ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

They recruit the weak and the desperate and convert them to their own ideology...

more head in sand stuff

now the IS volunteers are explained away as being 'weak and desparate' another poster wanted to dismiss them as being 'crazy'

basically you seem to want to deny the reality that actually some muslims out there who aren't weak, desperate or crazy simply have a different interpretation of Islam and are happy to join IS
 
Saddam had no WMD's and never would have....

well that is nonsense for a start, he used chemical weapons in the past and carried on with his programs at least post the first gulf war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack
Thousands of people are reported to have been killed and many others injured in a poison gas attack on a Kurdish city in northern Iraq.
Up to 20 aircraft, said to include Iraqi Migs and Mirages, were seen overhead at around 1100 local time in Halabja.

According to experts, the chemicals dropped by the planes may have included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide.
 
Last edited:
How can it be an interpretation if it's the exact opposite of what is said?

you don't understand how fundamentalists interpret things differently in a book that is rather muddled in its message and at times contradictory?

The same way moderates negate the violent passages.... they interpret the book differently
 
you don't understand how fundamentalists interpret things differently in a book that is rather muddled in its message and at times contradictory?

The same way moderates negate the violent passages.... they interpret the book differently

You mean that age old thing called context?
Please keep replying with more attempts at patronising questions.

You've completely dodged anything I've asked you and just repeating what you keep saying this entire thread.
 
You mean that age old thing called context?

yeah that thing that requires interpretation... and then results in different groups having different interpretations

you don't seem to be able to accept that there are different groups with different interpretations, you seem to want to take the view that one interpretation is right and others are just wrong

You've completely dodged anything I've asked you and just repeating what you keep saying this entire thread.

What have I dodged?
 
So what? Same god as Christians too. But you don't see young Christians and Jews wanting to join IS, they're an Islamist group - they're recruiting Muslims!

You and many others imply that because the ideology of these people has some roots in Islam, there's something wrong with Islam.

Look at the American Evangelicals who are pro-life, unless of course the life is taken by a firearm or through military conflicts abroad, in which case they are not pro-life anymore. In terms of ideology, Jesus would be so far to the left of these people that they would consider him a hippie or a traitor. Does this mean there's something wrong with Christianity? No, it only means some people took some concepts from it, twisted them to further their own agenda and they created a completely new ideology. That particular ideology is wrong, not Christianity, similar to how the IS ideology is wrong, not Islam.
 
you don't seem to be able to accept that there are different groups with different interpretations, you seem to want to take the view that one interpretation is right and others are just wrong

Do I? I've said that?
My God this conversation is painful.
Carry on
 
The Obama administration has dug itself a hole in Syria by treating chemical weapons like nuclear weapons. While both are weapons of mass destruction, they are critically different on three key dimensions.These dimensions should shape U.S. chemical weapons policy in Syria now and with other countries in the future.

First, although nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II, chemical weapons have been employed in virtually every type of conflict, including interstate wars (Iran-Iraq), civil wars (Yemen), terrorist attacks (Japan), and by individuals (U.S.). Thus, rather than violating a rarely crossed "red line," Syrian gas reflects an all-too-familiar, fatal pattern, making absolute prohibitions likely to lead to the problematic dilemma currently facing the Obama administration.

Second, the nuclear club continues to grow (North Korea, possibly Iran soon), but the number of states possessing chemical weapons and the size of their stockpiles has recently begun to shrink -- and shrink radically. Compared to nukes, chemical weapons have less ego attached to them; countries can give them up without a loss of face or dramatic concerns about their security. Responses to chemical weapons use need to keep in mind both who currently has them and who eliminated these weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, unlike the ****less Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is a strong organization dedicated to the pursuit of universal chemical disarmament: the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW -- located in The Hague). OPCW's 189 member-states agree not to use, stockpile, manufacture, or distribute chemical weapons and to open themselves to inspections. The results are astonishing: the OPCW has verified the destruction of 80 percent of the world's known stockpiles of chemical weapons, with programs established to destroy most of the rest. Even states like India, a nuclear power engaged in an ongoing clash with Pakistan, eliminated 100 percent of its stockpile. With little fanfare, the OPCW has overseen the most comprehensive and effective disarmament program in weapons of mass destruction history.

The success of this disarmament effort should drive U.S. foreign policy on chemical weapons. Syria is one of only five states in the world that has not yet signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). We have a vested interest in requiring the hold-outs to join the CWC and pursue comprehensive chemical weapons disarmament (the other non-signatories are Egypt, North Korea, Angola and South Sudan -- two states, Israel and Myanmar, signed but have not yet ratified). Universal ratification and implementation of the Convention by the remaining seven states would dramatically lower the likelihood of future chemical weapons use. Convention membership should be a requirement for receipt of any aid from all donor countries.

There are, however, concerns. Chemical weapons experts have told me of their fear that budget-conscious donors will point to shrinking global stockpiles to rationalize cutting OPCW funding. Such cuts might be disastrous; elimination of stockpiles is just the first step. The next tasks include destroying newly-discovered weapons (as recently occurred in Libya), educating national security personnel about methods for detecting and responding to attacks and continued vigilant verification to prevent the reemergence of national chemical weapons programs.

Agents such as the sarin nerve agent likely used in Syria, are incredibly lethal and have the potential to kill thousands of people almost instantly. Yet, chemical weapons prohibition works; this is not idealism run amuck, the results are real -- the OPCW verified destruction of the vast majority of chemical weapons stockpiles. Compared to nuclear arms, states are more willing both to use and to give up their chemical weapons. If we can eradicate chemical weapons, we can save lives and avoid future military reactions and chemical-weapon-based red line-diplomacy. With continued support for OPCW and universal CWC membership we can verifiably eliminate and keep eliminated 100 percent of the globe's stockpile of chemical weapons, ushering in a historic new era of WMD rollback and avoiding future Syrian-like tragedies.
--
Scott Sigmund Gartner is Professor of International Affairs at Penn State's School of International Affairs and Dickinson School of Law
 
I've read some of these comments today here and it's funny when I see people say that ISIS is not raging a religious war(they are) or the most laughable comment here saying they are not Muslim...
 
You and many others imply that because the ideology of these people has some roots in Islam, there's something wrong with Islam.

Look at the American Evangelicals who are pro-life, unless of course the life is taken by a firearm or through military conflicts abroad, in which case they are not pro-life anymore. In terms of ideology, Jesus would be so far to the left of these people that they would consider him a hippie or a traitor. Does this mean there's something wrong with Christianity? No, it only means some people took some concepts from it, twisted them to further their own agenda and they created a completely new ideology. That particular ideology is wrong, not Christianity, similar to how the IS ideology is wrong, not Islam.

But Evangelicals are Christians and IS are Muslims... you're just doing the whole head in sand thing again.

Christianity became popular when a Roman Emperor decided to use it for his own means... We've got a different branch of Christianity in the UK because some King wanted a divorce... The transatlantic slave trade was carried out by Christian countries, the Arab slave trade by Muslims....

Pretty much all interpretations of religions take some concepts and ignore others - Christians used to not eat pork these days they do eat pork... there is plenty of nasty stuff in the old testament - some of it ignored, some of it seemingly used to oppose say gay marriage. Just because some group are using some interpretation you don't like doesn't make them any less valid than any other group.
 
Absolutely craps. The Bush administration and American intelligence admitted he had none at the end of the last Iraq war and would never have been able to again. Seems like you and Tony Blair thought differently

:rolleyes:

you were advocating for Saddam to be left to it

the quote was

Saddam unchecked would have developed WMDs... he invaded two of his neighbours there wasn't anything good about having him in power after that

yes there were no WMDs when we invaded Iraq the second time around... this is irrelevant - fact is he did have WMDs, he did use WMDs and was previously actively developing WMDs...

we're talking about a situation where he'd have been left alone by the West - it is very likely he'd have kept his WMDs then, what incentive would he have had to get rid of them if we were leaving him to it?
 
But Evangelicals are Christians and IS are Muslims... you're just doing the whole head in sand thing again.

Christianity became popular when a Roman Emperor decided to use it for his own means... We've got a different branch of Christianity in the UK because some King wanted a divorce... The transatlantic slave trade was carried out by Christian countries, the Arab slave trade by Muslims....

Pretty much all interpretations of religions take some concepts and ignore others - Christians used to not eat pork these days they do eat pork... there is plenty of nasty stuff in the old testament - some of it ignored, some of it seemingly used to oppose say gay marriage. Just because some group are using some interpretation you don't like doesn't make them any less valid than any other group.

Does the existence of IS mean there's something wrong with Islam?
 
:rolleyes:

you were advocating for Saddam to be left to it

the quote was



yes there were no WMDs when we invaded Iraq the second time around... this is irrelevant - fact is he did have WMDs, he did use WMDs and was previously actively developing WMDs...

we're talking about a situation where he'd have been left alone by the West - it is very likely he'd have kept his WMDs then, what incentive would he have had to get rid of them if we were leaving him to it?


?? What are you going on about? You don't make any sense what so ever right now.....
 
:rolleyes:

you were advocating for Saddam to be left to it

the quote was



yes there were no WMDs when we invaded Iraq the second time around... this is irrelevant - fact is he did have WMDs, he did use WMDs and was previously actively developing WMDs...

we're talking about a situation where he'd have been left alone by the West - it is very likely he'd have kept his WMDs then, what incentive would he have had to get rid of them if we were leaving him to it?

He had no weapons before the start of the last iraq war and it was not admitted until the end is what i am saying, also the last iraq war was not required and it would have been best to leave saddam in power with the regular WMDs checks is what i was saying, now why are you trying to take my statements out of context, you are no different to ISIS.

Also I am stating its irrelevant if he had them before as he would never of had them again.
 
He had no weapons before the start of the last iraq war and it was not admitted until the end is what i am saying, also the last iraq war was not required and it would have been best to leave saddam in power with the regular WMDs checks is what i was saying, now why are you trying to take my statements out of context, you are no different to ISIS.

that isn't what you said though - for context here is the original post - nothing about weapons inspections there:

Middle eastern countries need dictatorial governments, they need strong willed leaders like Saddam Hussein. Their level of mental evolution is not where it should be for them to be democracies.....

So the west should leave and let the strong dictators rule.

now you're throwing in conditions about weapons inspections etc.. which would require western interference.... and of course what happens when he kicks out the weapons inspectors?
 
Last edited:
Did you miss the bit where i mentioned regular UN weapons check. Its seems you have.

that was a second post you made, no I haven't - see my edit

And yes it is better to have a Saddam than an ISIS, please tell me why it is not.

it is better to have neither, I've already pointed out why having Saddam is madness and frankly why ISIS are bad is self explanatory
 
Back
Top Bottom