now has a monthly salary, up to their Khalif who started with nothing and now reigns over a "state".
The fact that ISIS has a whole different ideology than a drug cartel is mostly irrelevant to the question why do people join them, which was the initial point I made. My analogy between drug cartels and a group like ISIS was meant to show the undisputable fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of both groups come from extreme poverty, are barely educated, and have very little prospects in life. It was also meant to show that despite different ideologies, both do barbaric deeds. I guess the difference is that ISIS members justify their crimes with religion while drug cartel grunts do it just for shits and giggles.
Also, I need to revise a previous response of mine:
On February 24 2015 11:32 GoTuNk! wrote: Poverty exists all over the world, but only a handfull of poor people are putting people in jails and burning them alive demanding that the entire world surrenders to their will.
Unlawful incarceration and brutal murders (including burning people alive) have been a common theme among drug cartels almost all over South America. Substitute "the entire world" with "their respective country" and the whole statement becomes applicable for them as well.
Your analogy is not applicable. Drug cartels and the italian mob are completely different from something like ISIS.
This is not an analogy. It is an example. You claimed that there are certain actions performed only by a single group of people. I provided you with an example of the opposite.
On February 24 2015 05:32 lastpuritan wrote: I have seen some ISIS supporters just because ISIS is anti-US, not because they are fighting Assad or they want to build Caliphate, and those supporters were not Syrian but arabic, some even has flatmates or friends who joined ISIS, from Belgium par exemple. I think that is mainly because they see themselves as 3. class person when they step out of their homes, this is unlikely to change but can evolve positively, whether you like it or hate it, Germany dealt with the Turks better than any nation in Eu when it comes to the Arabs. Correct me if im wrong but, Germany has turkish politicians in their parliaments and none of those have ideas like supporting a Turkish terrorist group in Germany or establish an autonomy inside German soil but instead, new generations tend to be more and more friendly to Germans, this article is very negative but when you read it, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html you see girl calls Germany as "home", not Turkey. Apart from those, i believe their economic situation is way more better compared to other minorities in EU, with government aid of course.
ISIS supporters from Syria and Iraq are a different case that i am more likely to reason their hatred for "cross". Not because they are right to kill anyone or with their cause, but some of them -iraqi ones- spent their entire lives under US bombing / or its war legacy when they were kiddos. They are easy to be misdirected about any subject, you cant explain them Saddam was a crazy dude who was willing to cleanse "some citizens" of his own and why US had to declare war when some counter propaganda reminds them US killed more citizens than Saddam had done, while those citizens are CLOSE RELATIVES of thousands. But there is a chance to convince and shape current society, US played the war game by old rules, defeated its enemy and replaced it with a "friendly / annex" one, and that one - today we all agree - is a bad one, with its sectarian violence and fancy dancing with Persians, now IF we can help them build a better society, with better roads and schools whatever* (im not an expert on these things) but WITHOUT forcing, indoctrinating them to believe anything they dont want to, we may win their hearts and minds. Can you do this when majority of their society believes their government either US or Iranian puppet?
xDaunt wants to destroy every moderate Muslim, or any moderate muslim who is capable of doing anything radical, which will takes us into another world war, as i previously asked him and he said there is no need to such act but eventually, his ideology is declaring war to Quran, and there are countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and their possible supporters China, Russia and many, whom are also capable of turn whole Europe to ashes before totally being terminated. Is it really worth to sacrifice many to end this pile of sh*t we name terrorism? Lately he says maybe Turkey or Iran should do that, as i understood and this is an oxymoron. Not shiny with history stuff but Wahhabism/Salafism started in Ottoman times, when Arabs were under Otto-rule. United Kingdom supported those terrorist groups to revolt against Ottomans, in order to cut arabic support when turkish caliph, the sultan calls arab to army. There is even a movie about that, an oscar winner: Lawrence of Arabia, story of british agent in Arabic lands, maybe you should watch. They revolt against sunni Turks, guess what would happen if Iran intervenes.
Fun part:
- I will blame UK for this, again. lol
Two wars and a genocidal embargo are not easy to forget.
High rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water were reported during sanctions.[25] In 2001, the chairman of the Iraqi Medical Association's scientific committee sent a plea to the BMJ to help it raise awareness of the disastrous effects the sanctions were having on the Iraqi healthcare system
Estimates of excess deaths during the sanctions vary widely, use different methodologies and cover different time-frames.[31][38][39] Some estimates include (some of them include effects of the Gulf War in the estimate): Mohamed M. Ali, John Blacker, and Gareth Jones estimate between 400,000 and 500,000 excess under-5 deaths.[40] UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." (As is customary, this report was based on a survey conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government and by local authorities in the provinces not controlled by the Iraqi government)[41] Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[42]
"Probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20 October 2003[43] 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[44]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",[45] and "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing an increase in child mortality was that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."[45]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[46] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[47]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[48] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[49]
Amatzia Baram, Director of the Center for Iraq Studies at the University of Haifa, reported almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent) and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting that the sanctions-related death rate is lower than reported, while also stating "Every child who suffers from malnutrition as a result of the embargo is a tragedy".[50] Reports made in 2004 and 2007 by Iraqi government do not show any increase but a stagnation.
(Reuters) - The face stares out from multiple billboards in central Baghdad, a grey-haired general casting a watchful eye across the Iraqi capital. This military commander is not Iraqi, though. He's Iranian.
The posters are a recent arrival, reflecting the influence Iran now wields in Baghdad.
Iraq is a mainly Arab country. Its citizens, Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims alike, have long mistrusted Iran, the Persian nation to the east. But as Baghdad struggles to fight the Sunni extremist group Islamic State, many Shi'ite Iraqis now look to Iran, a Shi'ite theocracy, as their main ally.
In particular, Iraqi Shi'ites have grown to trust the powerful Iranian-backed militias that have taken charge since the Iraqi army deserted en masse last summer. Dozens of paramilitary groups have united under a secretive branch of the Iraqi government called the Popular Mobilisation Committee, or Hashid Shaabi. Created by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s predecessor Nuri al-Maliki, the official body now takes the lead role in many of Iraq's security operations. From its position at the nexus between Tehran, the Iraqi government, and the militias, it is increasingly influential in determining the country's future.
Until now, little has been known about the body. But in a series of interviews with Reuters, key Iraqi figures inside Hashid Shaabi have detailed the ways the paramilitary groups, Baghdad and Iran collaborate, and the role Iranian advisers play both inside the group and on the frontlines.
Those who spoke to Reuters include two senior figures in the Badr Organisation, perhaps the single most powerful Shi'ite paramilitary group, and the commander of a relatively new militia called Saraya al-Khorasani.
In all, Hashid Shaabi oversees and coordinates several dozen factions. The insiders say most of the groups followed a call to arms by Iraq's leading Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But they also cite the religious guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, as a key factor in their decision to fight and – as they see it – defend Iraq.
Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organisation, told Reuters: "The majority of us believe that ... Khamenei has all the qualifications as an Islamic leader. He is the leader not only for Iranians but the Islamic nation. I believe so and I take pride in it."
He insisted there was no conflict between his role as an Iraqi political and military leader and his fealty to Khamenei.
"Khamenei would place the interests of the Iraqi people above all else," Amiri said.
source It's a big article follow the source to read the rest.
war nerd dressing down of the macabre turk charade:
The war nerd: Tomb Raiders of Kobane
...
So in October 2014, as Islamic State convoys pushed toward Suleyman Shah’s tomb on the Euphrates River southwest of Kobane, we had the conditions for a lab-quality experiment: Would IS’s ferocious Wahaabist intolerance for fancy tombs triumph over its sleazy alliance with Turkey? Would ideology trump realpolitik?
Quick answer: Nah. Islamic State “threatened” to blow up the tomb, and could’ve done it easily, since the Turkish military assigned only 40 soldiers to the site. But threats are for suckers; what you watch for is whether they do it or not. And IS never touched that tomb in months of occupying the country around it.
That non-action, from a group like IS that’s pretty much non-stop mayhem everywhere else, is exhibit Z in the long list of indications that Islamic State and Turkey made a deal. They both deny it, but there’ve been too many videos of Turkish soldiers waving howdy to IS jihadis, investigative reporters killed in convenient car crashes, and outright confessions by IS vets about being smuggled back and forth across the Syrian border with full Turkish cooperation.
Turkish policy made sense, in a grim way, back in the Autumn of 2014, when everyone was looking forward to the fall of Kobane. The radical Kurds of PKK/YPG/J were a real threat to Turkish sovereignty in the East, while the Arabs and assorted war tourists of IS seemed like a joke, with no potential to cause trouble in Turkey proper.
It’s not that Turkey likes IS, or shares its attitudes. You won’t find a lot of real support for IS outside a particular demographic: Young, male, middle-class wannabe thugs. It’s the same demographic that supplied most recruits for the James brothers, Quantrill, and Anderson, and the appeal is the same: Rape, plunder, sectarian revenge, escape from the boredom of downwardly-mobile civilian existence.
Turkey’s ruling elite, obsessed with the Kurdish “threat,” just saw IS as a useful pest-control device, and made a deal with it—one that included a promise to make Suleyman Shah’s tomb the only one in IS territory that wouldn’t be touched. If Turkey had really been worried that IS might desecrate the tomb, it would have sent a convoy to recover the coffin back when IS had undisputed control, a few months ago. It didn’t. Instead, Turkey waited until YPG/J Kurdish militia, driving south after liberating Kobane, were about to take the area around Suleyman Shah’s tomb.
Only then, on February 22, 2015, did the Turkish Army decide to drive south and rescue the body of Suleyman. The timing makes their motive clear: Turkey didn’t want to be indebted to the Kurds, the socialist radicals of YPG/J, for protecting Suleyman’s body. There was no threat from the YPG/J; they make a point of respecting all religious beliefs and would never dream of desecrating a tomb. Erdogan and his bigoted hick constituency, which hates Kurds with an insane passion, just couldn’t stand the idea of owing them anything.
Most humiliating of all was the fact that the route to Suleyman’s tomb led south through…Kobane. Oooo, that had to hurt! Back in October ’14, Erdogan was “warning”—which is to say, hoping and praying—that Kobane would fall in hours.
Now the defenders of Kobane were tickling the banks of the Euphrates, after blasting IS’s demoralized amateurs out of hundreds of villages around Kobane. There hasn’t been an offensive like this from a socialist army since 1945, not that you’d know it if you asked queasy pampered first-world socialists.
Erdogan doesn’t like commies (Islamists rarely do, as Indonesia 1965 demonstrated) and he doesn’t like Kurds. And he has the same ol’ birth rate fears all old racists have—so Turkey didn’t take any chances when it sent its convoy south to get Suleyman’s bones. The convoy consisted of 39 tanks and 57 APCs, manned by 572 soldiers.
So in October 2014, as Islamic State convoys pushed toward Suleyman Shah’s tomb on the Euphrates River southwest of Kobane, we had the conditions for a lab-quality experiment: Would IS’s ferocious Wahaabist intolerance for fancy tombs triumph over its sleazy alliance with Turkey? Would ideology trump realpolitik?
Quick answer: Nah. Islamic State “threatened” to blow up the tomb, and could’ve done it easily, since the Turkish military assigned only 40 soldiers to the site. But threats are for suckers; what you watch for is whether they do it or not. And IS never touched that tomb in months of occupying the country around it.
That non-action, from a group like IS that’s pretty much non-stop mayhem everywhere else, is exhibit Z in the long list of indications that Islamic State and Turkey made a deal. They both deny it, but there’ve been too many videos of Turkish soldiers waving howdy to IS jihadis, investigative reporters killed in convenient car crashes, and outright confessions by IS vets about being smuggled back and forth across the Syrian border with full Turkish cooperation.
Turkish policy made sense, in a grim way, back in the Autumn of 2014, when everyone was looking forward to the fall of Kobane. The radical Kurds of PKK/YPG/J were a real threat to Turkish sovereignty in the East, while the Arabs and assorted war tourists of IS seemed like a joke, with no potential to cause trouble in Turkey proper.
It’s not that Turkey likes IS, or shares its attitudes. You won’t find a lot of real support for IS outside a particular demographic: Young, male, middle-class wannabe thugs. It’s the same demographic that supplied most recruits for the James brothers, Quantrill, and Anderson, and the appeal is the same: Rape, plunder, sectarian revenge, escape from the boredom of downwardly-mobile civilian existence.
Turkey’s ruling elite, obsessed with the Kurdish “threat,” just saw IS as a useful pest-control device, and made a deal with it—one that included a promise to make Suleyman Shah’s tomb the only one in IS territory that wouldn’t be touched. If Turkey had really been worried that IS might desecrate the tomb, it would have sent a convoy to recover the coffin back when IS had undisputed control, a few months ago. It didn’t. Instead, Turkey waited until YPG/J Kurdish militia, driving south after liberating Kobane, were about to take the area around Suleyman Shah’s tomb.
Only then, on February 22, 2015, did the Turkish Army decide to drive south and rescue the body of Suleyman. The timing makes their motive clear: Turkey didn’t want to be indebted to the Kurds, the socialist radicals of YPG/J, for protecting Suleyman’s body. There was no threat from the YPG/J; they make a point of respecting all religious beliefs and would never dream of desecrating a tomb. Erdogan and his bigoted hick constituency, which hates Kurds with an insane passion, just couldn’t stand the idea of owing them anything.
Most humiliating of all was the fact that the route to Suleyman’s tomb led south through…Kobane. Oooo, that had to hurt! Back in October ’14, Erdogan was “warning”—which is to say, hoping and praying—that Kobane would fall in hours.
Now the defenders of Kobane were tickling the banks of the Euphrates, after blasting IS’s demoralized amateurs out of hundreds of villages around Kobane. There hasn’t been an offensive like this from a socialist army since 1945, not that you’d know it if you asked queasy pampered first-world socialists.
Erdogan doesn’t like commies (Islamists rarely do, as Indonesia 1965 demonstrated) and he doesn’t like Kurds. And he has the same ol’ birth rate fears all old racists have—so Turkey didn’t take any chances when it sent its convoy south to get Suleyman’s bones. The convoy consisted of 39 tanks and 57 APCs, manned by 572 soldiers.
Just curious, if/when ISIS is degraded and loses control over significant parts of the region, who will be the new group we have to 'use every available resource' to degrade and defeat next?
On February 26 2015 01:57 nunez wrote: war nerd dressing down of the macabre turk charade:
The war nerd: Tomb Raiders of Kobane
...
So in October 2014, as Islamic State convoys pushed toward Suleyman Shah’s tomb on the Euphrates River southwest of Kobane, we had the conditions for a lab-quality experiment: Would IS’s ferocious Wahaabist intolerance for fancy tombs triumph over its sleazy alliance with Turkey? Would ideology trump realpolitik?
Quick answer: Nah. Islamic State “threatened” to blow up the tomb, and could’ve done it easily, since the Turkish military assigned only 40 soldiers to the site. But threats are for suckers; what you watch for is whether they do it or not. And IS never touched that tomb in months of occupying the country around it.
That non-action, from a group like IS that’s pretty much non-stop mayhem everywhere else, is exhibit Z in the long list of indications that Islamic State and Turkey made a deal. They both deny it, but there’ve been too many videos of Turkish soldiers waving howdy to IS jihadis, investigative reporters killed in convenient car crashes, and outright confessions by IS vets about being smuggled back and forth across the Syrian border with full Turkish cooperation.
Turkish policy made sense, in a grim way, back in the Autumn of 2014, when everyone was looking forward to the fall of Kobane. The radical Kurds of PKK/YPG/J were a real threat to Turkish sovereignty in the East, while the Arabs and assorted war tourists of IS seemed like a joke, with no potential to cause trouble in Turkey proper.
It’s not that Turkey likes IS, or shares its attitudes. You won’t find a lot of real support for IS outside a particular demographic: Young, male, middle-class wannabe thugs. It’s the same demographic that supplied most recruits for the James brothers, Quantrill, and Anderson, and the appeal is the same: Rape, plunder, sectarian revenge, escape from the boredom of downwardly-mobile civilian existence.
Turkey’s ruling elite, obsessed with the Kurdish “threat,” just saw IS as a useful pest-control device, and made a deal with it—one that included a promise to make Suleyman Shah’s tomb the only one in IS territory that wouldn’t be touched. If Turkey had really been worried that IS might desecrate the tomb, it would have sent a convoy to recover the coffin back when IS had undisputed control, a few months ago. It didn’t. Instead, Turkey waited until YPG/J Kurdish militia, driving south after liberating Kobane, were about to take the area around Suleyman Shah’s tomb.
Only then, on February 22, 2015, did the Turkish Army decide to drive south and rescue the body of Suleyman. The timing makes their motive clear: Turkey didn’t want to be indebted to the Kurds, the socialist radicals of YPG/J, for protecting Suleyman’s body. There was no threat from the YPG/J; they make a point of respecting all religious beliefs and would never dream of desecrating a tomb. Erdogan and his bigoted hick constituency, which hates Kurds with an insane passion, just couldn’t stand the idea of owing them anything.
Most humiliating of all was the fact that the route to Suleyman’s tomb led south through…Kobane. Oooo, that had to hurt! Back in October ’14, Erdogan was “warning”—which is to say, hoping and praying—that Kobane would fall in hours.
Now the defenders of Kobane were tickling the banks of the Euphrates, after blasting IS’s demoralized amateurs out of hundreds of villages around Kobane. There hasn’t been an offensive like this from a socialist army since 1945, not that you’d know it if you asked queasy pampered first-world socialists.
Erdogan doesn’t like commies (Islamists rarely do, as Indonesia 1965 demonstrated) and he doesn’t like Kurds. And he has the same ol’ birth rate fears all old racists have—so Turkey didn’t take any chances when it sent its convoy south to get Suleyman’s bones. The convoy consisted of 39 tanks and 57 APCs, manned by 572 soldiers.
EPT
