The largest ethnic cleansing in 60+ years in taking place today in Iraq

jank

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You know well by now that jank likes nothing more than a nice drive-by post.

I am actually debating this one, the only one doing drive by posts is your good self where you take the time to take a pot shot at a poster rather than debating the actual topic at hand. Poor form all round but sure people can make the correct judgment on that about you.

jank

jank wrote: »

I am actually debating this one, the only one doing drive by posts is your good self where you take the time to take a pot shot at a poster rather than debating the actual topic at hand. Poor form all round but sure people can make the correct judgment on that about you.

Pot-shots you say?

jank wrote: »

In regards American intervention, well dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. They intervened in Libya, got slated and blamed for the mess that resulted...
Didn't intervene in Syria (Anti-war nutjobs were delighted), chemical weapons and 160,000 dead two years later, well blame America cause sure they have no oil... :rolleyes:
ISIS gain control of Northern Iraq, start beheading Christians and non believers.. humming and hawing.. US launch air strikes and the anti-war nutjobs will be out on the streets condemning this intervention...

Isn't it great to be able to sit in a comfy chair in Dun Laoghaire pontificating about the wrongs of the world and getting paid by the tax payer to do it.

jank wrote: »

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties, a man who invaded Kuwait to achieve regional hegemony, a man who's regime cost Iraq up to a million lives and sent the country into poverty.

Screw the average Iraqi, don't give a **** about them. All that matters is my ideological pureness and self righteousness. Sure Kim Jong il is a great guy for stabilising North Korea, Stalin had his virtues too didn't he? Look at how he kept all those republics in toe. We can be sure that there would be no mess in Ukraine now if he was in charge! Things would be a lot simpler in the world with a few strong men like him in charge....then I can be left in peace in my sunny back garden to write my letters to the Irish Times blaming the west for all that is wrong in the world, ah bliss.

jank wrote: »

Eh, well the hint is in the name of the relevant action group. Anti-War. Or should it be renamed 'Anti-War of states where we can influence some change'
The premise of being anti-war is quite simple yet some people brand themselves as being thus and then go on an idealogical and political campaign with this slogan which is very much disingenuous to the whole simple anti-war message as a whole.

It seems because western societies and democracies which the US and Israel are part of, can be seen to be influenced by public opinion and marches then therefore it is legitimate to direct the anti war message solely and only to them as dictators and fanatics don't give two ****s about crusties and hippies marching on the streets which of course is the ultimate irony of the whole modern anti ware message and groups.

jank wrote: »

Thats new one, as I have and always have been against the invasion of Iraq (find a post were I have supported it) but unlike you I can release the reality of today and not go down the easy route of 'well, we will just blame America for this one, shall we?'...Yawn.

Also, I am more well travelled and educated than you at the nuances of real life in countries such as these than you. Which actually makes me more wilful to resist the bollox the left come out with about 'da West', 'da Oil' ,da Poor, or whatever... spare me the faux indignation.We have had a bucket load of it the past few weeks.

Do you include yourself among the anti-war nutjobs about Syria? Or was the more nuanced world view you've cultivated that were can't possibly perceive make your opinion more worthwhile?

donegal__road

LorMal wrote: »

A fascinating point and scary if true. I have not seen this on any mainstream media outlet.
Where is the source for this revaluation?

Source 1


Source 2


Source 3


Source 4

FTA69

jank wrote: »

Thats new one, as I have and always have been against the invasion of Iraq (find a post were I have supported it) but unlike you I can release the reality of today and not go down the easy route of 'well, we will just blame America for this one, shall we?'...Yawn.

Also, I am more well travelled and educated than you at the nuances of real life in countries such as these than you. Which actually makes me more wilful to resist the bollox the left come out with about 'da West', 'da Oil' ,da Poor, or whatever... spare me the faux indignation.We have had a bucket load of it the past few weeks.

I'm glad you realise the Iraq War was something to be opposed. However, when you whinge at me for saying that the place is even worse as a result of it, it gives the impression that you think what the Americans did there was a positive thing. Considering ISIS and other examples of the chaos in Iraq are directly attributable to that war, I don't think it amiss or wrong to point out that some people have a lot to answer for in that regard. I absolutely condemn ISIS and people like them, I also condemn those who created is situation in the first place and killed a million odd average Iraqis in the process. Similarly, if you're going to (rightfully) lambast Hussein for things like chemical attacks and the war with Iran, then also have the moral fortitude to condemn those who enabled and armed him.

As for your flagrant nonsense about you being "more educated and travelled" than me. I'd love for you to elaborate on that further? Personally I think your inability to make a point without trying to crowbar everyone into a bogus stereotype says a lot more about your credibility than mine.

renegademaster

Meglamonia wrote: »

Why would the US Britain etc create the ISIS?Knowing thousands of Christians etc would be killed?

because imagine what would happen if the war on terror came to an end? who'd make money from that like

LorMal

donegal__road wrote: »

Source 1


Source 2


Source 3


Source 4

The first couple are not mainstream. The one mainstream source you have quoted (washington times) is about a different story.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

..............

It seems because western societies and democracies which the US and Israel are part of, can be seen to be influenced by public opinion and marches then therefore it is legitimate to direct the anti war message solely and only to them as dictators and fanatics don't give two ****s about crusties and hippies marching on the streets which of course is the ultimate irony of the whole modern anti ware message and groups.

...which completely ignores the long running campaigns that were against Burma's regime, and Indonesias occupation of East Timor. Dear o dear.

mad muffin

Meglamonia wrote: »

Why would the US Britain etc create the ISIS?Knowing thousands of Christians etc would be killed?

Because something, something. US/UK/Israel evil something, something. The new Axis, something…

Hidalgo

To look at what can be done to stop ISIS air strikes will unlikely be enough to wipe them out. It might stem the movement of Isis temporarily but that's about it.

Oddly enough nothing was done when Isis were murdering other Muslims, its only when Christians began feeling the brunt of the Isis onslaught that Obama called in air strikes.

Food and clothing drops are crucial to those now on the run. Heres hoping that they get to those most in need.

donegal__road

LorMal wrote: »

The first couple are not mainstream. The one mainstream source you have quoted (washington times) is about a different story.

you wont find the truth in the main-stream media and you know it.

You didn't ask for a main-stream media source, you only asked for a source for the article if you go back and look at your post.

If you read through the Washington Post article, it is about the same issue, it just isn't reflected in the title.

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm glad you realise the Iraq War was something to be opposed. However, when you whinge at me for saying that the place is even worse as a result of it, it gives the impression that you think what the Americans did there was a positive thing. Considering ISIS and other examples of the chaos in Iraq are directly attributable to that war, I don't think it amiss or wrong to point out that some people have a lot to answer for in that regard. I absolutely condemn ISIS and people like them, I also condemn those who created is situation in the first place and killed a million odd average Iraqis in the process. Similarly, if you're going to (rightfully) lambast Hussein for things like chemical attacks and the war with Iran, then also have the moral fortitude to condemn those who enabled and armed him.

As for your flagrant nonsense about you being "more educated and travelled" than me. I'd love for you to elaborate on that further? Personally I think your inability to make a point without trying to crowbar everyone into a bogus stereotype says a lot more about your credibility than mine.

So no posts of me advocating the Iraq war? Thought so as they don't exist... You do realise that the middle east has been existing in some form or other for the past few thousand years and issues at hand are a lot more nuanced than the usual, "well just blame 'mercia for it all". Its a lazy argument as I already mentioned and explored but people like yourself are not interested in such a discussion. For example, you would rather Saddam would still be in power rather than taking a risk and doing something else about it. You were the one that stated "Saddam was bad but.." *Facepalm* You obviously do not care about the average arab but quick to pontificate about western intervention into the region, as if the region is some paradise of liberty and human rights to begin with.... see how the non-western world really lives up close, it will change that smug Guardianista attitude of yours.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So no posts of me advocating the Iraq war? Thought so as they don't exist... You do realise that the middle east has been existing in some form or other for the past few thousand years and issues at hand are a lot more nuanced than the usual, "well just blame 'mercia for it all". Its a lazy argument as I already mentioned and explored but people like yourself are not interested in such a discussion. For example, you would rather Saddam would still be in power rather than taking a risk and doing something else about it. You were the one that stated "Saddam was bad but.." *Facepalm* You obviously do not care about the average arab but quick to pontificate about western intervention into the region, as if the region is some paradise of liberty and human rights to begin with.... see how the non-western world really lives up close, it will change that smug Guardianista attitude of yours.

Bash the leftys, rawrrr.

jank

jank wrote: »

So no posts of me advocating the Iraq war? Thought so as they don't exist... You do realise that the middle east has been existing in some form or other for the past few thousand years and issues at hand are a lot more nuanced than the usual, "well just blame 'mercia for it all". Its a lazy argument as I already mentioned and explored but people like yourself are not interested in such a discussion. For example, you would rather Saddam would still be in power rather than taking a risk and doing something else about it. You were the one that stated "Saddam was bad but.." *Facepalm* You obviously do not care about the average arab but quick to pontificate about western intervention into the region, as if the region is some paradise of liberty and human rights to begin with.... see how the non-western world really lives up close, it will change that smug Guardianista attitude of yours.

Obviously you're way more well-traveled than me and I assume better-educated in geophysics but I actually think that the middle east has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm just saying that based on my lefty Trinity College education so I could be wrong but plate tectonic theory hasn't changed *that* much recently from what I've read.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Bash the leftys, rawrrr.

Shut up Leon.

suicide_circus

The US are only getting involved for the oil! Occupy McDonalds! Where's my grant cheque!

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Shut up Leon.

Rawrr!!

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Rawrr!!

I've always imagined the sound of a pickaxe in the head but it's nice to see a written representation for a change.

LorMal

donegal__road wrote: »

you wont find the truth in the main-stream media and you know it.

You didn't ask for a main-stream media source, you only asked for a source for the article if you go back and look at your post.

If you read through the Washington Post article, it is about the same issue, it just isn't reflected in the title.

I did ask for mainstream that was the whole point -I was genuinely shocked by the article and wanted to know if it was real.
You have answered my question. It's bull****. Thanks.

A Primal Nut

The situation keeps getting worse:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11024037/Iraq-crisis-It-is-death-valley.-Up-to-70-per-cent-of-them-are-dead.html

It's really is desparation time now.

A Primal Nut

Hidalgo wrote: »

To look at what can be done to stop ISIS air strikes will unlikely be enough to wipe them out. It might stem the movement of Isis temporarily but that's about it.

Oddly enough nothing was done when Isis were murdering other Muslims, its only when Christians began feeling the brunt of the Isis onslaught that Obama called in air strikes.

Not really, Christians have been targeted for a while now. The Yezidi are the ones suffering most right now and most at risk of ethnic cleansing; they are not Christians.

miissjuly

Why are conflicts only occurring in the Arab region? Sometimes I think kill them all to see whether it's peaceful there or not, and also to see if any more religious lunatics who kill in the name of religion are born again or not. But that's inhuman..

bumper234

miissjuly wrote: »

Why are conflicts only occurring in the Arab region? Sometimes I think kill them all to see whether it's peaceful there or not, and also to see if any more religious lunatics who kill in the name of religion are born again or not. But that's inhuman..

Of course it's inhumane! What about the innocent men, women and children? As long as there is religion there will be idiots who want to kill people who don't believe in their god. Let's not kill people let's kill religion.

wazky

bumper234 wrote: »

Of course it's inhumane! What about the innocent men, women and children? As long as there is religion there will be idiots who want to kill people who don't believe in their god. Let's not kill people let's kill religion.

I'd hazard a guess that without religion, they would find another "reason" to kill.

bumper234

wazky wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that without religion, they would find another "reason" to kill.

Well it seems the common denominator in a **** load of deaths since way back when so maybe would be nice to try and live a few centuries without it (impossible i know) and see how the world fares.

wazky

bumper234 wrote: »

Well it seems the common denominator in a **** load of deaths since way back when so maybe would be nice to try and live a few centuries without it (impossible i know) and see how the world fares.

Some cretins just want another set of people dead though alot of the time, religion is just a handy banner to stick it under.

RustyNut

wazky wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that without religion, they would find another "reason" to kill.

Zionism,Communism,Imperialism,Capitalism, the list is long.....

donegal__road

LorMal wrote: »

I did ask for mainstream that was the whole point -I was genuinely shocked by the article and wanted to know if it was real.
You have answered my question. It's bull****. Thanks.

this was your reply...

LorMal wrote: »

A fascinating point and scary if true. I have not seen this on any mainstream media outlet.
Where is the source for this revaluation?

sorry but your reply sounded like you were just looking for a source, not just a main stream media source.. anyways, this is getting silly.

So, is Edward Snowden telling the truth?

mad muffin

donegal__road wrote: »

this was your reply...




sorry but your reply sounded like you were just looking for a source, not just a main stream media source.. anyways, this is getting silly.

So, is Edward Snowden telling the truth?

There's no evidence that he made any such statements.

The thoughts of Israel training the leader of IS nee ISIS nee ISIL, are quite frankly ridicules.

Nodin

miissjuly wrote: »

Why are conflicts only occurring in the Arab region? Sometimes I think kill them all to see whether it's peaceful there or not, and also to see if any more religious lunatics who kill in the name of religion are born again or not. But that's inhuman..

Fairly sure the Ukraine, Congo, Mali etc aren't "in the Arab region".

A Primal Nut

Slightly more positive news:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/10/iraq-yazidi-isis-jihadists-islamic-state-kurds

Manic Moran

miissjuly wrote: »

Why are conflicts only occurring in the Arab region? Sometimes I think kill them all to see whether it's peaceful there or not, and also to see if any more religious lunatics who kill in the name of religion are born again or not. But that's inhuman..

It has not escaped our notice in the US military that most of the world's worst trouble spots occur in places where they're not allowed to eat bacon, many more require that their women be covered. The solution, obviously, is we must force them to be allowed eat bacon, and give the men something to look at.

Herb Powell

miissjuly wrote: »

Why are conflicts only occurring in the Arab region? Sometimes I think kill them all to see whether it's peaceful there or not, and also to see if any more religious lunatics who kill in the name of religion are born again or not. But that's inhuman..

Because they're not..........you have to be a special level of ignorant to think there's only conflict in the middle east (Iraqis are not arabs, btw)

LorMal

Herb Powell wrote: »

Because they're not..........you have to be a special level of ignorant to think there's only conflict in the middle east (Iraqis are not arabs, btw)

No need to be nasty! She has a point - there is almost constant conflict in the Middle East region.
They really seem to find it impossible to govern themselves peaceably. (I assume we will get a whole lot of 'its all the fault of the West' comments now).
I wonder why no other country in that region will intervene now to save these poor people under attack from ISIS?
It seems to always require Western intervention.

Iwasfrozen

Herb Powell wrote: »

Because they're not..........you have to be a special level of ignorant to think there's only conflict in the middle east (Iraqis are not arabs, btw)

Yes they are. You're thinking of Iran.

Bit ironic calling someone else ignorant when you don't know Iraqis are Arab.

Donkey Oaty

donegal__road wrote: »

So, is Edward Snowden telling the truth?

The question is whether the Tehran Times is telling the truth, because they are the one and only source for that story - unless you know differently.

Herb Powell

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes they are. You're thinking of Iran.

Bit ironic calling someone else ignorant when you don't know Iraqis are Arab.

Fucck.

spook_house

Herb Powell wrote: »

Because they're not..........you have to be a special level of ignorant to think there's only conflict in the middle east (Iraqis are not arabs, btw)

Iraqis are arab , Iranians are not however

FTA69

jank wrote: »

You do realise that the middle east has been existing in some form or other for the past few thousand years and issues at hand are a lot more nuanced than the usual, "well just blame 'mercia for it all".

We can blame the Americans for invading and destabilising a country based on their own selfish interests, predicated on lies and fabrications they spun to their own people and the world in general. This invasion led to a million odd deaths and directly led to the sh*t we are witnessing today. Pointing out the fact that a mere ten years ago the Yanks smashed Iraq to pieces isn't lazy anti-Americanism, it's fact. Your 'so what' attitude to the invasion of Iraq and its consequences are what's wide of the mark here.

For example, you would rather Saddam would still be in power rather than taking a risk and doing something else about it.

Again, you're spinning the notion that the Americans invaded Iraq out of an altruistic desire to help the Iraqi people and bring democracy to the Middle East. The reality is that they couldn't give a sh*t about the average person in the region and invaded for their own selfish and strategic interest, killing a million odd people in the process. They then decided it was too much hassle and p*ssed off having replaced one set of gangsters with another and leaving the country in a far worse state than the sh*t state it was to begin with.

Please spare me the bullsh*t about Americans 'taking a risk' for democracy. The Iraqi people were never consulted about people 'taking a risk' on their behalf and bombing the country back to the stone age in the process.

see how the non-western world really lives up close, it will change that smug Guardianista attitude of yours.

Seriously like, your need to assign people these bogey-man roles of pinko, latte-drinking Guardian-readers is ridiculous. Also, please explain to me how you're more well travelled and educated on the subject than I am; I'm all ears.

hju6

Manic Moran wrote: »

It has not escaped our notice in the US military that most of the world's worst trouble spots occur in places where they're not allowed to eat bacon, many more require that their women be covered. The solution, obviously, is we must force them to be allowed eat bacon, and give the men something to look at.

That's because the US military is too thick to realise that most the worlds trouble occurs in and around Oil / gas fields, and the US military are corporate mercenaries that cause more trouble than they solve,

twinytwo

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The Germans actually declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor.

The Russians did not 'break the back of the German Army' until mid-1944.

while it is open to debate, the battle of Kursk in 43 essentially saw an end to german offensive capabilities on the eastern front.

losing Russia meant the war was over for Germany, after that they collapsed in on themselves.