Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
libstaK

Can the West Live with ISIS?

363 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

Again, you are unable to follow simple conversations - I didn't single them out, I responded to a point acidhead made, if he'd spoken about the 1.2 million that have left their homes I would have mentioned those instead. He mentioned airlifting the people off the mountain, I said "that's was about 30,000"....that isn't singling anyone out, that is responding to a point that was made. That is how a conversation works at it's most simplest of levels. I do hope you understand that basic point, and don't need it explained to you yet again.

It's singling people out that you don't believe can be rescued to the exclusion of millions more. The focus on the hilltop doesn't even chip the berg. ISIS is taking over Iraq.

"That's about 30,000", to which I replied that you can airlift cargo in and people out on the same flight, this is child's play compared to what's been accomplished generations ago. Days have gone by since this conversation began. We could be half way done by now if we did what we're capable of.

I did allude to the 1.2 million and millions more who can't leave their homes, or have not left their homes yet but will in the future. Let's cut to the chase here. Who do we have a moral responsibility to save in Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Let's see here:

If the USA takes out ISIS we will be railed on for getting involved in other people's business.

If the USA does not take out ISIS we will be railed on for allowing such horrific things to happen.

Catch 22 IMO.

Personally, I'd do the whole bunch of them in as I consider them a danger to all people everywhere.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

It's singling people out that you don't believe can be rescued to the exclusion of millions more. The focus on the hilltop doesn't even chip the berg. ISIS is taking over Iraq.

"That's about 30,000", to which I replied that you can airlift cargo in and people out on the same flight, this is child's play compared to what's been accomplished generations ago. Days have gone by since this conversation began. We could be half way done by now if we did what we're capable of.

I did allude to the 1.2 million and millions more who can't leave their homes, or have not left their homes yet but will in the future. Let's cut to the chase here. Who do we have a moral responsibility to save in Iraq?

We have more then a moral responsibility to save in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility to ensure the country is stable, we messed it up, and then left to early. We created the vacuum that lets ISIS grow, we have a moral responsibility to put ISIS down before even more innocent Iraqis have to suffer. I don't agree with your stance of letting others sort it out, or letting them sort it out themselves....most in that country are not in a position to fend off ISIS. We broke it - we fix it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

We have more then a moral responsibility to save in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility to ensure the country is stable, we messed it up, and then left to early. We created the vacuum that lets ISIS grow, we have a moral responsibility to put ISIS down before even more innocent Iraqis have to suffer. I don't agree with your stance of letting others sort it out, or letting them sort it out themselves....most in that country are not in a position to fend off ISIS. We broke it - we fix it.

Exactly. Bottom line is that if US forces had been left then these thugs would not have to opportunity they are taking advantage of now. AND I'll say it again - allowing any one leader to dominate to the exclusion of the other major groups in Iraq was an obvious no no in such a country set up for sectarian strife. There should have been a MANDATORY rotation of power written into the constitution and enforced.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eluus

Well Badr was the first war Islam against the Meccan pagan.

An why are you ignoring the other part.If someone conspire against you you won't sit down will you?

It's the Meccan pagan who was the transagessors.They were allying with other tribes to attack Medina so Muslims responds by raiding their caravan to pressaure them economicaly.

I did some reading and thinking, after Phaeton's post. I realize now that I was (and my sources are) biased against Quran. Even though I still don't have a good opinion about it, it would be wrong to say that Muhammad and his followers were just like ISIS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I agree Eluus... there IS a critical difference between Mohammed's follwers, and ISIS.

ISIS have AK-47's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libstaK

I know a lot of muslims, they would be horrified if their children were ever to harm another soul much less do so themselves. What I think ISIS attracts, is the mentally ill.

Case in point:

http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_c3

The infamous Australian father - has a history of mental illness and is a diagnosed schizophrenic (which is actually extremely unfair to the great majority of folk with mental illness who would also never allow their children or themselves to bring others to harm btw).

The real point is that these people are the bonafide lunatic fringe - with emphasis on FRINGE, they represent no one but those who are sick in spirit, heart and mind in such specific manner as to manifest barbarity. Do not confuse the majority of Islam with these sick dudes anymore than we in the predominantly christian west would like to be confused with those who held the inquisitions and witch hunts of history past.

Edited by libstaK
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I know a lot of muslims, they would be horrified if their children were ever to harm another soul much less do so themselves. What I think ISIS attracts, is the mentally ill.

Case in point:

http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_c3

The infamous Australian father - has a history of mental illness and is a diagnosed schizophrenic (which is actually extremely unfair to the great majority of folk with mental illness who would also never allow their children or themselves to bring others to harm btw).

The real point is that these people are the bonafide lunatic fringe - with emphasis on FRINGE, they represent no one but those who are sick in spirit, heart and mind in such specific manner as to manifest barbarity. Do not confuse the majority of Islam with these sick dudes anymore than we in the predominantly christian west would like to be confused with those who held the inquisitions and witch hunts of history past.

IS is, I believe, suffused with a true spirit of evil and it calls to those of like spirit. What these animals do is completely without remorse. And I will add that even though the US is blamed for making them possible, we will also be blamed for not taking them out. I believe that blame would be correct. As someone said - we broke it, we have to fix it.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

We broke it when we fired everyone in the Iraqi military.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Looks like we may be going back...Iraq, 3.0

http://www.nytimes.c...f 08 12 14&_r=0

Also, Maliki seems to be backing down as Iran approves of new government moves in Iraq. Could the mullahs be trying to drag the US in deeper? Or do they just want us to handle their Sunni problem?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/world/middleeast/maliki-seems-to-back-away-from-using-military-force-to-retain-power.html

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

I guess if IS manage to kill people in the UK, or the US... which they say they will do, well I reckon that will change things swiftly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

I guess if IS manage to kill people in the UK, or the US... which they say they will do, well I reckon that will change things swiftly.

I expect homeland security is on red alert in the US after the airstrikes....

and Cameron has said clearly that the biggest threat to out National Security are those 'British' jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ifonly

I agree with both statements. Is there a way to fix it? Surely if a respected strong man like Hussein was around, well, maybe.

I remember when Yugoslavia fell apart right after the death of strong man Tito. Same thing here, I'm afraid, and don't think that our country's Departments of State did not know that before they took Hussein out.

Still against going back in. The only thing we could do to put Iraq back together is back ISIS - or *someone*.

ISIS are the enemy they are taking control of Iraq and Syria who knows whats next, if they are allowed to establish themselves we will see more and more large scale attacks on our own soil. lets not forget it's hatred for the west that drives them there can be no deals with them.

the only way is to re establish control, help install a credible government and provide support by way of policing training and aid, i would like to think this could be done in part by the UN but as that seems to be the most pointless organization on the face of the earth right now i think it must fall to individual nations namely U.S/UK.

I agree with you about Saddam he may have been a monster but one we could have controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

I expect homeland security is on red alert in the US after the airstrikes....

and Cameron has said clearly that the biggest threat to out National Security are those 'British' jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq..

Maybe they dont need to return? Maybe a UK/US fanatic builds something like the Boston Bombers did, only much much bigger...and then goes on to meet his virgins... remember these people fear no death..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Maybe they dont need to return? Maybe a UK/US fanatic builds something like the Boston Bombers did, only much much bigger...and then goes on to meet his virgins... remember these people fear no death..

I agree with that ...

for sure they will be itching to do their bit for the Global Jihad.....

:cry:

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

.

on the subject of 'British' jihadists...

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
and then
Using the first link - under "terror attacks" the total was 334. Non Islamist was fewer than 60 and of those most which might be considered religious rather than nationalistic fewer than 20. You were saying? Are you actually wanting to compare Islamic terror's impact on the world to the acts of Christian's who hate and act against the words of Christ? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

We have more then a moral responsibility to save in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility to ensure the country is stable, we messed it up, and then left to early. We created the vacuum that lets ISIS grow, we have a moral responsibility to put ISIS down before even more innocent Iraqis have to suffer. I don't agree with your stance of letting others sort it out, or letting them sort it out themselves....most in that country are not in a position to fend off ISIS. We broke it - we fix it.

So endless pottery barn mentality, then. So why focus on the 30,000 that you can't do anything for? There's at least two orders of magnitude more to do with this problem than focusing on what we cannot do, that which you'd sarcastically "love to see". What's the UK's role in that, for meeting this unique moral responsibility caused by the collapse of a failure of a policy your country took part in that I could have told you about 10 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Using the first link - under "terror attacks" the total was 334. Non Islamist was fewer than 60 and of those most which might be considered religious rather than nationalistic fewer than 20. You were saying? Are you actually wanting to compare Islamic terror's impact on the world to the acts of Christian's who hate and act against the words of Christ? Really?

Based on what you'd like to see more of, you're acting against the words of Christ too. Supporting terrorism and calling yourself a Christian? That combination doesn't wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

On the subject of 'Christian terrorists'.

Note to Phaeton....we are on the same side when it comes to ISIS...we are broadly in agreement..

but you still feel the need to counter my post about British Jihadists...? :-)

Earlier in this thread you agreed with another poster, 100% that they should be iradicated. (post 44)

I haven't gone as far as that (yet) because of the sheer practicalities of iradicating such an

International group. (Bonded by their religion)

The video I put a few posts earlier was chilling because the young man was so likeable..? intelligent..?

articulate..? educated..? he would have blended into any British town. He wasn't a foaming at the mouth

fanatic. (On the surface). And that is where it gets difficult with what is going on with IS.....

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

So endless pottery barn mentality, then. So why focus on the 30,000 that you can't do anything for? There's at least two orders of magnitude more to do with this problem than focusing on what we cannot do, that which you'd sarcastically "love to see". What's the UK's role in that, for meeting this unique moral responsibility caused by the collapse of a failure of a policy your country took part in that I could have told you about 10 years ago?

...and he's at it again! Scooby-doo's less confused then you. Acidhead focused on the people on the mountain top, I just commented on it - do you understand that?.

You could have told me ten yrs ago the policy we took with regards to Iraq was going to fail? LOL ...wow, how clever are you! Everyman and his dog knew what would happen by following the US into this ill thought out war......the only difference now is you think a sensible policy is to walk away and if thousands are slaughtered - oh well. I don't agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

It's rather useless to say, woulda/shoulda/coulda here. ISIS has arisen from the ashes of Iraq (lay the blame where you choose) and ISIS is killing anyone they deem infidels. So, what should be done about them? Personally, I think these murdering loons need to be stopped for the good of all...including muslims.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

...and he's at it again! Scooby-doo's less confused then you. Acidhead focused on the people on the mountain top, I just commented on it - do you understand that?.

You could have told me ten yrs ago the policy we took with regards to Iraq was going to fail? LOL ...wow, how clever are you! Everyman and his dog knew what would happen by following the US into this ill thought out war......the only difference now is you think a sensible policy is to walk away and if thousands are slaughtered - oh well. I don't agree.

Well all the patronizing aside, I'm not acidhead. Who are you to tell me what my policy ideas are? Your country turned tail long ago. It's a big joke if any American gets the same idea you had years ago? Well that's not my idea.

Yes, you just commented on it. Your comment amounted to throwing your hands up in the air in surrender while in other comments expressing concern. My policy ideas were already established before your commentary. They involved airliners. And again, this hilltop keeps taking center stage, playing linebacker against any actual proposals for any real action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

Well all the patronizing aside, I'm not acidhead. Who are you to tell me what my policy ideas are?

Because I asked you what your policy ideas were......that is why I am able to tell you what they are, because you directed me to your 'ideas' on another thread. This is the frustrating thing about trying to a discussion with you, you say something, then imply the person is wrong for repeating what you said.

Your country turned tail long ago. It's a big joke if any American gets the same idea you had years ago? Well that's not my idea.

Yep, we walked yrs ago....so pointing out that is not acceptable, that nations should not be able to smash a country to pieces then walk away and say "sorry about that, good luck rebuilding though", pointing that out is wrong is it?

Yes, you just commented on it. Your comment amounted to throwing your hands up in the air in surrender while in other comments expressing concern.

That is not what my comment amounted to at all, but then you know that, since you replied to the additional comments I made regarding evacuating a certain amount of people, when those that need help far exceed that number.

My policy ideas were already established before your commentary. They involved airliners. And again, this hilltop keeps taking center stage, playing linebacker against any actual proposals for any real action.

Thank you. At last you admit that the only one is this exchange that is concentrating on 30 thousand on a mountain side is you. What about the rest of the country Yam - what about the million plus that have fled their homes? what about those who IS haven't got to yet? what's your plan to help them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.