ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

IronWarrior said:
The Iraq Survey Group that had 1400 members that combed the country found no weapon program or stockpiles and in-fact found out that they destroyed their stockpiles in 1991 when Sanctions imposed.

Invading Iraq and destroying a stable country has resulted in millions of deaths with holocaust levels of suffering.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen and god knows who else are ****** for multiple generations due to our actions.

You know what country does have WMD? North Korea, but we too chicken to invade them.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
IronWarrior said:
The Iraq Survey Group that had 1400 members that combed the country found no weapon program or stockpiles and in-fact found out that they destroyed their stockpiles in 1991 when Sanctions imposed.

Invading Iraq and destroying a stable country has resulted in millions of deaths with holocaust levels of suffering.
.
Click to expand...

Oh, we're doing this again are we? Iraq was not stable....genocide, mass torture and execution, invasion of two neighboring states.

As for the "holocaust levels of suffering" Yes, there is and why? Because the parties of god won't allow peace, no one in the west is telling fanatical muslims to blow up mosques... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_mosque_bombing

 
Skunkworks said:
I think the overlap between the Islamic and non-Islamic world should be kept to a minimum. Whether it's Islamic immigration to the west, or western interference in the ME.
Click to expand...

This may warm the cockles of your heart;

Ferdinand and Isabella completed the Reconquista with a war against the Emirate of Granadathat started in 1482 and ended with Granada's surrender on January 2, 1492. The Moors in Castile previously numbered "half a million within the realm." By 1492 some 100,000 had died or been enslaved, 200,000 had emigrated, and 200,000 remained in Castile. Many of the Muslim elite, including Granada's former Emir Muhammad XII, who had been given the area of the Alpujarras mountains as a principality, found life under Christian rule intolerable and emigrated to Tlemcen in North Africa.[33]
 
Skunkworks said:
25 of my countrymen > 235 randoms on the other side of the world.
Click to expand...

Why? Other than sharing the same nationality?

Somewhat related is that one of the criticisms of Islam is that it values the life of a Muslim as being greater than the life of a non-Muslim, but it's not really that different to shared nationalism.
 
Johno please? said:
Oh, we're doing this again are we? Iraq was not stable....genocide, mass torture and execution, invasion of two neighboring states.

As for the "holocaust levels of suffering" Yes, there is and why? Because the parties of god won't allow peace, no one in the west is telling fanatical muslims to blow up mosques... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_mosque_bombing

Click to expand...

Saddam may have been a tyrant who should have been disposed of much earlier but he had Iraq under control. How many mosques were blown up pre 2003? Suicide bombings against civilians?

No one can say it's purely Islam and Muslims, or it's purely the West's fault. It's clear that the fault isn't just with one party.
 
So the assassination plot of the PM consisted of a bomb attack on the gates of downing Street and in the confusion follow up with a knife attack to get the PM....yea, good luck with that one guys :rolleyes:

Thankfully it does show how low tech and homemade ISIS influence is in this country
 
Freakbro said:
So the assassination plot of the PM consisted of a bomb attack on the gates of downing Street and in the confusion follow up with a knife attack to get the PM....yea, good luck with that one guys :rolleyes:

Thankfully it does show how low tech and homemade ISIS influence is in this country
Click to expand...


And one of them are from Birmingham again...sigh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom