ISIS in Iraq and Syria

[roykeane19]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/world/meast/coren-isis-khanke-refugee/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Interested to see what people think about this article. I am sure there will be accusations of western bias in this report but at least give it a read. I think that what this witness describes has probably been discussed in this thread before but it's a primary source account. I think it's relevant given the post that was written before this one.

Before the US invaded Iraq in first gukf war, when they invaded kuwait media was running story(all lies), that the Iraqi forces where throwing babies in incubators in hospitals out of windows, and this irl gave a fake testimony, which was broadcast to the whole world

Its the exact same procedures being repeated again, on eve of their newest invasion, keep bringing up fabricated stories, to appease the people back home, that they`re fighting the "just" war

Heres the fake confession that had the whole world duped

 

[Sir Matt]

Assad was already a puppet, just got too big for his shoes, now US want to install a new dictator, like what they've done throughout the ME, Saddam being the biggest example

Also Obama is the 4th consecutive US president to order bombing of Iraq

And something ignored so far the bombing in Raqaa has killed 10 civilians, including 6 children, tbh this is just beginning, they killed 1.6 million Iraqis since the US invasion in 2001, and left the country in ruins, and now they want to do the same in Syria

Even though ISIS are fanatics, most of things reported in media about them killing Christians has been reported to be false, its the usualy distorted and sensational journalism to make this image of unimaginably "evil bad guys", to give reason to invade, same tactics used before invasion of afganistan, and Iraq, funny how people fall for same media tricks every time

Obviously ISIS needs to be dealt with, just I dont believe they are as much a threat as media purports them to be , the US and its "allies" will and have already killed more civilians in the ME than ISIS ever will in 100 years

 

[Wittmann45]

There are multiple studies that have the number at around 150k civilians killed by the conflict, not 1.5 million

Close to 2 million Iraqis have been displaced by the conflict though

There is some discrepancy though in how to define a death related to war. An example of this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Also, the US invaded in 2003, not 2001.

 

[Sir Matt]

There are multiple studies that have the number at around 150k civilians killed by the conflict, not 1.5 million

Close to 2 million Iraqis have been displaced by the conflict though

There is some discrepancy though in how to define a death related to war. An example of this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Also, the US invaded in 2003, not 2001.

This was kinda my point. He's talking about how the US killed 1.6m because it fits his narrative, despite the fact that it isn't true.

 

[roykeane19]

This was kinda my point. He's talking about how the US killed 1.6m because it fits his narrative, despite the fact that it isn't true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

Ok my bad about that 1.6 mill number, I was wrong about that, but your missing the point if the beheading of 3 US and Uk citizens is so appalling to the world, why is it okay that thousands of civilians have been killed by US forces, either directly, or indirectly, they've made life hell for Iraqi people for the last 20-30 years

I dont understand why when ISIS kill people they are barbaric , "animals", but when the US and its allies kill civilians they are dehumanized and trivialized as "collateral damage"

This isnt me spouting rubbish, its a legitmate question, hat Ive been thinking about for a while now, why are deaths of people in the ME no meaningless? And gets no coverage in world media?

 

[Kaos]

This was kinda my point. He's talking about how the US killed 1.6m because it fits his narrative, despite the fact that it isn't true.

The US hadn't directly killed 1.6 million Iraqis but it had started a war which had led to over a million Iraqis dying since 2003.

Similar to how they were responsible for starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death with its sanctions back in the 90s, though I'd argue that was more direct causal effect.

 

[Suli]

The BBC is reporting that parliament will be recalled on Friday to discuss Britain joining launching air strikes against ISIS.

 

[fishfingers15]

Assad was already a puppet, just got too big for his shoes, now US want to install a new dictator, like what they've done throughout the ME, Saddam being the biggest example

Also Obama is the 4th consecutive US president to order bombing of Iraq

And something ignored so far the bombing in Raqaa has killed 10 civilians, including 6 children, tbh this is just beginning, they killed 1.6 million Iraqis since the US invasion in 2001, and left the country in ruins, and now they want to do the same in Syria

Even though ISIS are fanatics, most of things reported in media about them killing Christians has been reported to be false, its the usualy distorted and sensational journalism to make this image of unimaginably "evil bad guys", to give reason to invade, same tactics used before invasion of afganistan, and Iraq, funny how people fall for same media tricks every time

Obviously ISIS needs to be dealt with, just I dont believe they are as much a threat as media purports them to be , the US and its "allies" will and have already killed more civilians in the ME than ISIS ever will in 100 years

ISIS killing Christians is a moot point. ISIS killing people is a very valid and concerning point. How can you trot out the 'oh US just wants to invade a country and they are using scare tactics now' line? I mean what more do you want? 100 more killings? FFS, do we even have a brain?

 

[holyland red]

This was kinda my point. He's talking about how the US killed 1.6m because it fits his narrative, despite the fact that it isn't true.

150k pretty much support his narrative. Each one of those k's is a thousand people. 9/11 was only 3k.

 

[Relevated]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/world/meast/coren-isis-khanke-refugee/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Interested to see what people think about this article. I am sure there will be accusations of western bias in this report but at least give it a read. I think that what this witness describes has probably been discussed in this thread before but it's a primary source account. I think it's relevant given the post that was written before this one.

Isis has been accused of a lot if atrocities, and they've beheaded and killed people, it's all on camera. But I don't believe these stories, they're never reported by journalists covering the whole story either. I think they're fabricated. That doesn't mean isis haven't done a lot of other crazy stuff, it has because it's all on camera but this stuff? I dunno

 

[Relevated]

@Suli people are saying that IS are closer to kobane since last night, is it true? What's going on?

 

[roykeane19]

ISIS killing Christians is a moot point. ISIS killing people is a very valid and concerning point. How can you trot out the 'oh US just wants to invade a country and they are using scare tactics now' line? I mean what more do you want? 100 more killings? FFS, do we even have a brain?

You must be very naive, if you think the US spends billions on wars in the ME, to liberate its people, for womens rights, and to bring democracy

What country in all honesty cares about another country so much it would bring its arm from the other side of the world, waste billions of tax payers dollars, while back at home, the money could be put to better use, along with the US debt which is at a cool 60 billion

 

[roykeane19]

150k pretty much support his narrative. Each one of those k's is a thousand people. 9/11 was only 3k.

Thank you for getting my point, people just throw those numbers around like they mean nothing

 

[Relevated]

You must be very naive, if you think the US spends billions on wars in the ME, to liberate its people, for womens rights, and to bring democracy

What country in all honesty cares about another country so much it would bring its arm from the other side of the world, waste billions of tax payers dollars, while back at home, the money could be put to better use, along with the US debt which is at a cool 60 billion

Yep, exactly. If the US was so keen on helping other countries then a coalition should have been formed long ago to get rid of Assad. The truth is that ISIS threatens the whole of middle east in which US have invested a lot of resources and everything will go to waste if something isn't done ASAP. And the arab leaders joining the coalition? ISIS threatens their thrones, if the Muslim countries were so bothered about their 'muslim brothers' then Palestine wouldn't be facing the crisis it is facing. No one cares about anyone else in this war, they're apart of it because they have to protect their own selves from disaster.
Im not sure if this was true or not but apparently a poll was conducted in saudi where more than 80% of the citizens agreed with ISIS, imagine if ISIS invaded saudi? How many citizens would flock to join them? The answer is a shit load.

 

[#07]

 

[PedroMendez]

The whole thing about the abuse of women is a bit of a nonsense point anyway. I have no doubt that ISIS is doing that, but men do it all over the world when its possible. Thats really not what setting ISIS apart. Shall we invade India, 2/3 of africa, or in fact, shall the USA start to invade itself?

http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

"According to a 2013 global review of available data, 35 per cent of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. However, some national violence studies show that up to 70 per cent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime from an intimate partner"

"In New Delhi, a 2010 study found that 66 per cent of women report experiencing sexual harassment between two and five times during the past year"


Anyway. ISIS is so summer2014. They had their time in the spotlight. The Khorasan group is the new ISIS. They are the real deal and the new threat.

 

[Crono]

Assad was already a puppet, just got too big for his shoes, now US want to install a new dictator, like what they've done throughout the ME, Saddam being the biggest example

Also Obama is the 4th consecutive US president to order bombing of Iraq

And something ignored so far the bombing in Raqaa has killed 10 civilians, including 6 children, tbh this is just beginning, they killed 1.6 million Iraqis since the US invasion in 2001, and left the country in ruins, and now they want to do the same in Syria

Even though ISIS are fanatics, most of things reported in media about them killing Christians has been reported to be false, its the usualy distorted and sensational journalism to make this image of unimaginably "evil bad guys", to give reason to invade, same tactics used before invasion of afganistan, and Iraq, funny how people fall for same media tricks every time

Obviously ISIS needs to be dealt with, just I dont believe they are as much a threat as media purports them to be , the US and its "allies" will and have already killed more civilians in the ME than ISIS ever will in 100 years

Show me the evidence that most reports about ISIS killing Christians are false.

 

[fishfingers15]

The whole thing about the abuse of women is a bit of a nonsense point anyway. I have no doubt that ISIS is doing that, but men do it all over the world when its possible. Thats really not what setting ISIS apart. Shall we invade India, 2/3 of africa, or in fact, shall the USA start to invade itself?

http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

"According to a 2013 global review of available data, 35 per cent of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. However, some national violence studies show that up to 70 per cent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime from an intimate partner"

"In New Delhi, a 2010 study found that 66 per cent of women report experiencing sexual harassment between two and five times during the past year"


Anyway. ISIS is so summer2014. They had their time in the spotlight. The Khorasan group is the new ISIS. They are the real deal and the new threat.

It's not a nonsense point though, is it? At the moment, we're doing all we can In India to correct sexual harassment.

Am I the only one bothered by this 'The US only does it for oil, ISIS are not that much of a threat' line extremely offensive?

 

[Suli]

@Suli people are saying that IS are closer to kobane since last night, is it true? What's going on?

YPG advancing on Eastern and Western fronts. ISIS have reached a communication tower South of Kobane but that advancement has been stopped. That tower is the closest they've come to Kobane. The air strikes on Qara Qawzag led to them advancing forwards into that place.

Although America have bombed supply lines of Kobane, they haven't attacked the front lines. The consequence is that ISIS have dashed closer to Kobane to avoid the air strikes. Hopefully they start hitting those in the Kobane countryside soon.

 

[roykeane19]

Show me the evidence that most reports about ISIS killing Christians are false.

All those pictures going around that the world has seen are all lies http://revolution-news.com/fake-isis-news-triple-verify-graphic-images/

No doubt ISIS are commiting heinous acts but not under scale and any ethnic prejudice as media claim, especially in relation to civilians

I dont understand how people believe everything they see on media when it was same media who made so many fake videos and claims of Iraq having WMD, and they wanted to use them on the west, and everyone gobbled it all up

And despite having being grossly mislead, there was no apologies, nor did people seem to care too much, and they still believe every single thing they hear

I just want people to see things from a different angle, and not want media wants you to be fed

 

[Raoul]

All those pictures going around that the world has seen are all lies http://revolution-news.com/fake-isis-news-triple-verify-graphic-images/

No doubt ISIS are commiting heinous acts but not under scale and any ethnic prejudice as media claim, especially in relation to civilians

I dont understand how people believe everything they see on media when it was same media who made so many fake videos and claims of Iraq having WMD, and they wanted to use them on the west, and everyone gobbled it all up

And despite having being grossly mislead, there was no apologies, nor did people seem to care too much, and they still believe every single thing they hear

I just want people to see things from a different angle, and not want media wants you to be fed

The media are really just a disparate group of news organizations who come from all different political backgrounds. Obviously, anyone who believes everything they see or read need to get a head check. That said, there are more credible sources of news in western nations than anywhere else, mainly because they have the money and resources to open bureaus in and send journalists to, the world's hot spots.

 

[PedroMendez]

It's not a nonsense point though, is it? At the moment, we're doing all we can In India to correct sexual harassment.

Am I the only one bothered by this 'The US only does it for oil, ISIS are not that much of a threat' line extremely offensive?

The abuse of women is a very serious issue, but using it as a reason to invade countries to ludicrous and dishonest. The USA isnt even doing everything in their power do to prevent sexual abuse in their own country and people like Todd Akins are able to win elections. The "moderate rebels" are abusing women all the time, so even if you get rid of ISIS, women are still getting fecked over (literately and fig.). Where are the the military interventions in the central african republic, Sudan, Chad, Somalia or Congo? Bigotry at its best. The McCains of this world care jack-shit about women.
The whole view that the USA is just doing it for oil is a fairly extreme and one-sided view as well. Its one point of many. Also India is also not doing "everything they can" to prevent sexual abuse. Saying that is pretty ignorant or cynic.

I am not necessarily against fighting ISIS, if you have a valid strategy, e.g. in the context of supporting the kurds, but thats not what the USA is doing. The USA is getting involved in something without having a specific strategy, without having specific objectives, without having any idea about a exit strategy or a post-intervention regime. Its possible to beat ISIS militarily, but its not possible to fight the idea behind it. If ISIS is getting destroyed other militant, violent islamic extremist will emerge. Everytime external powers are using military force to intervene the common people will radicalise a bit.

Its nothing specific to the region so. Even so parts of it are controversial, many historians argue that the carpet-bombing of Cambodia (Ho-Chi-minh-path//supply lines) in the context of the Vietnam war (200.000 civilian casualties on Cambodian ground) combined with the removal of the "moderate" leader Sihanouk by the USA, was one of the main reasons, that enabled the Khmer Rouge/red-khmer/Pol Pott to take over power in the country. There are several examples of that in the history of mankind and you would expect people to learn from their mistakes......

Politicans, especially trigger happy interventionists in washington, dont understand that military interventions have big unintended consequences; consequences, that can affect countries/regions for decades. Are some governments just too incompetent to understand these concepts or are they acting regardless or that? Its hard to say which scenario is worse.

One last comment: ISIS beheaded american citizens "publicly" and they specifically adressed the president in their video in front of a world-wide audience (thats possible, due to the internet). Even the biggest moron on the planet would know that this would taunt the USA in a military intervention. There is no way that ISIS doesnt know this. So why are still doing it? Eventually because they are brainwashed idiots, but eventually also because another military campaign of western countries in the middle east isnt the worst thing that could happen to then.

 

[Crono]

All those pictures going around that the world has seen are all lies http://revolution-news.com/fake-isis-news-triple-verify-graphic-images/

No doubt ISIS are commiting heinous acts but not under scale and any ethnic prejudice as media claim, especially in relation to civilians

I dont understand how people believe everything they see on media when it was same media who made so many fake videos and claims of Iraq having WMD, and they wanted to use them on the west, and everyone gobbled it all up

And despite having being grossly mislead, there was no apologies, nor did people seem to care too much, and they still believe every single thing they hear

I just want people to see things from a different angle, and not want media wants you to be fed

A video released today by the Islamic State (IS) urges Muslims to "slaughter" Westerners from those nations which are taking part in an international anti-jihadist coalition.​

In a disturbing 42-minute address, spokesman for the terrorist group, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, says: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy French, or an Australian, or a Canadian ... including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him.

"Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him."

Adnani says both civilians and members of the military are "disbelievers" and therefore "both of their blood and wealth is legal for you to destroy".

...

"We have warned you that today we are in a new era, an era where the [Islamic] State, its soldiers, and its sons are leaders, not slaves.

"We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted."
​

ISIS themselves are not claiming the innocence that you are clothing them in. I already knew about some pictures being erroneously passed around. Is that all you think reports of civilians being killed are being based on? Human Rights Watch and the UN have reported massive atrocities, from reports on the ground. Not pictures on Facebook.

Why do you assume that the phony Bush/Blair war has anything to do with whether ISIS are killing civilians, and that you're the only one who didn't believe that Bush's war was based on lies? Take your head out of your arse. Most of the world knew. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing right now.

I'm not saying the facts regarding scale and ethnic targeting aren't relevant and shouldn't be clarified - but I'm asking you for the evidence for your claim that ISIS are not targeting civilians of particular ethnicities, and so far you've shown a few dodgy pictures that have been passed about on social media and think this disqualifies every single other report?

 

[roykeane19]

The abuse of women is a very serious issue, but using it as a reason to invade countries to ludicrous and dishonest. The USA isnt even doing everything in their power do to prevent sexual abuse in their own country and people like Todd Akins are able to win elections. The "moderate rebels" are abusing women all the time, so even if you get rid of ISIS, women are still getting fecked over (literately and fig.). Where are the the military interventions in the central african republic, Sudan, Chad, Somalia or Congo? Bigotry at its best. The McCains of this world care jack-shit about women.
The whole view that the USA is just doing it for oil is a fairly extreme and one-sided view as well. Its one point of many. Also India is also not doing "everything they can" to prevent sexual abuse. Saying that is pretty ignorant or cynic.

I am not necessarily against fighting ISIS, if you have a valid strategy, e.g. in the context of supporting the kurds, but thats not what the USA is doing. The USA is getting involved in something without having a specific strategy, without having specific objectives, without having any idea about a exit strategy or a post-intervention regime. Its possible to beat ISIS militarily, but its not possible to fight the idea behind it. If ISIS is getting destroyed other militant, violent islamic extremist will emerge. Everytime external powers are using military force to intervene the common people will radicalise a bit.

Its nothing specific to the region so. Even so parts of it are controversial, many historians argue that the carpet-bombing of Cambodia (Ho-Chi-minh-path//supply lines) in the context of the Vietnam war (200.000 civilian casualties on Cambodian ground) combined with the removal of the "moderate" leader Sihanouk by the USA, was one of the main reasons, that enabled the Khmer Rouge/red-khmer/Pol Pott to take over power in the country. There are several examples of that in the history of mankind and you would expect people to learn from their mistakes......

Politicans, especially trigger happy interventionists in washington, dont understand that military interventions have big unintended consequences; consequences, that can affect countries/regions for decades. Are some governments just too incompetent to understand these concepts or are they acting regardless or that? Its hard to say which scenario is worse.

One last comment: ISIS beheaded american citizens "publicly" and they specifically adressed the president in their video in front of a world-wide audience (thats possible, due to the internet). Even the biggest moron on the planet would know that this would taunt the USA in a military intervention. There is no way that ISIS doesnt know this. So why are still doing it? Eventually because they are brainwashed idiots, but eventually also because another military campaign of western countries in the middle east isnt the worst thing that could happen to then.

I`m pretty sure they do, and have full intentions to bomb those countries to put them back decades, for whatever reasons I`m not entirely sure

But all these campaigns in the ME I`m sure have been planned for years in advance, its also a nice way to test out your new missiles and aircraft and weaponry on the battlefield, so big weapons manufacturers can persuade people to buy them, seeing them first hand in action despite how many civilians have to die

 

[roykeane19]

A video released today by the Islamic State (IS) urges Muslims to "slaughter" Westerners from those nations which are taking part in an international anti-jihadist coalition.​

In a disturbing 42-minute address, spokesman for the terrorist group, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, says: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy French, or an Australian, or a Canadian ... including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him.

"Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him."

Adnani says both civilians and members of the military are "disbelievers" and therefore "both of their blood and wealth is legal for you to destroy".

...

"We have warned you that today we are in a new era, an era where the [Islamic] State, its soldiers, and its sons are leaders, not slaves.

"We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted."
​

ISIS themselves are not claiming the innocence that you are clothing them in. I already knew about some pictures being erroneously passed around. Is that all you think reports of civilians being killed are being based on? Human Rights Watch and the UN have reported massive atrocities, from reports on the ground. Not pictures on Facebook.

Why do you assume that the phony Bush/Blair war has anything to do with whether ISIS are killing civilians, and that you're the only one who didn't believe that Bush's war was based on lies? Take your head out of your arse. Most of the world knew. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing right now.

I'm not saying the facts regarding scale and ethnic targeting aren't relevant and shouldn't be clarified - but I'm asking you for the evidence for your claim that ISIS are not targeting civilians of particular ethnicities, and so far you've shown a few dodgy pictures that have been passed about on social media and think this disqualifies every single other report?

Thats some pretty messed up statement really, I`m not whitewashing them, Im just saying most of stuff you hear, cant be believed, and those pictures in that article, are what most mainstream media outlets, where using as evidence that ISIS where killing Christians, and the "dodgy" pictures, if you read the article are exactly that, taken from other warzones, and mostly atrocities committed by Assads government, and used in propaganda against ISIS

I can ask you the samething, show me actual real evidence of them targeting Christians , but sadly there isnt any real info on both sides to clarify the matter

And about the Bush/Blair thing to be fair the majority of the world believed most of the things about WMD`s, and that Al Qaeda was there etc etc, it was only a few years after people realised they were duped

 

[Suli]

Are we really debating this? Just look at the Ezidis in Shingal, thousands fled to the mountains to escape slaughter. Thousands. Those who didn't leave were executed because they are "devil worshippers."

If it wasn't for the YPG and PKK reaching the mountains and rescuing women and children, they would've died of thirst.

This is why Kobane is crying out for international support. There are 500,000 residents who are vulnerable to ISIS, they are ethnic Kurds who will be murdered if ISIS enter the town.

 

[Suli]

Kurds on the Turkish side of the border cheering on the YPG as they fire at ISIS positions:

 

[Phil]

Are we really debating this? Just look at the Ezidis in Shingal, thousands fled to the mountains to escape slaughter. Thousands. Those who didn't leave were executed because they are "devil worshippers."

If it wasn't for the YPG and PKK reaching the mountains and rescuing women and children, they would've died of thirst.

This is why Kobane is crying out for international support. There are 500,000 residents who are vulnerable to ISIS, they are ethnic Kurds who will be murdered if ISIS enter the town.

This is the truth yet the Internet will always create ways to turn it against the West, be it the government or the media. I tend not to get involved.

 

[Suli]

This is the truth yet the Internet will always create ways to turn it against the West, be it the government or the media. I tend not to get involved.

There are always people on both sides of the conspiracy theories. Those who blame it all on America, and those who blame it all on Islam. Inevitable really.

 

[Raoul]

I`m pretty sure they do, and have full intentions to bomb those countries to put them back decades, for whatever reasons I`m not entirely sure

But all these campaigns in the ME I`m sure have been planned for years in advance, its also a nice way to test out your new missiles and aircraft and weaponry on the battlefield, so big weapons manufacturers can persuade people to buy them, seeing them first hand in action despite how many civilians have to die

Are you making this all up or do you have some tangible evidence to back up your point ?

 

[PedroMendez]

This is the truth yet the Internet will always create ways to turn it against the West, be it the government or the media. I tend not to get involved.

Nobody intervened in Dafur where african-arabic Muslims slaughtered more than 500.000 african-black Muslims. Nobody really mind Assad, when he killed 100k+ people. Nobody ever intervened when Saddam killed unimaginable numbers of people. The USA was totally fine with the genocide in east-timor. Do you even know that there was a civil was in Guatemala, where the central gouvernement committed genocide till the mid 90s? who cared about the atrocities in the Congo civil war from 1998-2003? 2,8/5,4million people died during this conflict. Its the deadliest war since WW2 wordwide. The list is almost endless. Perspective is a great thing. Even mass murder and ethnic cleansing never lead to intervention in most parts of the world. Maybe you should read one or two books about modern history before you talk about it.

Interventions only make sense, if you can improve the situation for the population of this area. I think its reasonable to contain ISIS, so I am not opposing any military operation against them. I am just saying that the USA is repeating known mistakes.

 

[fishfingers15]

Wow, I need to put a few people on ignore. I mean, there are people dying and we seem to be saying, 'Well it's alright as long as it's not in the hands of US'. It's pretty fecked up. I'm religious, but boy posts like this makes me question my sanity.

 

[Raoul]

The abuse of women is a very serious issue, but using it as a reason to invade countries to ludicrous and dishonest. The USA isnt even doing everything in their power do to prevent sexual abuse in their own country and people like Todd Akins are able to win elections. The "moderate rebels" are abusing women all the time, so even if you get rid of ISIS, women are still getting fecked over (literately and fig.). Where are the the military interventions in the central african republic, Sudan, Chad, Somalia or Congo? Bigotry at its best. The McCains of this world care jack-shit about women.
The whole view that the USA is just doing it for oil is a fairly extreme and one-sided view as well. Its one point of many. Also India is also not doing "everything they can" to prevent sexual abuse. Saying that is pretty ignorant or cynic.

I am not necessarily against fighting ISIS, if you have a valid strategy, e.g. in the context of supporting the kurds, but thats not what the USA is doing. The USA is getting involved in something without having a specific strategy, without having specific objectives, without having any idea about a exit strategy or a post-intervention regime. Its possible to beat ISIS militarily, but its not possible to fight the idea behind it. If ISIS is getting destroyed other militant, violent islamic extremist will emerge. Everytime external powers are using military force to intervene the common people will radicalise a bit.

Its nothing specific to the region so. Even so parts of it are controversial, many historians argue that the carpet-bombing of Cambodia (Ho-Chi-minh-path//supply lines) in the context of the Vietnam war (200.000 civilian casualties on Cambodian ground) combined with the removal of the "moderate" leader Sihanouk by the USA, was one of the main reasons, that enabled the Khmer Rouge/red-khmer/Pol Pott to take over power in the country. There are several examples of that in the history of mankind and you would expect people to learn from their mistakes......

Politicans, especially trigger happy interventionists in washington, dont understand that military interventions have big unintended consequences; consequences, that can affect countries/regions for decades. Are some governments just too incompetent to understand these concepts or are they acting regardless or that? Its hard to say which scenario is worse.

One last comment: ISIS beheaded american citizens "publicly" and they specifically adressed the president in their video in front of a world-wide audience (thats possible, due to the internet). Even the biggest moron on the planet would know that this would taunt the USA in a military intervention. There is no way that ISIS doesnt know this. So why are still doing it? Eventually because they are brainwashed idiots, but eventually also because another military campaign of western countries in the middle east isnt the worst thing that could happen to then.

There are two rational explanation that touch on US intent in the middle east and elsewhere. The long term stabilization of economic markets for uninterrupted commerce and the promotion of western rules and norms in order to reach aforementioned economic stability. This includes promoting free press, strengthening civil society, promoting women's rights (countries where 50% of the population are disenfranchised will struggle to find long term stability and success), etc. Unfortunately, the US has played both sides of the fence by befriending dictatorships for short term gains (often under Republican administrations), which has set things back significantly. The big problem is that every time there is a change in President, they come out with a slightly different policy which makes progress harder. Obama, for his part, has done an excellent job of trying to avoid interventionism (leaving Iraq, Afghanistan, not invading Assad's government, avoiding boots on the ground in Libya et al) in favor smaller footprint, asymmetrical drone programs, which have been very successful in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. There is nothing that makes terrorists shit their pants more than the possibility of instant, sudden death by way of an noiseless, invisible drone. But if you want a more comprehensive explanation as to why the US behaves as it does, do a bit of research into Complex Interdependence.

 

[PedroMendez]

I have the book from Andrew Moravcsik: "The choice for europe. Social purpose, state power from messina to maastricht" right in front of me. Interesting read and years ago I wrote a 30p essay about it. I am by no means an expert, but could you explain how liberal intergovernmentalism could help me to understand us foreign policy?

But if we are already trying to educate each other. My book tip for you: The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich.

 

[roykeane19]

There are two rational explanation that touch on US intent in the middle east and elsewhere. The long term stabilization of economic markets for uninterrupted commerce and the promotion of western rules and norms in order to reach aforementioned economic stability. This includes promoting free press, strengthening civil society, promoting women's rights (countries where 50% of the population are disenfranchised will struggle to find long term stability and success), etc. Unfortunately, the US has played both sides of the fence by befriending dictatorships for short term gains (often under Republican administrations), which has set things back significantly. The big problem is that every time there is a change in President, they come out with a slightly different policy which makes progress harder. Obama, for his part, has done an excellent job of trying to avoid interventionism (leaving Iraq, Afghanistan, not invading Assad's government, avoiding boots on the ground in Libya et al) in favor smaller footprint, asymmetrical drone programs, which have been very successful in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. There is nothing that makes terrorists shit their pants more than the possibility of instant, sudden death by way of an noiseless, invisible drone. But if you want a more comprehensive explanation as to why the US behaves as it does, do a bit of research into Complex Interdependence.

See thats what you fail to understand, I've brang it up countless times, but you seem to have a total disregard to the amount of civilians that are being killed either in Iraq, Syria, drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan

Alot of the people in those countries dont care much for the taliban or Al`Qaeda, but when you have a foreign country invading your country, and then have a disproportionate number of civilians being killed, people lose families, relatives, most join groups like Taliban now, not for their ideology, they just want revenge or for the occupying force to leave their country

When the US first invaded after 9/11, they carpet bombed many villages, something largely ignored, why is it all this religious extremism in ME has risen up since 9/11, granted it was there before that, but since then due to many killing, and attacking of almost every part of ME, it just causes more people to join those groups

 

[Raoul]

See thats what you fail to understand, I've brang it up countless times, but you seem to have a total disregard to the amount of civilians that are being killed either in Iraq, Syria, drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan

The amount of civilians being killed there are significantly less than if there were full on ground invasions there. I've spent the past decade or so in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and believe you me, the Taliban (in particular) absolutely hate drones. They love being able to do anything they want on the Pakistani side of the border and that has been severely curtailed by the drone program.

Alot of the people in those countries dont care much for the taliban or Al`Qaeda, but when you have a foreign country invading your country, and then have a disproportionate number of civilians being killed, people lose families, relatives, most join groups like Taliban now, not for their ideology, they just want revenge or for the occupying force to leave their country

True, but again not nearly as much as a full on ground invasion.

When the US first invaded after 9/11, they carpet bombed many villages, something largely ignored, why is it all this religious extremism in ME has risen up since 9/11, granted it was there before that, but since then due to many killing, and attacking of almost every part of ME, it just causes more people to join those groups

Well no they didn't - they bombed the hell out of Taliban positions though, which of course has nothing to do with why there is extremism in the Middle East or Southeast Asia. We are well beyond the point of whether or not people join Jihadi groups. This is now an existential struggle between humanity and terrorists.

 

[roykeane19]

The amount of civilians being killed there are significantly less than if there were full on ground invasions there. I've spent the past decade or so in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and believe you me, the Taliban (in particular) absolutely hate drones. They love being able to do anything they want on the Pakistani side of the border and that has been severely curtailed by the drone program.



True, but again not nearly as much as a full on ground invasion.



Well no they didn't - they bombed the hell out of Taliban positions though, which of course has nothing to do with why there is extremism in the Middle East or Southeast Asia. We are well beyond the point of whether or not people join Jihadi groups. This is now an existential struggle between humanity and terrorists.

Well we all have our views, and I don't necessarily agree with your points, but I respect your opinion(and no, not because your a mod :P haha)

 

[Suli]

I quietly hope for more regular air strikes. The coalition is big enough and has a strong enough Air Force to accommodate for tens of strikes in both countries, daily.

Hit them with 50+ air strikes every day and the good guys can advance at lightning speed. Hit the tanks, the convoys of Doshkas, the checkpoints where they're fighting. Hit them with everything you have Mr America!

 

[PedroMendez]

.

your presupposition is, that the USA has to intervene in these countries. Thats what I and many other are arguing against. Dronesstrikes in yemen are not a succes. Not at all.
Few people would argue against your point, that dronestrikes are better than a full-force ground invasion. Its a completely different topic.

 

[Livvie]

We'll never come close to defeating terrorism until we tackle the root causes. We've not been totally innocent historically and this plays into the hands of those who wish to prey on the naive and impressionable.