ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RaohNS said:
Nice to know mods routinely allow continued antagonism from you directed at me despite repeated reports and it being against the forum rules. Yet I make comment of IQ=4 and get hit with a 3day ban.

Ever likely this place isn't getting half the posts it used to in 2016. Its because of biased moderating against certain posters in favor of other blunt objects - like yourself - in the hope their target posters will say something so they can use the ban hammer
Click to expand...

Sounds like 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

You're posting in a thread I created, this means I get a notification every time someone posts in it, not just you. You aren't special. If you post hilariously bias posts like "thank goodness for Russia" in here, then you are of course going to receive responses of "haha". If you get upset about receiving critical responses to your opinions on an open forum then I suggest you don't post your opinions on an open forum. You come across as defensive, angry and immature.

I wouldn't be upset about being called sweet cheeks ;) stop taking yourself and your own opinion so seriously.
 
Johno please? said:
It's quite obvious from all the airstrike footage we've seen we're certainly not on the side of ISIS, you sound like someone from info wars.

If you read the article it appears the SDF are fed up with doing all the dying, so they made the descison, can you really blame them?
Click to expand...
The problem with CT nuts is they will only acknowledge what they want to see.
 
FoxEye said:
Apparently they were well dug in, had scores of women and children with them. And short of bombing the place into rubble, SDF casualties would have been high.

The decision was made by local Syrian officials, and the coalition decided to respect their decision.

Sucks, because according to first-hand reports they showed no signs of accepting defeat, and were vowing to return and behead those who opposed them. Genuine nutcases the lot.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Guess what would have happened if we'd have just bombed these convoys? The pro Russian/anti West/self loathers would be up in arms posting about how the West are targeting innocent civilians.
 
Angilion said:
Those places were ruined for multiple generations anyway. It's convenient to place all the blame the usual scapegoats, but it's not realistic. It's like blaming the entire conflict between Islam and everything else on the crusades while ignoring the fact that Islam was created for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining power by force and has been used for that purpose since the day it was created, with over 400 years of Islamic attacks on everywhere in general and Christianity in particular before the crusades started and continued after the crusades ended (e.g. the conquest of India). It's been so fashionable for so long to falsely portray Islam as the pure and innocent victim of everything that we now have extremes such as the total whitewash of the Islamic slave trade from history. It was even worse than the Atlantic slave trade, but completely ignored to the extent that few people even know it existed. And yes, it was Islamic. Not all the slavers were Arabic, but they were all Muslims and Islam was explicitly part of the slaving, which was used as a weapon of war against everyone else in general and Christians in particular and continued into modern times. IS's restoration of slavery wasn't an extremist aberration - it was a return to the long established norm. Saudi Arabia, for example, outlawed slavery in 1962. Not 1862. Not 1762. 1962.

There's a lot of blame on all sides. Not just one. There aren't only two sides, either, since there are factions within both of those. The stability you refer to was only made possible by the brutality of an effective tyranny imposing stability. That probably wouldn't have lasted anyway, so whether or not the stability was worth the price the people under it paid would probably have become a moot point.

Even if we do pretend that all the blame for everything is entirely our fault and accept the resulting conquest, there still wouldn't be peace unless under an extremely effective tyranny. That might be sustainable for a while with a combination of modern technology and extreme brutality, but would it be a better way?
Click to expand...

That doesn't fit with the self deprecating cool so we're going to have to discount that. Sorry.
 
StriderX said:
Regardless, Russia doesn't actually care about the US violating someone's airspace, it works to Russia's political angle about the US being an overbearing imperialistic power ignoring international consensus on national sovereignty when it suits them. (which is why Crimea is somewhat more Russian today than it was 10 years ago, moral of the story is... don't justify things when you're intent on being a paragon of justice)
Click to expand...
Russia are happy to let the US continue their air campaign whilst they conduct their own. There is no intention for either one of them to come into direct conflict, hence the cooperation for airspace deconfliction.
 
arknor said:
or maybe they should stop trying to overthrow the ruler of another country.
it didn't work so great in iraq or libya
Click to expand...
I'm not going down another protracted circular debate on that. You believe what you do on the matter, I probably have another perspective. We'll leave it there because it has been done to death here too many times.
 
I think that those of us living in the "modern Western world" can't really comment on what is right and wrong for parts of the world that aren't. In that, our nice safe Western world, did not come about without difficult times, controversy, wrong doings and hypocrisy. Whatever agenda you might have and are trying to prove, there is no denying that progress is slow and painful. Whether that progress is rightfully catalysed in other parts of the world by the west is a different discussion but one thing is for certain, holding the view of "those brown people are better off kept in line by an iron ruler like sadam" is wrong and really quite shameful.
 
ubersonic said:
Sorry but that's nonsense, at no point has Syria lost control of the airspace. The reason the Syrian air force hasn't been shooting down extremist planes is because the rebels don't have any and Daesh only have two that are in a questionable state of maintenance. The reason they haven't been shooting down US planes is because they're not suicidal and know that just because they would be within their right to do so wouldn't stop the UN from sitting back while the US roflstomped them in response.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not nonsense. You can control as much airspace as you like, it means nothing if there aren't boots on the ground below occupying that space beneath which you control. Hence I state Assad had no control there really and thus it's a bit moot to state planes are flying there in sovereign states, without invite and that's so wrong. Essentially it was the Wild West.
 
ubersonic said:
Except that you have control of the airspace ofc, you know the thing you claimed Syria didn't have.
Click to expand...

They didn't. Assad lost control of his country in the Arab Spring. Ergo, the US aren't really invading a sovereign state by flying in the parts of the country that they are. I'm sorry that fact doesn't fit your sensationalist agenda whereby the US are committing some heinous war crime by flying where they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom