ISIS are pure evil.

Shurimgreat

kstand wrote: »

Would agree that it is time to leave them to their own devices and let the Arab world sort out their own problems - even if they were in part at least created by western intervention over the centuries. And under no circumstances let any of those countries develop a nuclear weapon.
We also need to man up in the west and move away from carbon based sources of energy - the nuclear road is the only viable option for now. Whatever it takes to completely eradicate our dependency on Arab oil.
And we need to stand up to Islam within our own borders - we cannot afford to let Islam fester, in spite of the many secular Muslims living in western countries. The Chinese solution appeals to me - i.e. state managed mosques which are run by the state and closely monitored.
And sort out the cancer within our Human Rights legal institutions - i.e. even if you are a citizen of a country or say the EU - if you break certain laws, then you are banished for good. Your family may remain but you may not - one way ticket.
I know that these are very simplistic overviews of what direction to take but they would be a start.

The natural inclination of Islamic countries is towards undemocratic Sharia Law of the kind we see in Raqqa today. If we built a wall around the middle east and left them to their own devices this is what would happen. I don't have much problem with that to be honest. Either way its going to be a very restrictive society out there with shia and sunni fighting each other. I'm not sure a strongman in control of these countries is a much of an option either. Saddam has been portrayed as akin to Mother Theresa by some. I guess the fact he didn't allow western media in to document and photograph everything helped.

FTA69

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So a small minority of neo cons represents all of America now, not just now, but forever? Including those who opposed the war? Talk about reducing a complex nation into something small and handy you can understand. What next, all Muslims are the same? Africans too?

You're fairly grasping at straws now if you're suggesting that the use of the term "Americans" implies I was saying the entire American population is responsible. Saying "the Japanese in WW2" or "the Russians in Afghanistan" or the "Americans in Iraq" is accepted parlance.

Playboy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No I won't.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iraqs-oppressed-majority-95250996/?no-ist

I think you will..... look harder. Know any Iraqi's and asked them about life under Saadam. they intermarried regularly, lived in the same neighbourhoods and got on pretty well. Yes there were issues with the ruling Sunni's being a dictatorship but for everyday life for regular folk sectarianism wasnt an issue.

Shurimgreat

FTA69 wrote: »

You're fairly grasping at straws now if you're suggesting that the use of the term "Americans" implies I was saying the entire American population is responsible. Saying "the Japanese in WW2" or "the Russians in Afghanistan" or the "Americans in Iraq" is accepted parlance.

I was just repeating what you have been saying ad nausiem. ie America bad, everywhere else good.

America is a large complex nation, one of the most diverse on earth. It has two main political parties and even within those parties there are different factions. In the republican party alone there are libertarians, neo cons, tea party and a couple others. The neo cons want to intervene overseas a lot. Libertarians think America should focus only on America and not intervene anywhere. Tea Party are somewhere between the two.

So you probably mean neo cons are responsible for these issues.

In other words, you keep characterising all Americans as basically the same.

jobbridge4life

Playboy wrote: »

I think you will..... look harder. Know any Iraqi's and asked them about life under Saadam. they intermarried regularly, lived in the same neighbourhoods and got on pretty well. Yes there were issues with the ruling Sunni's being a dictatorship but for everyday life for regular folk sectarianism wasnt an issue.

This is utter fiction! Saddam oppressed the Shia majority. This is an established fact you can't just will it away or point to anecdotes.

FTA69

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I was just repeating what you have been saying ad nausiem. ie America bad, everywhere else good.

America is a large complex nation, one of the most diverse on earth. It has two main political parties and even within those parties there are different factions. In the republican party alone there are libertarians, neo cons, tea party and a couple others. The neo cons want to intervene overseas a lot. Libertarians think America should focus only on America and not intervene anywhere. Tea Party are somewhere between the two.

So you probably mean neo cons are responsible for these issues.

In other words, you keep characterising all Americans as basically the same.

When I said "the Americans went into Iraq" it's no more offensive than saying "the Germans invaded Poland" or the "Soviets fought in Afghanistan" or the "Vietnamese intervened in Cambodia."

It's accepted parlance when discussing things like war and invasions. I'm well aware of the complexities of America as a country thanks but your point is irrelevant here as it's clear as day that saying the above doesn't mean you're holding every single American responsible.

You're just trying to pigeon-hole me into this caricature of some American-hater or something and you're doing a sh*te job of it.

Shurimgreat

FTA69 wrote: »

When I said "the Americans went into Iraq" it's no more offensive than saying "the Germans invaded Poland" or the "Soviets fought in Afghanistan" or the "Vietnamese intervened in Cambodia."

It's accepted parlance when discussing things like war and invasions. I'm well aware of the complexities of America as a country thanks but your point is irrelevant here as it's clear as day that saying the above doesn't mean you're holding every single American responsible.

You're just trying to pigeon-hole me into this caricature of some American-hater or something and you're doing a sh*te job of it.

You don't want to be pigeon-holed but you don't mind pigeon-holing an entire nation eh? I'm not going to continue this too much longer as its clear we don't agree on it.

As for Germany invading Poland, its more accurate to say the Nazis ordered the invasion of Germany and the rest of German society didn't have much choice but to go along. But no-one would blame succeeding generations of Germans for it, as you can't blame an entire nation for the wrongs of a few in power.

kstand

One thing I dont understand is why the west over time hasnt actively pushed for the Kurds to have their own state and be recognized as such within the international community. Is the west trying to appease the Turks on what on this? A Kurdish state would always have been an ally in that region and today they are leading the fight against IS.

BuilderPlumber

Zack Morris wrote: »

Except none of that is true. Shia and Sunni Muslims have always hated each other. Saddam oppressed the Shia when he took charge, destroyed their shrines, destroyed the marshlands in the predominately Shia south.

When Saddam was removed, Shia fought back and the sectarian conflict escalated.

Iraq was progressively getting worse and worse for decades. Compared to the chaos of the post 2003 decade and ISIS controlled areas, yeah Saddam is a good guy! But Saddam's strongman tactics of looking after a secular Sunni elite and repressing the Shia and Kurds lead to a problem. His clampdown on religious Sunni also fueled al Qaeda-type extremists. Saddam's main problem was greed and his invasion of Iran was a fatal mistake as was his invasion of Kuwait. He made many enemies with both invasions he didn't have to have made. In the end, this cost him dearly and sowed the seeds for what Iraq is today. Of course, I oppose Bush's unneeded 2003 invasion but that sorry event was part of a long list of tragedies this once great country suffered from the late 1970s to date. Saddam may have had good qualities like allowing people to eat, drink and dress as they please, separating church and state and being respectful to women's rights BUT his greed, personality cult and tribalism were his downfall and resulted in his worst excesses.

BuilderPlumber

kstand wrote: »

One thing I dont understand is why the west over time hasnt actively pushed for the Kurds to have their own state and be recognized as such within the international community. Is the west trying to appease the Turks on what on this? A Kurdish state would always have been an ally in that region and today they are leading the fight against IS.

There are too many factors at play here. Kurdistan has never been a country and was traditionally part of Ottoman Turkey and Persia. Today, it occupies mostly Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Clearly, for the West, the Turkish part is non negotiable. The West's official line is to have an autonomous Kurdish area as part of a federal Iraq (that was and is the post-2003 plan). Iran's Kurdish region likewise seems out of bounds as Russia and China would object and bear in mind so would the West whose relations with Iran are much better than we are lead to believe.

Russia and China, two powerful nations, oppose such moves because of their own wannabe states. Russia has Chechnya who want a Taliban style regime in that and other predominantly Islamic Russian states. China have both the Buddhist Tibet and a Western Turkic Muslim area wanting to break away. If Kurdistan was formed with Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi territory, it would strengthen these causes too. The West insist too that only Iraqi Kurdistan and only as an autonomous part of Iraq is on the table. The reason here is similar: such countries as Spain, the UK, Belgium, France and even the US itself all have potential breakaway regions (Spain is most likely). In the later Saddam years, Iraqi Kurdistan was also independent and that's why it has been less violent than other parts of Iraq as the war did not affect it as much.

kstand

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

There are too many factors at play here. Kurdistan has never been a country and was traditionally part of Ottoman Turkey and Persia. Today, it occupies mostly Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Clearly, for the West, the Turkish part is non negotiable. The West's official line is to have an autonomous Kurdish area as part of a federal Iraq (that was and is the post-2003 plan). Iran's Kurdish region likewise seems out of bounds as Russia and China would object and bear in mind so would the West whose relations with Iran are much better than we are lead to believe.

Russia and China, two powerful nations, oppose such moves because of their own wannabe states. Russia has Chechnya who want a Taliban style regime in that and other predominantly Islamic Russian states. China have both the Buddhist Tibet and a Western Turkic Muslim area wanting to break away. If Kurdistan was formed with Turkish, Iranian and Iraqi territory, it would strengthen these causes too. The West insist too that only Iraqi Kurdistan and only as an autonomous part of Iraq is on the table. The reason here is similar: such countries as Spain, the UK, Belgium, France and even the US itself all have potential breakaway regions (Spain is most likely). In the later Saddam years, Iraqi Kurdistan was also independent and that's why it has been less violent than other parts of Iraq as the war did not affect it as much.

Hmm - interesting points. A Kurdish state within the confines of the old Iraq may well be the only solution.

FTA69

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You don't want to be pigeon-holed but you don't mind pigeon-holing an entire nation eh? I'm not going to continue this too much longer as its clear we don't agree on it.

As for Germany invading Poland, its more accurate to say the Nazis ordered the invasion of Germany and the rest of German society didn't have much choice but to go along. But no-one would blame succeeding generations of Germans for it, as you can't blame an entire nation for the wrongs of a few in power.

When discussing WW2 people often say things likes "the Soviets" or "the Germans", for the third time, it's common parlance when discussing things like war and invasion. I really don't see how you can't grasp this point.

I by no means hold the American people universally accountable for the Iraq War no more than I hold myself to account for Fianna Fáil. You attempting to say that I categorically dislike all Americans or something is a strawman.

RobYourBuilder

The Islamic State has warned Italy that if they are attacked they will send over 500,000 migrants, Italian media report this morning.

The information has been confirmed by Italian authorities, and was obtained via the interception of telephone calls between jihadists, TGcom reports. The idea is to destabilise the country.

It is possible that many of these migrants end up in Malta, apart from also meaning that the Maltese army’s limited resources will be overstretched in operations to save lives.

The ISIS plan seems more plausible even because the theft of boats from Tunisian and Egyptian ports has seen a rise in the past weeks.

Italian media also report that Hamas is urgung Italy and other European nations not to intervene in Libya as this would signify that Europe would have launched a crusade against Arabs and Muslims.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-02-17/world-news/ISIS-warns-Italy-If-you-hit-us-we-ll-send-over-500-000-migrants-6736130746

Wurzelbert

Playboy wrote: »

What do you think is the major driving force behind Islamic terrorism? How you think they manage to recruit people to their cause?

let me just link to what i wrote in reply to a similar question a while ago...books could be and have been written on the topic...

kstand

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-02-17/world-news/ISIS-warns-Italy-If-you-hit-us-we-ll-send-over-500-000-migrants-6736130746

ISIS have inadvertently given Italy a problem to the refugee issue. If I were they, I would issue a statement to the effect that any boat in Italian waters that is not supposed to be there will either be forced to leave or blown out of the water. Would you travel as a refugee knowing that? It's an Italian security issue now on the back of that statement. And they have played right into their hands.

Wurzelbert

fr336 wrote: »

So er ISIS are now going to flood Europe with over 500,000 migrants from Libya via the Med crossing to Italy[...]

and even if they all came, it wouldn't be too much of a problem for the italians...they would just do as they always do with african boat refugees: give them each a few hundred euros cash and put them on trains to germany...standard procedure...and the cash comes back in from germany via brussels anyway...

niamhstokes

should we limit immigrants from muslim countries / people with european passports whose country of origin is muslim? or do we want ireland to end up like other european countries with a massive muslim population ? what do Irish people want? be nice and let them come ? i guess so

IrishTrajan

niamhstokes wrote: »

should we limit immigrants from muslim countries / people with european passports whose country of origin is muslim? or do we want ireland to end up like other european countries with a massive muslim population ? what do Irish people want? be nice and let them come ? i guess so

Ireland has control over its immigration policy.

If it was up to me, I'd kick out every person who wants to sponge off the State. Foreigners or natives, doesn't matter. You want to live here, you contribute to society or you get your welfare payments cut off. No State assistance until you find a job.

I'm talking about long-term dole-sponges, like 18-months+

RobYourBuilder

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Ireland has control over its immigration policy.

It sure does. Whether or not it exercises that control in a stringent manner is another matter entirely.

tomwaterford

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Ireland has control over its immigration policy.

If it was up to me, I'd kick out every person who wants to sponge off the State. Foreigners or natives, doesn't matter. You want to live here, you contribute to society or you get your welfare payments cut off. No State assistance until you find a job.

I'm talking about long-term dole-sponges, like 18-months+

so where exactly do you propose to kick the native irish out to in this brave new world of yours??

IrishTrajan

tomwaterford wrote: »

so where exactly do you propose to kick the native irish out to in this brave new world of yours??

The Aran Isles.

Zebra3

niamhstokes wrote: »

should we limit immigrants from muslim countries / people with european passports whose country of origin is muslim? or do we want ireland to end up like other european countries with a massive muslim population ? what do Irish people want? be nice and let them come ? i guess so

What do you want?

Playboy

Wurzelbert wrote: »

let me just link to what i wrote in reply to a similar question a while ago...books could be and have been written on the topic...

So it's a complex mix of cultural, historical, religious and economic factors? I funnily enough actually agree with you to an extent but I would counter that... the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, British Colonialism (and the nice maps they drew), World War 2, the withdrawal of the British, the importance of oil to the world economy, the subsequent rise of American intervention in the region, American support for the Shah regime and other brutal dictators, the use and funding of Islamic fundamentalists by both the British and the Americans for political purposes such as the soviet war in Afghanistan, the US supported Iran/Iraq War, the founding of Israel, arming Israel with Nuclear Weapons, the continued support of Israel by Western Powers in spite of situation in Palestine, the first Gulf War, the support of the House of Saud even though Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islamic extremism and exports it around the world via funding schools and Mosques, the second invasion of Iraq based on a lie, the invasion of Afghanistan .... all of these factors have probably played a bigger role in the rise of terrorism and religious extremism than the claim that Islam is some inherently dangerous religion. I think Islam probably is more easily manipulated than some other religions given its origins in War and the deterministic unquestioning faith it asks of its followers. But I think Islam being the problem is absolutely overplayed by the media when you consider the sequence of catastrophic western interventions in the region over the last century. The Muslim world had stagnated under the Ottomans for a couple of centuries but we in the West filled that Vacuum in a terribly destructive way with little regard for the rights and welfare of the people of the region. That is why we have the problems we have today.

Wurzelbert

Playboy wrote: »

So it's a complex mix of cultural, historical, religious and economic factors? I funnily enough actually agree with you to an extent but I would counter that... the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, British Colonialism (and the nice maps they drew), World War 2, the withdrawal of the British, the importance of oil to the world economy, the subsequent rise of American intervention in the region, American support for the Shah regime and other brutal dictators, the use and funding of Islamic fundamentalists by both the British and the Americans for political purposes such as the soviet war in Afghanistan, the US supported Iran/Iraq War, the founding of Israel, arming Israel with Nuclear Weapons, the continued support of Israel by Western Powers in spite of situation in Palestine, the first Gulf War, the support of the House of Saud even though Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islamic extremism and exports it around the world via funding schools and Mosques, the second invasion of Iraq based on a lie, the invasion of Afghanistan .... all of these factors have probably played a bigger role in the rise of terrorism and religious extremism than the claim that Islam is some inherently dangerous religion. I think Islam probably is more easily manipulated than some other religions given its origins in War and the deterministic unquestioning faith it asks of its followers. But I think Islam being the problem is absolutely overplayed by the media when you consider the sequence of catastrophic western interventions in the region over the last century. The Muslim world had stagnated under the Ottomans for a couple of centuries but we in the West filled that Vacuum in a terribly destructive way with little regard for the rights and welfare of the people of the region. That is why we have the problems we have today.

well yes, western meddling is a factor in all this, as i have also said...i think between our two posts we have it all covered and we mainly disagree on how to weigh all the different factors...maybe it all comes down to sand in their eyes and the lack of booze in the end...easy enough to see how a young muslim would feel left behind and disgruntled and be easy prey for hate preachers...and all that may be an explanation, but is certainly no excuse...

Playboy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This is utter fiction! Saddam oppressed the Shia majority. This is an established fact you can't just will it away or point to anecdotes.

Noam Chomsky wrote:

One of the effects of the invasion was immediately to institute sectarian divisions. Part of the brilliance of the invasion force and its civilian director, Paul Bremer, was to separate the sects, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd, from one another, set them at each other’s throats. Within a couple of years, there was a major, brutal sectarian conflict incited by the invasion.

You can see it if you look at Baghdad. If you take a map of Baghdad in, say, 2002, it’s a mixed city: Sunni and Shi’a are living in the same neighborhoods, they’re intermarried. In fact, sometimes they didn’t even know who was Sunni and who was Shi’a. It’s like knowing whether your friends are in one Protestant group or another Protestant group. There were differences but it was not hostile.

In fact, for a couple of years both sides were saying: there will never be Sunni-Shi’a conflicts. We’re too intermingled in the nature of our lives, where we live, and so on. By 2006 there was a raging war. That conflict spread to the whole region. By now, the whole region is being torn apart by Sunni-Shi’a conflicts.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/noam_chomsky_america_paved_the_way_for_isis_partner/

Roger Hassenforder

Playboy wrote: »

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/noam_chomsky_america_paved_the_way_for_isis_partner/

As yes, Chomsky.
Anti us, anti Israel and debateable anti-semite, pro communist, pro russia pigeon. Beloved by the lefties on boards.
Hardly an unbiased reference.

Nodin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As yes, Chomsky.
Anti us, anti Israel and debateable anti-semite, pro communist, pro russia pigeon. Beloved by the lefties on boards.
Hardly an unbiased reference.

He's jewish ffs.

wretcheddomain

Nodin wrote: »

He's jewish ffs.

He's an atheist.

When Catholics renounce their faith they are called atheists, yet when Jewish people renounce Judaism they're still called Jewish. It's bizarre.

IrishTrajan

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He's an atheist.

When Catholics renounce their faith they are called atheists, yet when Jewish people renounce Judaism they're still called Jewish. It's bizarre.

Judaism is ethnoreligious, not just religious. It's like an Irish Catholic. If he renounces Catholicism, he doesn't stop being Irish.

It's a rather weird one, alright.

Nodin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He's an atheist.

When Catholics renounce their faith they are called atheists, yet when Jewish people renounce Judaism they're still called Jewish. It's bizarre.

It's the religion/ethnicity thing. Either way, I've heard him talk about growing up in the states and he's not anti-Semite by any stretch.