ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
There is nothing in that statement that is even relevant. What's the point you are trying to make?
Because he's not claiming to fight in the name of Britain.
Ask the Libyans how things are since we meddled over there.
That's all it takes, is it? For someone to "say" who they are fighting for and suddenly it is their (that group they say they are fighting for) problem?
Also pray tell - what "stance" should they assume? Conveniently light on the details.
Also pray tell - what "stance" should they assume? Conveniently light on the details.
Still no relevance. The point, please. Make one.
How is people calling for western intervention and me pointing out that there is evidence to suggest that it causes more problems than it solves not relevant?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Stop being obtuse.
The point that is very clearly being made is that interfering, even with the best of intentions, can make things worse. Saddam and Gadafi were removed, a power vacuum was created and they all started butchering each other.
And they still are after we stopped bombing them.
It's not particularly complicated. Islam isn't a country, and all Muslims belong to a single community. A group from that community - claiming to represent Islam - is committing atrocities and murdering innocents. Until Muslims take responsibility and not get distracted by it's a sunni/shia/Jewish/Western problem etc not much is going to change.
Muslims blame everyone else. I've seen Sunnis claim Shias are committing mass murders in Iraq and Syria based on what the media state. Same people, when asked about Sunni groups killing other Muslims, will say we shouldn't trust the media. Same with Shias. Scholars, who should be teaching the religion, are almost useless.
Think others were involved in Libya for quite a while...
There's no public or political will for this to happen. Even if that did happen, ISIS would stand no chance against professional armies with people actually on the ground. They'd probably melt away and fight a war that conventional armies aren't good at fighting. There's also the thorny issue of Syria. I really can't see the UK getting seriously involved any time soon.
So didn't make things worse and certainly prevented the deaths of 10s of thousands of civilians at the time.
You only have to look at Iraq to see the damage that was done.
kind of the less bad option considering the massacres that were occurring thanks to the former regime and their mercenaries
And who encouraged the mercenaries fighting against that regime?
Yes, it is quite simple actually. Just because someone claims to do something in "the name of" does not transfer blame nor responsibility onto that.
IRA - should all of the Irish be to blame for their terrorism? No. Of course not.
What bigoted nonsense you spout to fit your prejudice agenda.
Can. Perhaps. Did it? No.
Also the point still hasn't been made. It's all sidestepping.
Me said:
You haven't answered it. So your suggested action is to take no action. Righto.