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

jeem

Look what I found on youtube

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

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.

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?

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.

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?

The ideas were on this thread.

I'm not focusing on 30,000 people I'm saying the exact opposite; that's not the problem here. Pretty much the entire country has been overrun. There is no military solution unless you want to occupy the country and fight cross-border skirmishes for 50 or 100 years and potentially start WW3 for your trouble. Like we're going to play dress-up with the Iranians now?! Good heavens.

My plan to help? Step one: Airlift Americans out. I suppose we could help expedite the extraction of any cranky Brits wandering about the place as well. My plan to help also includes to stop putting a bulls eye on my country's forehead and cancel Commander Obama's self-described "long term project" of bombing people. Finally I'd call the UK and other countries and organize humanitarian aid for Iraqis and programs to expedite asylum seekers to other places in the world.

And I'd twist your arms hard, UK, France, Germany, get your butts in there and secure this withdrawal. You Pottery Barn folks need to learn what non-intervention means. They have to see it done to believe it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Look what I found on youtube

this angle isn't going to wash you know...and feels like something from Jihad Central..

that was from 2012 and was military training of so called Rebels in Syria....

many in the West didn't agree with or approve of siding with and training the 'rebels', me included..

but that's what happened....

it is mischievous and misleading to try and pin this in the US...but good obfuscation for propaganda

purposes aimed at weakening the 'enemy' psychologically..... :)

oh and next time you post a link could you please at least give a short description of it or some indication

of what it's about...thankyou

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

The ideas were on this thread.

I'm not focusing on 30,000 people I'm saying the exact opposite; that's not the problem here. Pretty much the entire country has been overrun. There is no military solution unless you want to occupy the country and fight cross-border skirmishes for 50 or 100 years and potentially start WW3 for your trouble. Like we're going to play dress-up with the Iranians now?! Good heavens.

My plan to help? Step one: Airlift Americans out. I suppose we could help expedite the extraction of any cranky Brits wandering about the place as well. My plan to help also includes to stop putting a bulls eye on my country's forehead and cancel Commander Obama's self-described "long term project" of bombing people. Finally I'd call the UK and other countries and organize humanitarian aid for Iraqis and programs to expedite asylum seekers to other places in the world.

And I'd twist your arms hard, UK, France, Germany, get your butts in there and secure this withdrawal. You Pottery Barn folks need to learn what non-intervention means. They have to see it done to believe it exists.

I'm sure any 'cranky brits' wandering around over there would be safer taking their own chances, you'd probably shoot them by 'mistake' anyway :D

I don't see anything you've written as being any kind of solution - the humanitarian aid issue would be pretty much resigned to air drops, since you can't have a co-ordinated effort on the ground with no military back-up to protect both those helping and those in need of help.

You said yourself, the country is pretty much over-run, you can't relocate the population at large to other parts of the world - and why should they leave their homeland anyway......as I said, we broke their country, and the only solution you want to offer them is to either relocate them to other countries, limited (by virtue of no military intervention as you've stated) humanitarian aid, or let them fight IS themselves.

I understand why you want the US out of middle eastern affairs altogether - but your country led the charge that destroyed that country, I don't think the US, UK, and all the others that took part should be allowed to just walk away and offer the limited support you have suggested. I find the whole concept of 'destroy and run' quite sickening, it should be a crime against humanity to do that to a countries population.

Edited by The Sky Scanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm sure any 'cranky brits' wandering around over there would be safer taking their own chances, you'd probably shoot them by 'mistake' anyway :D

I don't see anything you've written as being any kind of solution - the humanitarian aid issue would be pretty much resigned to air drops, since you can't have a co-ordinated effort on the ground with no military back-up to protect both those helping and those in need of help.

You said yourself, the country is pretty much over-run, you can't relocate the population at large to other parts of the world - and why should they leave their homeland anyway......as I said, we broke their country, and the only solution you want to offer them is to either relocate them to other countries, limited (by virtue of no military intervention as you've stated) humanitarian aid, or let them fight IS themselves.

I understand why you want the US out of middle eastern affairs altogether - but your country led the charge that destroyed that country, I don't think the US, UK, and all the others that took part should be allowed to just walk away and offer the limited support you have suggested. I find the whole concept of 'destroy and run' quite sickening, it should be a crime against humanity to do that to a countries population.

Then I hope to hear you condemning your government for not avoiding the commission of a crime against humanity on the Europe board because that would be a terrible thing to ignore wouldn't it.

You're not really offering any alternatives with your critique but you are implying that war, war, and more war is the solution?

How long can a failure go on before you can agree to stop failing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

Then I hope to hear you condemning your government for not avoiding the commission of a crime against humanity on the Europe board because that would be a terrible thing to ignore wouldn't it.

It would.

You're not really offering any alternatives with your critique but you are implying that war, war, and more war is the solution?

Standing between IS and the Iraqi population is a step in the right direction, seeing as we put the Iraqi population in their sights to begin with.

How long can a failure go on before you can agree to stop failing?

How many times does the US and it's allies get to go in and destroy somewhere before someone holds them to account and makes them clean up the mess they created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

It would.

Standing between IS and the Iraqi population is a step in the right direction, seeing as we put the Iraqi population in their sights to begin with.

How many times does the US and it's allies get to go in and destroy somewhere before someone holds them to account and makes them clean up the mess they created?

Zero more times. "Standing between" is just asking for yet another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

Zero more times. "Standing between" is just asking for yet another time.

Sure, cause if you walk away this time you'll promise never to do it again - riiiiiiight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Sure, cause if you walk away this time you'll promise never to do it again - riiiiiiight!

When the bills come due we won't be able to afford to do it again.

"Walk away" is just rhetoric for not occupying Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

When the bills come due we won't be able to afford to do it again.

"Walk away" is just rhetoric for not occupying Iraq.

You'll find a way.

You don't need to occupy, you've been asked for military help by Iraqi government, and by those groups targetted by IS. "Occupation" is just rhetoric to avoid helping.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

I agree with that ...

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

:cry:

.

In todays news...ISIS supporters on Oxford Street

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2723703/The-dawn-new-era-begun-ISIS-supporters-hand-leaflets-Oxford-Street-encouraging-people-newly-proclaimed-Islamic-State.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

In todays news...ISIS supporters on Oxford Street

http://www.dailymail...amic-State.html

Wow... wouldn't THAT be cool? A reverse immigration would take care of a lot of the worries ;)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libstaK

The Kurdish Peshmergers are proving themselves to be very humane and compassionate toward their neighbours. I was impressed, if not a little startled by the speed with which they stepped up as soon as the U.S.A cut a path for them to reach the refugees. I think arming them is a rare chance to get it right for a change in that region of the world.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

These come to mind:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/terror_attacks.jpg

http://shariaunveiled.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/muslim-persecution-of-christians-map-edited1.png

No one denies that there is Christian based terrorism. To think so is naive. And this is the key; it’s not about the acts of terrorism as it is the ideology behind it. The first thing that one should notice is that for the *most* part, the examples you present are individual/personal acts or small in scale for some immediate purpose. This shows that the Christian terrorists do not drive the Christian ideology bus, primarily because Christian doctrine is not based in using terrorism or Jihad. It’s just an ends to a means. Christians will shun its extremists. On the other hand, using deceit and terrorism is a central core in the Quran to achieve Jihad.

And it’s not just wild-eye crazy Islamic extremists. Bee offers an interview of Amer Deghayes. He seems to be a normal average person – a moderate. But he’s gone to Syria to fight with ISIS because he feels that it’s his duty. Major Hasan, Mohammad Sidique Khan and his compatriots, and the Tsarnaev brothers were moderates. They could have been best friends with anyone here.

It’s interesting that the Reformation is considered as terrorism as opposed to a series of wars. No doubt that terrorism played a part in the events and it was state sponsored. But the schism created led to a war that lasted 130 years and ended in the Peace of Westphalia. Something good eventually came out of it. One didn’t dominate the other but the two sides learned to accept each other. As to date, the schism in Islam is nowhere near such an amicable end. And Muslims are still commanded to *struggle* for Allah, whether it be by the tongue or the sword. It’s the Ummah (humanity) versus the world but even the Ummah is split.

From time to time, the state has involved itself using dogma for its own purpose. Charlemagne used Christianity to unite Europe. Mohammed had used Islam to unite the Arabian Peninsula. Both noble endeavors. Christians interpret verses in the Bible and commit terrorism in order to prevent abortion, for example. They do it to save lives. Other Christians see this as being misguided. Christ told his followers to love one another and to make disciples of all nations (I.e. “The Flowers of St Francis”). Muslims go to the Quran to read ayahs in how to perform acts of terror to aid in their struggle to spread the Message of the Prophet. All Muslims are commanded to comply with that; one is not permitted to interfere with or condemn someone else’s Jihad. The ultimate goal is to make converts and to utterly destroy anything that does not conform to Islam and Sharia Law.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9LDTPmR27_M/T_yllEfRTyI/AAAAAAAALh0/1xhBV0Xwrgc/s640/obama-admin-the-war-on-terror-is-over-obama-surrender-dhimmi-politics-1335314725.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

The Kurdish Peshmergers are proving themselves to be very humane and compassionate toward their neighbours. I was impressed, if not a little startled by the speed with which they stepped up as soon as the U.S.A cut a path for them to reach the refugees. I think arming them is a rare chance to get it right for a change in that region of the world.

Like I said... Peshmergers are kind individuals and don't abuse their power, they are not religiously intolerant or harbor any hatred towards other races. They are unique in Iraqi and they best display what it means to be an American Soldier, they have the ideals and right type of thinking. I think they would fit right in America, only thing difference would be their religion. Go Peshmergers! I salute you!

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You'll find a way.

You don't need to occupy, you've been asked for military help by Iraqi government, and by those groups targetted by IS. "Occupation" is just rhetoric to avoid helping.

And let me guess...you haven't been asked.

You get in and get out. We have no apparent desire to do that. "Long-term" bombing "project" from me, and a dereliction of duty from you. Put boots on the ground, secure some ground corridors, dominate the air overhead easily during the whole operation, move people to airfields that can handle airliners and get them out of there. Get your people out and your "responsibility" is done. The greater responsibility here is to learn the lesson that military interventionism in Iraq is a mistake and stop making that same mistake over and over again ad nauseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

And let me guess...you haven't been asked.

You get in and get out. We have no apparent desire to do that. "Long-term" bombing "project" from me, and a dereliction of duty from you. Put boots on the ground, secure some ground corridors, dominate the air overhead easily during the whole operation, move people to airfields that can handle airliners and get them out of there. Get your people out and your "responsibility" is done. The greater responsibility here is to learn the lesson that military interventionism in Iraq is a mistake and stop making that same mistake over and over again ad nauseum.

"Dereliction of duty from you" - we'll leave aside the hilarious notion of a US citizen lecturing the British on how to conduct themselves in warfare shall well.....because trust me my friend, your country is a long way down a very long list when it comes to giving people advice on such matters.

Back to the topic at hand...

I don't share your optimism on what the 'greater responsibility' is here i'm afraid. Firstly because the greater responsibility should always be to protect the innocent, and stop the spread of those targeting them. Coupled with the fact that "get your people out and your responsibility is done" is not something I recognise....simply because I don't value the life of a British Citizen as being greater then that of an Iraqi Citizen. So removing any British in the area does not make our work done when it's relating to a mess we help create.

Secondly, ensuring that military interventionism like that is Iraq never happens again, is never going to happen - it most certainly will happen again. The lesson won't be learnt simply because you have varying schools of thought on how society should be run, and finite resources - those two alone make future wars inevitable, it's just a case of who and when (I wish as much as you that that wasn't the case - but it is)....so I can never agree with your current stance of minimal help, simply because it continues the never ending trend of breaking countries and not being held accountable for staying the course and ensuring their stability.

Also, your suggestions have only been to offer displacing people to other parts of the world...and we know how well that works don't we!!! Nothing you have suggested offers any solution in stopping the spread of IS, beyond you saying let others deal with them....well the one's that are trying to deal with them have asked for help - that plea shouldn't take us a nano second to respond too really, given our role in their plight. (I notice US and UK special forces have been on the ground for the past 6 weeks, that is a step in the right direction, I hope they get whatever support they ask for).

Edited by The Sky Scanner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

"Dereliction of duty from you" - we'll leave aside the hilarious notion of a US citizen lecturing the British on how to conduct themselves in warfare shall well.....because trust me my friend, your country is a long way down a very long list when it comes to giving people advice on such matters.

Back to the topic at hand...

I don't share your optimism on what the 'greater responsibility' is here i'm afraid. Firstly because the greater responsibility should always be to protect the innocent, and stop the spread of those targeting them. Coupled with the fact that "get your people out and your responsibility is done" is not something I recognise....simply because I don't value the life of a British Citizen as being greater then that of an Iraqi Citizen. So removing any British in the area does not make our work done when it's relating to a mess we help create.

Secondly, ensuring that military interventionism like that is Iraq never happens again, is never going to happen - it most certainly will happen again. The lesson won't be learnt simply because you have varying schools of thought on how society should be run, and finite resources - those two alone make future wars inevitable, it's just a case of who and when (I wish as much as you that that wasn't the case - but it is)....so I can never agree with your current stance of minimal help, simply because it continues the never ending trend of breaking countries and not being held accountable for staying the course and ensuring their stability.

Also, your suggestions have only been to offer displacing people to other parts of the world...and we know how well that works don't we!!! Nothing you have suggested offers any solution in stopping the spread of IS, beyond you saying let others deal with them....well the one's that are trying to deal with them have asked for help - that plea shouldn't take us a nano second to respond too really, given our role in their plight. (I notice US and UK special forces have been on the ground for the past 6 weeks, that is a step in the right direction, I hope they get whatever support they ask for).

I'm going to lecture you for your early withdrawal and your lack of going back. Clearly your own government doesn't see the responsibility that you do. It's cognitive dissonance to talk about this "more than a moral responsibility" while excusing your government's dereliction in the same breath. It's also an entitlement complex to even see you laughing about me paying for this nonsense while you sit on your hands and make exclamations.

No, you don't displace people by force dude. If you do, you should be bombed yourself. Spacing out on the difference between voluntarism and force wasn't a good idea here.

Secondly, ensuring that military interventionism like that is Iraq never happens again, is never going to happen - it most certainly will happen again. The lesson won't be learnt simply because you have varying schools of thought on how society should be run, and finite resources

Iraqi society is not my/our/your job in the world. That remains to be up to the people of Iraq no matter what ideas you may have or what crayons you color with.

so I can never agree with your current stance of minimal help, simply because it continues the never ending trend of breaking countries and not being held accountable for staying the course and ensuring their stability.

My minimal looks like a maximal when compared with what your country is doing. Have you condemned it yet elsewhere on the forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Kyle Kulinski isn’t too aware is he? He needs to do some research on the terms: Taqiya, Tawriyah, Kitman, and Muruna. I recognize some of this especially from the clerics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

*trying very, very hard to ignore*

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

*trying very, very hard to ignore*

While many Muslims have raised a voice against IS, I don't think that - in and of itself - proves they are moderates. Human beings in general know horror when they see it. IS is evil incarnate. Ingraham did misspeak and she should explain herself to retain her own credibility. As a rule she is spot on in her analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

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

ISIS have AK-47's.

They've got way more than Aks. They've got armored fighting vehicles courtesy of bipartisan 'Murica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

While many Muslims have raised a voice against IS, I don't think that - in and of itself - proves they are moderates. Human beings in general know horror when they see it. IS is evil incarnate. Ingraham did misspeak and she should explain herself to retain her own credibility. As a rule she is spot on in her analysis.

So now they have to "prove" they're "moderates" and it's guilty until proven innocent. Barack Hussein Obama needs to prove he's a moderate and he's done a crap job of it for the past six years.

  • Like 1

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.