ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

scorza · 27 Sep 2014 at 10:57

Amnesia said:
We were funding and arming the terrorists in Syria...we were ready to send our own military in until Russia interjected.

Not really, the Free Syrian Army were quite moderate in comparison to Assad, Al-Nusra, ISIS and were just one side of a particularly brutal civil war. The notion that they were the terrorists is quite inaccurate. By not supporting them we actually made them the weakest of the four main sides in the conflict which allowed IS to gain the most ground. In fact, Assad has probably done more funding and arming of the terrorists fighting him than we have.

Amnesia said:
Iran is not what they are focusing on right now.

Do you honestly believe they will leave Iran alone ?
Iran will be invaded just like Iraq was and then over time they will split it up the same way they are going to do in Syria and Iraq.

keep the countries smaller and weaker....easier to invade.

They've left Iran alone for 35 years and I don't see why that would change. Relations between the US, Britain and Iran have actually been improving recently with the change of Iranian president. What effect the present situation in Iraq will have is anyone's guess, maybe I'm just being too optimistic in hoping that we'll emerge with better relations.

do_ron_ron · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:10

Amnesia said:
Except ISIS have taken over oil fields in Iraq and are beheading westerners.

Maybe that is the great reason for bombing ISIS, not because America really gives a flying **** about people in the region but with ISIS in control of oil and selling it for ~$75 a barrel. This is depressing the price of oil, from $114 a couple of months ago to ~$97 recently. That has got to hurt a lot of US oil companies and they have powerful backers in the US.

Saudi beheads 118 in the last 18 months, the Taliban beheaded 10 in Afghan this week but who behold anyone who does it to a white man. The media are massive hypocrites as usual.

We were assisting the terrorists in Syria and the terrorists alone without outside assistance would not have managed to gain as much ground as they have.

Never mind Cameron has as good as said that we will be attacking Syria, no doubt through 'mission creep' like Libya and what a sterling job we did there creating a failed state with militia rule and the added bonus of destabilising neighbouring countries like Chad. Who are the terrorists?

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:20

RDM said:
It still stand that if divide and conquer was our aim, leaving ISIS be would be the best way of doing it.

if divide and conquer was our aim we would be assisting terrorists in Syria to fight against the government...oh wait we were.

Not to mention Assad himself has said this is what they plan for Syria.
So who do we believe about issues concerning Syria..The President of Syria or President RDM

Rroff · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:23

do_ron_ron said:
Saudi beheads 118 in the last 18 months, the Taliban beheaded 10 in Afghan this week but who behold anyone who does it to a white man. The media are massive hypocrites as usual.

IS beheaded something like 1700 people before they started on white journalists and aid workers and no one gave a crap.

[TW]Fox · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:23

Amnesia said:
well you only have to look at how many terrorists there were before the war on terror and how many there are now.

There were none before the war on terror. Except 9/11 obviously. And the stuff in the 90's. And the stuff before that. Obviously. But other than that, there were none.

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:25

scorza said:
Not really, the Free Syrian Army were quite moderate in comparison to Assad, Al-Nusra, ISIS and were just one side of a particularly brutal civil war. The notion that they were the terrorists is quite inaccurate. By not supporting them we actually made them the weakest of the four main sides in the conflict which allowed IS to gain the most ground. In fact, Assad has probably done more funding and arming of the terrorists fighting him than we have.

YAY you found some moderate terrorists who just eat the hearts of the people they don't like.

also you contradicted yourself

scorza said:
They've left Iran alone for 35 years and I don't see why that would change. Relations between the US, Britain and Iran have actually been improving recently with the change of Iranian president. What effect the present situation in Iraq will have is anyone's guess, maybe I'm just being too optimistic in hoping that we'll emerge with better relations.

lol Iran has not been left alone.

Nitefly · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:25

[TW]Fox;26967801 said:
There were none before the war on terror. Except 9/11 obviously. And the stuff in the 90's. And the stuff before that. Obviously. But other than that, there were none.

Let's not forget Guy Fawkes.

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:27

[TW]Fox;26967801 said:
There were none before the war on terror. Except 9/11 obviously. And the stuff in the 90's. And the stuff before that. Obviously. But other than that, there were none.

I asked how many there were then and how many there are now, as in compare numbers for Iraq. it wasn't hard to understand

scorza · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:33

Amnesia said:
YAY you found some moderate terrorists who just eat the hearts of the people they don't like.

also you contradicted yourself

Yes, because an isolated incident is exactly the same as the widespread abuses committed by Islamic State.

No I didn't contradict myself, because I was talking about Assad arming and funding ISIS not the FSA.

Amnesia said:
lol Iran has not been left alone.

Care to explain (lol)?

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:41

scorza said:
Yes, because an isolated incident is exactly the same as the widespread abuses committed by Islamic State.

No I didn't contradict myself, because I was talking about Assad arming and funding ISIS not the FSA.

So which terrorists did you mean we funded and armed ?

scorza said:
Care to explain (lol)?

Iraq Iran war
sanctions
scientists killed
not allowed to build nuclear weapons

you will find more if you google it

MrMoonX · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:48

Money for bombs but no money for the poor and sick, got to love politicians

RoboCod · 27 Sep 2014 at 12:56

MrMoonX said:
Money for bombs but no money for the poor and sick, got to love politicians

I didn't realise we suddenly made all these bombs right now, today, with all the money we could have used to feed poor people. Personally I thought we just had ageing stock piles of them, many of which actually "ran out of date" and had to be reconditioned to be viable for use.

[TW]Fox · 27 Sep 2014 at 13:10

Rroff said:
IS beheaded something like 1700 people before they started on white journalists and aid workers and no one gave a crap.

What date was the first Western beheading? What date was the first US air strike?

scorza · 27 Sep 2014 at 13:43

Amnesia said:
So which terrorists did you mean we funded and armed ?

We haven't. Assad has.

Amnesia said:
Iraq Iran war
sanctions
scientists killed
not allowed to build nuclear weapons

you will find more if you google it

Sanctions aren't really intervention unless you think we're intervening in Russia right now? I believe it was Israel who killed the Iranian scientists who I refuse to accept as "us", and as for their nuclear programme - I believe the UNSC has passed 8 resolutions against Iran on this subject.

Well I will concede that the Iran-Iraq was was a proxy war for the US, so that's only 26 years that Iran has been left alone.

RDM · 27 Sep 2014 at 14:01

Amnesia said:
if divide and conquer was our aim we would be assisting terrorists in Syria to fight against the government...oh wait we were.

Not to mention Assad himself has said this is what they plan for Syria.
So who do we believe about issues concerning Syria..The President of Syria or President RDM

I am not sure this is even a response to anything I have said. :confused:

I shall leave you to ignoring reality and tilting at windmills.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 27 Sep 2014 at 14:08

George talking some sense about this utterly ineffective and actually counter-productive bombing campaign!!

Jon Stewart ripping the right-wing US media a new one :-)

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 14:20

RDM said:
I am not sure this is even a response to anything I have said.

I shall leave you to ignoring reality and tilting at windmills.

Well if someone is responding to what you have said then yes its a response to what you have said.

ignoring reality ?

i'm ignoring your reality which is that Syria and Iraq would just break apart without western intervention, that you know more about Syria than the president of Syria.
that the uk would have went in alone against Syria even after Russia interjected.

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 15:06

Amnesia said:
So which terrorists did you mean we funded and armed ?

scorza said:
We haven't. Assad has.

scorza said:
Assad has probably done more funding and arming of the terrorists fighting him than we have.

RoboCod · 27 Sep 2014 at 16:38

He could have meant MORE in that we=none and Assad=Some

Amnesia · 27 Sep 2014 at 17:56

Could have but would still be wrong.