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

Earl.Of.Trumps

Saddam wanted a secular government, until his last days in power when he invoked 'jihad'. He was also cruel and violent, but not on the same level & scale as IS. Just my opinion :)

"Invoke Jihad"??? Where are you getting this from, Meryt?

Did you know Saddam only became a Sunni for political purposes when he was in his 50's? He was not religious at all.

His right hand man that was a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. True story!

I liked Tariq Aziz, a real no-nonsene man who spent more time being interviewed by the West than any Iraqi.

Saddam could care less about religion unless he saw too much of it, and he destroyed the fanatical Shiia when they got violent.

Just saying, Meryt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
meryt-tetisheri

"Invoke Jihad"??? Where are you getting this from, Meryt?

Did you know Saddam only became a Sunni for political purposes when he was in his 50's? He was not religious at all.

His right hand man that was a member of the Revolutionary Command Council, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. True story!

I liked Tariq Aziz, a real no-nonsene man who spent more time being interviewed by the West than any Iraqi.

Saddam could care less about religion unless he saw too much of it, and he destroyed the fanatical Shiia when they got violent.

Just saying, Meryt!

Saddam was opportunistic enough to remember religion when it suited him, and to exploit religiosity when deemed advantageous. He changed the flag of Iraq to include the Takbir (Allah Akbar), and called for Jihad on 'infidels' in 1991 during the Gulf war, and later. The extent or authenticity of his personal piety is really irrelevant when compared to his choice of public message & persona presented to his people.

http://articles.lati...-477_1_holy-war

You can read the text of one of his speeches addressing Muslim ulama in 1983 in which he clearly pandered to religious sentiments:

"I may apologise to the Iraqi people, the scholars of

international law, and those involved in politics and

legislature, for they may criticise Saddam Hussein

and say how a Head of State can agree in advance

to something he has not yet read or seen or known. I

would say to this criticism that when such a

gathering of good men who have come from all

parts of the globe, representing Muslims, are in

concensus on an opinion, it must be the right one.

Even if we have a different opinion we do not think

that ours would be sounder than that of all this

gathering."

http://archive.org/s...Saddam_djvu.txt

Edited by meryt-tetisheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

I don`t care who right or wrong in all this, but for men to behead people and children and tear little children eyes out and make people suffer is wrong in this day and age is so bariatric .We are not living in the dark ages of religious dominations. There is war where soldiers fights soldiers. but when the world stands back and let these horrific killings happen to innocent people that just want to live in peace is wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Meryt, that is all well and fine but politicians will pander to *anyone* in order to remain popular and viable, and that is exactly what Saddam did to the Sunnis.

Our opinions vary. No big deal, in the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

I don`t care who right or wrong in all this, but for men to behead people and children and tear little children eyes out and make people suffer is wrong in this day and age is so bariatric .We are not living in the dark ages of religious dominations. There is war where soldiers fights soldiers. but when the world stands back and let these horrific killings happen to innocent people that just want to live in peace is wrong.

We all like to think the "modern" world is superior politically to the barbarians of old.

I don't things have changed all that much and maybe never will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

.

Saw this last night and thought it would fit in this thread.....

Psychology is a big part of any war...and this is an example of the West's fight back

on the online psychological front...

To try and minimise muslims going over to Iraq and Syria to join IS...

Warning...graphic content.

Don't know what the Mods will think about this link being here.?..but the content does come

from the US State Department so it might be ok....dunno

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

Islamic State militants currently sweeping across Syria and Iraq have already gained notoriety through their use of intimidating, but slick, social media campaigns.

Now, the US State Department has released their own video to counter terrorist attempts to recruit people online.

Think Again Turn Away is a US government counter-terrorism initiative carried out through social media. "Don't be misled by those who break up families and destroy their true heritage," the State Department describes on its Facebook page.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

We all like to think the "modern" world is superior politically to the barbarians of old.

I don't things have changed all that much and maybe never will.

The world has only changed for some of us.

Hold onto the past, refuse to educate the population, use religion as a tool for power and control, enslave 50% of your own due to gender, kill those who refuse to capitulate...some parts of the world just haven't moved on from those ancient times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Good points, but as far as I am concerned, the ISIS problem is easier for Russia/China to dismantle than the West.

Why, oh why, must the USA - and I suppose, UK too, get involved with every sneeze that happens on the other side of the world?

Didn't we screw things up enough already? It was the 2003 Iraq invasion that ultimately led to the formation of ISIS, something that could never have been done with Saddam in power. We did NOBODY in Iraq in favors.

EDIT: spelling

Perhaps I've missed the connection but I don't think those other countries have been openly threatened by these Jihadis. If they were, I imagine they would be going medieval on them as we chat. No, it is we in the west that they want to take on apparently. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not is immaterial to them. They KNOW who they are at war against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

In any case of past history how can the world stand back in this day and age and let these horrors happen to people. There are wars where soliders fights soliders, and innocent people are some times killed , but to purposely kill innocent people it wrong, just like Hitler.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

In any case of past history how can the world stand back in this day and age and let these horrors happen to people. There are wars where soliders fights soliders, and innocent people are some times killed , but to purposely kill innocent people it wrong, just like Hitler.

That was at about the same time when the concept of "total war" was rediscovered. Before that, I guess that you could say that it was somewhat more 'gentlemanly'. Now, we have terms like "ethnic cleansing", "collateral damge" and "soft targets". Now we can take out anyone, either an individual or millions of others with, truly, the 'press of a button'.

But back to the question of, "Can the West live with ISIS?"

No, I don't think so. It's far too late for that. This will end up being another hellstorm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

That was at about the same time when the concept of "total war" was rediscovered. Before that, I guess that you could say that it was somewhat more 'gentlemanly'. Now, we have terms like "ethnic cleansing", "collateral damge" and "soft targets". Now we can take out anyone, either an individual or millions of others with, truly, the 'press of a button'.

But back to the question of, "Can the West live with ISIS?"

No, I don't think so. It's far too late for that. This will end up being another hellstorm.

But the question is - who will rain hell on whom? Unless the pols in the west become more decisive this group may become very much bolder and stronger while we dither.

edit for clarity

Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Likely Guy

But the question is - who will rain hell on who? Unless the pols in the west become more decisive this group may become very much bolder and stronger while we dither.

And while the West dithers, there will be more air and drone strikes, and, in turn, there will be more atrocities. Which will also make 'the average westerner' maybe become more decisive. This won't take place over weeks or months, of course. It might take years, or a decade, or 'thereabouts'.

ETA: Back to your question though on "Who will rain hell on who?" As usual, civilian casualities will exceed those of the military. But, I expect, that in the end ISIS will be no more.

Edited by Likely Guy

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.