ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
You're applying reason and logic to a power mad nut job who disregards huge proportions of people of a differing background as beneath him. Stop.
I mean come on, I bet you don't do the same thing for Donald Trump
You can at least see the concern on Russia's part - Iran and Syria are on their doorstep and they also are trading partners with a history together. The USA cannot disguise their presence there as anything other than trying to ensure regional hegemony in the area because of oil. You could include defending Israel if you want because of the heavily Zionist streak in US politics (note, Zionism != Jewish), but they give Israel billions with which to buy the USA's latest in weapons technology. Israel can look after itself.
Already are. Have been for a couple of months now. A lot of people who supported Trump because of his isolationist statements are fuming right now. A number of formerly supportive pundits are angry. If there's one thing that people thought Trump might actually deliver, it is rapprochement with Russia and an end to foreign, military adventurism. He is failing spectacularly in this regard and seems to be led entirely by the Hawks around him.
If Mohammed himself rose from the dead and told IS to stop it and end the violence, they wouldn't. File this with every other utterly stupid thing Trump said. The war will be over by Christmas too, you know.
Because nobody ever lied about WMD, before! And if you think this is different because gas has actually been used I refer you to... White Phosphorous used as a weapon by Israel; gas sold to Saddam by USA and UK, false flag attacks in Vietnam - just off the top of my head.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,109
- Location
- one nation under sony
SAA vs ISIS
That little dot on the left by Israel is causing some weird things - apparently its a fairly small ISIS force with a single tank and an armoured bulldozer that basically has its back to Israel but the Israelis only engage them (and the other rebels or SAA) if the fighting threatens to spread into Israel and the rest of the time just sit back.
EDIT: Think its placed a little wrong on that map as that looks like its only connected to Jordan while the reports are it spans to the border with Israel.
EDIT: Think its placed a little wrong on that map as that looks like its only connected to Jordan while the reports are it spans to the border with Israel.
It's pretty inaccurate anyway, take it with a pinch of salt.
Most equal... For those who fit the ethnic requirements to be considered equal.
I believe you're twisting matters. Trump said he won't conduct another Iraq, like Bush did, where he sent thousands of US troops to their death. That's what THE MAJORITY of Trump supporters believed from him. Just because a minority of them are apparently fuming that he's told Syria (and Russia) to pipe down or face consequences is irrelevant. He's pretty much just continued the camping of Operation Inherent Resolve as it started. What else would you expect from him? Just drop everything with the job half done? I don't think that's either wise or a good idea.
Mind you, it would allow Assad and Co to go on an all out genocide and rack up his killing spree of 1m+, something some posters here seem all too keen to champion.
Go team Assad! Wonderful, equality loving leader.
Perhaps, but that is the general state of most Arab/Muslim countries. Regardless, they had had enough and that's not something i will argue against. All the arguments at the beginning of the war aren't very relevant now anyway, neither side have a high moral ground here.
I truly hope Trump pushes forward a terrible plan to "deal" with Iran (another largely free society at least socially, woman aren't looked down upon as mere animals - most of the time), such that the West never intervenes ever again, sometimes it's just better to support flashing oxygen into a fire to stop future damage.
Bear in mind, in this country, a tower block burns and then the masses are baying for the blood of its leader, claiming she somehow is solely to blame, despite having nothing to do with the tragedy personally whatsoever. In Syria, a country that has repeatedly been championed in here as some uber peaceful & developed pioneer of the ME, has a leader who for time has slayed his own people simply because they oppose his view point or don't fit the ethnic requirements. Yet that's fine because "them there brown people know no better than iron rule" and are better off with that... Or simply because "that's just the way it is".
Are they developed, or barbaric warlords vying for power? You can't have it both ways.
Agreed on Iran. They should just be left alone. However, Saudi Arabia have other plans it seems and both those nations will continue to compete to be the super power in that region. There isn't any stopping that.
There would be a way to mitigate it, not selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis.
That's like saying McDonald's won't sell you any burgers. You'd just go to Burger King instead.
Way to push the anti West mantra though, after all, everything is the West's fault isn't it?
Saudi's may very well go buy some Russian hardware, but at least it would be mildly more acceptable than being a western nation that shouts "democracy for all", then goes and sells a bunch of high-tech weapons that the Saudis can barely use so they can murder some Yemeni kid.
It's about proving to the world that there's a better way than arming everyone, Russia and the US realised this 40-50 years ago with Nuclear arms, why not conventional?
Perhaps Saudi Arabia will never revolt against it's stupid royalty, but we know for a fact that western weapons were used against (if not purely for intimidation certainly, unsure if anyone was killed with sold arms) Egyptian civilians and Ukrainians when they went against their incumbency... sure you can throw out the "responsibility is in the hands of the user" spiel, but i won't listen to it. (oh and add the now despotic Turkey to the list of wonderful allies with western equipment now also terrorizing it's people)
Last edited:
We come back around to the same old points: we've discussed, in this thread and many others, that the issues in the ME were deep seeded and present way before the West started meddling there. The selling of arms didn't start the issues and not selling arms won't suddenly stop the issues. Your point is moot and therefore just smacks that you feel the need to push your alterior political agenda, as usual.
A militant socialists lines of thought are funny. They don't care if a socialist government is just another mass murdering scumbag outfit, so long as they're socialist, they're alright
Quite simply, if I were the metaphorical western salesman why spews rhetoric about being a democracy and a morally just society, and i had control of selling weapons to people, why would i sell them to the metaphorical eastern buyer who we know to be irresponsible with weapons?
You can't look past the NRA defense that people deserve guns no matter their mental faculty and somehow taking that to a global scale, we shouldn't be meddling in the first place, but you pass that off as either good or justified because the natives were/are a bit restless.
You can't look past the NRA defense that people deserve guns no matter their mental faculty and somehow taking that to a global scale, we shouldn't be meddling in the first place, but you pass that off as either good or justified because the natives were/are a bit restless.
Last edited:
Much assumption, I didn't pass anything of the sort off as good or justified. Still ignoring the entire point that the problems exist with or without the West. Still resuming with Anti-West irrelevant agenda.
You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and whistle a tune.
You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and whistle a tune.
Who is Burger King and what are "Burgers" in this analogy. Because if you think the burgers are only weapons you're ignoring that the USA actually provides military assistance not just weapons. They have troops situated nearby and have in the past bombed sites in Yemen at the request of Saudi Arabia. They moved a carrier group into the region a couple of weeks ago. Burgers are a poor analogy for what the USA provides to Saudi Arabia. Which also brings us onto who you think Burger King is in this analogy? Russia? Because I don't see Russia arming a country that would like to see Iran overthrown or which aids IS in Syria on their doorstep. If Saudi Arabia wanted to buy burgers from Russia Burger King they'd have to settle down and behave 'cause otherwise they're just going to be kicked out of the restaurant. China? China doesn't do that.
Seriously, your analogy is hyper-reductive. Geopolitics is far, far more complicated than a Burger King analogy can provide. It is the backing of the USA that allows the Saudi regime to behave as it does and there aren't swap-in substitutes for that.
Also, I have never, ever been convinced of the argument that "if we didn't do it somebody else would". Especially not when applied to making money by propping up an oppressive regime that promotes terrorism in other countries.
Surely the relevant question is not the hyperbolic "will it suddenly fix everything" and more the real-world ones of "will it help?", "is it right to sell weapons to a despotic monarchy that oppresses women and supports IS?" and "are we comfortable knowing that those weapons will be used on people in Yemen who ask for a right to vote?"
Saying it wont fix everything as an argument against not doing something is like saying not eating that burger wont make you immediately thin so eat it. (Since you communicate via burger analogies).
A militant socialists lines of thought are funny. They don't care if a socialist government is just another mass murdering scumbag outfit, so long as they're socialist, they're alright
StriderX may be a militant socialist and you'll find me debating with them in many other threads. But I am an arch-Capitalist and admirer of Ayn Rand and I also think US policy towards Saudi Arabia is wrong. Being anti-war is not a Right or Left issue. It's a humanitarian one. It's a democratic one. If you're getting both socialists and capitalists disagreeing with you, that should tell you something.