Jump to content

ISIS

Batman

By Batman,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted
So we brought that on ourselves too by bombing Libya.

 

 

> Did 'we' oust the old king and impose that fruitcake Muammar Gaddafi on the Libyan people back in 1969, or indeed incite a bloody revolution against him over 40 years later? Are you saying we should have backed Gaddafi?

 

> The 'Arab Spring' has proved to be a utter disaster for so many unfortunate people alas. But what real evidence is there that 'we' in the west initiated any of these events?

 

> It may be that some (essentially tribal) Arab society's are still so backward in developmental terms that only a strong dictator can hold them together. You tell me, why are we to blame for this historic Arab failing?

 

> Did the US (for some inexplicable reason) force Saddam Hussain into invading Kuwait in 1990, setting in motion a chain of events that reverberates across the world to this day? Was it a strategic mistake maybe when we decided to protect the gulf oil fields that are so vital to our economy and way of life?

 

> Is Christianity (or Judaism perhaps) to blame somehow for the great Sunni-Shia doctrinal divide in Islam that surely lays at the heart of much of the violence sweeping the world today.

 

All these things - and much more no doubt - might be our fault I suppose, and methinks if Pap were still a member of this forum I don't doubt for one moment that he'd be on here telling you just that. As for my opinion ... well I think few would question that we've made our share of policy errors for sure, but let's just say I'm not yet entirely convinced that absolutely everything that goes wrong in the world is really 'our' fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

It's hard to deny that the current situation in Iraq and resulting rise of IS is not the direct consequence of what the U.S. and UK did. That said, Arabs are killing Arabs because they choose to do it, blaming the west is a bit of a cop out.

 

You could argue that our past interference means we have a duty to help but I think we are better off letting them wallow in their own vile mess and leave them to get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
> Did 'we' oust the old king and impose that fruitcake Muammar Gaddafi on the Libyan people back in 1969, or indeed incite a bloody revolution against him over 40 years later? Are you saying we should have backed Gaddafi?

 

> The 'Arab Spring' has proved to be a utter disaster for so many unfortunate people alas. But what real evidence is there that 'we' in the west initiated any of these events?

 

> It may be that some (essentially tribal) Arab society's are still so backward in developmental terms that only a strong dictator can hold them together. You tell me, why are we to blame for this historic Arab failing?

 

> Did the US (for some inexplicable reason) force Saddam Hussain into invading Kuwait in 1990, setting in motion a chain of events that reverberates across the world to this day? Was it a strategic mistake maybe when we decided to protect the gulf oil fields that are so vital to our economy and way of life?

 

> Is Christianity (or Judaism perhaps) to blame somehow for the great Sunni-Shia doctrinal divide in Islam that surely lays at the heart of much of the violence sweeping the world today.

 

All these things - and much more no doubt - might be our fault I suppose, and methinks if Pap were still a member of this forum I don't doubt for one moment that he'd be on here telling you just that. As for my opinion ... well I think few would question that we've made our share of policy errors for sure, but let's just say I'm not yet entirely convinced that absolutely everything that goes wrong in the world is really 'our' fault.

Good post, pretty much how I see the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

 

That should not be allowed in our capital city. That's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

 

The irony is that they are the ones 'slandering' their religion with their jihadist interpretation.

Surely that counts as incitement, and therefore they can be identified and prosecuted. If they are unhappy here they are free to leave for Syria or Sudan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

 

Why do the plod allow this, surely holding up banners inciting murder is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

A possible source for those images :

 

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/muslim-protest-london.shtml

 

"The photographs are genuine. The rally shown in the images took place in London on February 3, 2006 when some in the Muslim community gathered to protest against the publication of cartoons in the Danish press that were considered to be insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. Several protesters were later arrested. The protest was strongly condemned by some Muslim leaders."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It didn't take much sleuthing. I simply looked at the album they were taking from on the Facebook link you posted which said 2009...

 

I don't bother looking. When on my phone that is.

 

I never said they were from last week either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ludwig

Ludwig

Posted
Posted

I'm with Batman on this one. This country is a joke. We ferry these people over here and then allow this sort of thing to happen. We probably helped them paint their signs at some sort of "refugee" centre.

And I never check facts either if I'm on my phone, I just cut and paste anything I can find. It's just a forum, ffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted

With Syria still mired in a disastrous civil war that appears to have no end in sight, a war that we here in the West seem utterly unable to decisively address, other nations are now being drawn in. New Russian air bases are now being established in the region with the aim of propping-up President Assad's hated regime in its struggle with ISIS.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11889645/Russia-preparing-air-strikes-on-Isil-if-US-does-not-back-deal-to-keep-Assad.html

 

Putin's motivations are of course entirely self-serving rather that humanitarian. However, might ensuring the continued rule of a brutal dictator be considered 'a price worth paying' somehow if it led to the end of the war and the defeat of the ISIS menace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

 

......might ensuring the continued rule of a brutal dictator be considered 'a price worth paying' somehow if it led to the end of the war and the defeat of the ISIS menace?

 

Considering many take the view that is was the forcible removal of 2 others that created the conditions for the rise of IS in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted

It seems to me Arabs can't cope without a dictator telling them how to live. Places like post-Soviet Afghanistan and Iraq have already shown how badly a state can turn with a power vacuum left behind.

 

As unpleasant as the Assad regime is, at least people were behaving themselves most of the time. The lesser of two evils if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
With Syria still mired in a disastrous civil war that appears to have no end in sight, a war that we here in the West seem utterly unable to decisively address, other nations are now being drawn in. New Russian air bases are now being established in the region with the aim of propping-up President Assad's hated regime in its struggle with ISIS.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11889645/Russia-preparing-air-strikes-on-Isil-if-US-does-not-back-deal-to-keep-Assad.html

 

Putin's motivations are of course entirely self-serving rather that humanitarian. However, might ensuring the continued rule of a brutal dictator be considered 'a price worth paying' somehow if it led to the end of the war and the defeat of the ISIS menace?

 

It was Russia's political intervention that ultimately forced Assad to disarm/destroy a lot of their chemical weapons, shortly after the Ghouta sarin attack. They clearly have influence and control over Assad to an extent which in some ways isn't a bad thing.

 

A lot of it depends on how much long-term stability can be achieved in the country. If successful I suspect Russia will gradually 'stop being the bad guys' (see Iran) when we find out we'll achieve more if we work with, as opposed to against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Coxford_lou

Coxford_lou

Posted
Posted

Thanks Verbal for reminding me about Nick Cohen's 'What's Left'. I'd bought it years back, and had dipped in and out of it but not really read it properly. Now after a thorough rereading, I'm very impressed. It's an enormously compelling and important book. More relevant now than it's ever been, whether to conversations about Corbyn and the far left, or about the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Thanks Verbal for reminding me about Nick Cohen's 'What's Left'. I'd bought it years back, and had dipped in and out of it but not really read it properly. Now after a thorough rereading, I'm very impressed. It's an enormously compelling and important book. More relevant now than it's ever been, whether to conversations about Corbyn and the far left, or about the Middle East.

 

You're welcome, Lou, although I think you're confusing me with some deceased person whose initial is F. The book does indeed skewer the knee-jerk political positions now revived by the Corbyn cultists, who seem weirdly convinced that their politics is 'new' (everyone calls their politics 'new' - how the hell else did we end up with 'New Labour'!).

 

Their recent rants of outrage over criticisms of Corbyn's comments about the 'tragedy' of bin Laden's death also bear out Cohen's critique. It's sadly pathetic to listen to Corbynista complaints about his comments 'being taken out of context', when the real offence is contained in precisely context he actually used. Namely, his idea that:

 

3,000 murdered in 9/11 = 'tragedy'

The countless thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq = 'tragedy'

The death of one man who's admitted killing thousands = 'tragedy'.

 

The equivalence is astonishing, and it's entirely characteristic of the knee-jerk, brainless stuff that Corbyn comes out with and gets applauded for by his fawning admirers. Yes, it would have been far better to bring bin Laden to trial (although even then, Corbynistas would complain about victors' justice).

 

But to use the exact same word to account for bin Laden's death as for the hundreds of thousands of others in the US, Iraq and Afghanistan is utterly repulsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
You're welcome, Lou, although I think you're confusing me with some deceased person whose initial is F. The book does indeed skewer the knee-jerk political positions now revived by the Corbyn cultists, who seem weirdly convinced that their politics is 'new' (everyone calls their politics 'new' - how the hell else did we end up with 'New Labour'!).

 

Their recent rants of outrage over criticisms of Corbyn's comments about the 'tragedy' of bin Laden's death also bear out Cohen's critique. It's sadly pathetic to listen to Corbynista complaints about his comments 'being taken out of context', when the real offence is contained in precisely context he actually used. Namely, his idea that:

 

3,000 murdered in 9/11 = 'tragedy'

The countless thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq = 'tragedy'

The death of one man who's admitted killing thousands = 'tragedy'.

 

The equivalence is astonishing, and it's entirely characteristic of the knee-jerk, brainless stuff that Corbyn comes out with and gets applauded for by his fawning admirers. Yes, it would have been far better to bring bin Laden to trial (although even then, Corbynistas would complain about victors' justice).

 

But to use the exact same word to account for bin Laden's death as for the hundreds of thousands of others in the US, Iraq and Afghanistan is utterly repulsive.

 

The tragedy that he referred to was the tragedy that OBL hadn't had a trial or verdict - you know, the right that most of us in the Western world take for granted.

 

He wasn't suggesting for one moment that OBL's death IN ITSELF was a tragedy FFS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
The tragedy that he referred to was the tragedy that OBL hadn't had a trial or verdict - you know, the right that most of us in the Western world take for granted.

 

He wasn't suggesting for one moment that OBL's death IN ITSELF was a tragedy FFS!

 

What is it that you don't understand?

 

It is absolutely NOT a 'tragedy' that bin Laden didn't get a trial. It is regrettable, it was mistaken on the Americans' part, it was wrong. All of those and more, no doubt. But I repeat, since you seem to have read my post without taking in the meaning of it: to call it a 'tragedy' - and in so doing drawing an equivalence with the other REAL tragedies - is cultist weirdness at its bizarre worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

Verbal's right, OBL not getting a trial is unfortunate at best. I don't think the Yanks had much choice in how it turned out anyway, what they did was very high risk operation even without trying to take him alive.

 

That is of course if he is dead and not in a shed in Deigo Garcia tied to a chair with electrodes on his gonads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept