21 Egyptians beheaded in latest video

Elmer Blooker

Gwynplaine wrote: »

There's so many of things in the news now that I've just become immune to it.
"80 people killed in suicide bombing in Iraq"
Me - oh right, what will I have for lunch?

Iraq? 21 Egyptians beheaded in Libya, Syria? Afghanistan? Ukraine?
The USA's plan to bring peace, stability and democracy doesn't seem to be working does it?

wretcheddomain

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Iraq? 21 Egyptians beheaded in Libya, Syria? Afghanistan? Ukraine?
The USA's plan to bring peace, stability and democracy doesn't seem to be working does it?

Would you prefer to take ISIS plan, Boko Haram's plan or Al Shabaab's plan?

Putin

opinionated3 wrote: »

No doubt someone will come on here and says it's America's fault. ....

And so what if they do?

Is opinionated3 intolerant of other opinions? Because given your username, that would be very ironic.

Nodin

Egginacup wrote: »

Like how, Nodin?

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

Like with targeted co-ordinated military actions and sanctions that seek out and remove funding.

AlanS181824

I truly hope the world puts a stop to these barbaric monsters and soon.

wretcheddomain

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I truly hope the world puts a stop to these barbaric monsters and soon.

It's funny - the world powers only enter wars nobody wants and when a fight presents itself that the public has an appetite for, very little is done. :pac::pac:

AlanS181824

I just watched that video, I was curious about it.

It is so distressing seeing those people walk onto that beach knowing that they're about to be killed, could you imagine what they must have been thinking?

Rip to them all.

AlanS181824

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's funny - the world powers only enter wars nobody wants and when a fight presents itself that the public has an appetite for, very little is done. :pac::pac:

It's totally ironic alright, they're gaining power in governmentless territories so I hope something is done fast to combat them.

Eugene Norman

This is actually where -- unlike a killing in France which opposed the Iraq war you can blame in part America. And the west. This incessant meddling in the stupid Arab Springs. Bring down secular governments. Don't care about the replacements.

IrishTrajan

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's funny - the world powers only enter wars nobody wants and when a fight presents itself that the public has an appetite for, very little is done. :pac::pac:

Very little? The F22 made its debut in strikes on ISIS. Cruise missiles, precision munitions, JDAM strikes.

They've given weapons and training to the Iraqis and the Kurds, they've provided air supremacy and surgical strikes. If that constitutes "very little" then you must think they should put boots on the ground. Which is a bad idea. Soon as they go in, the infighting plaguing Rebel groups will cease, and they'll target the U.S.'s forces.

They're using the Kurdish and the Iraqis to strike ISIS, giving them "boots on the ground" without actually having to devote massive numbers of troops. Surgical air strikes is in Western favour in this instance.

You can't be the go-to-guy for every problem that arises. If the Iraqis and Syrians want democracy, they must fight for it. They can't coast off the West when things get tough.

AndonHandon

Egypt to sign €5 billion deal with France for the supply of inter alia a fleet of fighter jets. Hopefully a Jordanian-sequence response will follow.

IrishTrajan

AndonHandon wrote: »

Egypt to sign €5 billion deal with France for the supply of inter alia a fleet of fighter jets. Hopefully a Jordanian-sequence response will follow.

Why on earth would they do that. They already have like 200 F-16s and are short on skilled pilots.

Surely putting the money into training of pilots would be better, no?

old_aussie

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Get them the hell out of there and give every Christain in the middle east who wants refuge in Europe automatic access

Maybe some people want to get out of Europe, they could do a house swap.

Tony EH

Tugboats wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31481797?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Not as well made as the Pilot one. They have ran out of Western hostages and money is getting tight which I guess is good news

This is what happens when you kill the guy who was keeping a lid on things.

DeadHand

My name is URL wrote: »

So a load of Egyptians travel to Libya to fight and work against a regime, subsequently get captured and executed and the public condemns it

Yet an Irishman travels to Egypt to fight a regime, gets captured and faces execution and the same people celebrate it?

This shit gets confusing at times.

Wait, I thought that particular "Irishman" was on holiday, got accidentally caught up in the turmoil and savaged by that mean old military junta?

I know which side of the knife that lad would be on.

The "people" who butchered those Christians are his ideological fellow travelers.

suicide_circus

Tony EH wrote: »

This is what happens when you kill the guy who was keeping a lid on things.

ye cant win sure ye cant

Tony EH

Sometimes "winning" is not interfering in other nations affairs, to pursue your own short sighted, selfish and greedy goals.

suicide_circus

Tony EH wrote: »

Sometimes "winning" is not interfering in other nations affairs, to pursue your own short sighted, selfish and greedy goals.

What a fresh and exciting viewpoint, have you considered writing a book?

Tony EH

You wouldn't be able to understand it if I did.

IrishTrajan

Egypt has responded to the executions of 21 of its citizens with airstrikes in Derna (ISIS-controlled city). Apparently the Libyan Army is aiding Egypt, and Egypt intends to intensify the bombings.

opinionated3

Putin wrote: »

And so what if they do?

Is opinionated3 intolerant of other opinions? Because given your username, that would be very ironic.

Not at all. I clearly have my opinion on these events which no one here in ah will change. You have yours. All is well. ......

wretcheddomain

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Egypt has responded to the executions of 21 of its citizens with airstrikes in Derna (ISIS-controlled city). Apparently the Libyan Army is aiding Egypt, and Egypt intends to intensify the bombings.

Good, and may it continue to obliterate their body's limb from limb.

wes

More horror from ISIS. They need to be stopped. We are hearing more and more about there atrocities, and at this point they have pretty much pissed everyone in the region off.

FTA69

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You can't be the go-to-guy for every problem that arises. If the Iraqis and Syrians want democracy, they must fight for it. They can't coast off the West when things get tough.

Are you having a bloody laugh? The rise of ISIS in Iraq is a direct consequence of the invasion in 2003. A relatively stable state was hammered into pieces so the Americans could secure a supply of oil controlled by a government sympathetic to them. Up to a million civilians were killed, society was allowed to collapse and breakdown and ethnic tensions were stoked. Of course when they realised it wasn't going to be the easy ride they initially thought it was, the Yanks f*cked off as soon as it was expedient to do so.

In Syria, America, the Brits and the usual suspects spun us this nonsense about a "goodies v baddies" struggle of glorious freedom fighters against an evil tyrant. They pumped support into a non-existent "Free Syrian Army" that later morphed into ISIS and allowed them to gain a foothold across a huge part of the country.

What ISIS are currently doing is terrible and the blame for their actions lies with them. However it must also be acknowledged that they are the product of a vacuum created by a total war unleashed by the USA which had no moral basis whatsoever. To detatch the reality of the Middle East today with the war in Iraq a few years ago is churlish in the extreme to be honest.

IrishTrajan

FTA69 wrote: »

Are you having a bloody laugh? The rise of ISIS in Iraq is a direct consequence of the invasion in 2003. A relatively stable state was hammered into pieces so the Americans could secure a supply of oil controlled by a government sympathetic to them. Up to a million civilians were killed, society was allowed to collapse and breakdown and ethnic tensions were stoked. Of course when they realised it wasn't going to be the easy ride they initially thought it was, the Yanks f*cked off as soon as it was expedient to do so.

In Syria, America, the Brits and the usual suspects spun us this nonsense about a "goodies v baddies" struggle of glorious freedom fighters against an evil tyrant. They pumped support into a non-existent "Free Syrian Army" that later morphed into ISIS and allowed them to gain a foothold across a huge part of the country.

What ISIS are currently doing is terrible and the blame for their actions lies with them. However it must also be acknowledged that they are the product of a vacuum created by a total war unleashed by the USA which had no moral basis whatsoever. To detatch the reality of the Middle East today with the war in Iraq a few years ago is churlish in the extreme to be honest.

Incorrect. ISIS originated from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, a terrorist group formed in 1999, though they did increase in size during the Iraq war, but their "rise" was caused by the Iraqi Shia-dominated army refusing to hold its ground and fight for the Sunni cities to the north (Mosul, for instance). The "war of oil" is also debatable. The U.S. has its own significant oil reserves, it wasn't looking to control the oil, it was looking to secure the power of the petro-dollar (Saddam was going to sell in euro, Gaddafi was going to sell in gold dinar, and we both know how they turned out).

Regardless of what the U.S.'s intentions for the war was, the fact remains: The U.S. shouldn't put troops back on the ground, as it will merely prolong the insurgencies and the body count will rise.

Do you think I condoned U.S. intervention in Iraq, or the supply of arms to Syrian rebel groups? I don't, but I understand why they supplied arms to the rebels.

The goal being to isolate Iran geopolitically. Syria is the only true "ally" Iran has, one born out of necessity. China will sell Iran out if the pay is high enough, Russia isn't interested in having a rival in Central Asia (Iran, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and the U.S. are all jockeying for influence). If Al-Assad was removed from power in Syria, and replaced with a more Western-friendly regime, then Iran would be brought to the table on their nuclear ambitions (make no mistake, they are looking towards attaining a nuclear warhead).

The U.S. is playing the "lesser of two evils" game. If they can't negotiate with Iran and make them cease nuclear research, you're going to see a war much bloodier than the Iraq and Afghan war kick off, likely leading to a nuclear arms race in the region. It's why they keep telling Israel to not strike Iran, that the U.S. will handle it. If the Israelis launch strikes and don't knock out all of Iran's facilities, a nuclear arms race will ensue. If they do succeed, you're going to see Iran (likely Iraq and Syria also) launching missiles into Israel, and providing larger weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas. So, a war in Syria that might cost two hundred thousand lives is still preferable to a war that might claim millions of lives, at least to the Americans.

I'm not saying the Iraq war didn't have an affect on ISIS' growth, I'm just saying that it isn't the sole cause.

To get back to my original point: If the U.S. puts boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, all it will do is give both sides a common enemy to attack, and you'll see American and European bodies start to pile up. Call me racist, but a Western life means more to me than a Middle Eastern one does.

The U.S. can not be the policeman that everyone runs to when things get tough. If the Iraqis don't want to be gutted, if the Jordanians don't want to be burned alive, if the Egyptians and the Kurds and Syrians don't want to be beheaded, then the onus is on them to combat this threat. Yes, the West should provide support, through training or armament or carrying out airstrikes, but not by putting its own men on the ground and doing the heavy lifting. That will solve nothing, because as soon as the West leaves, you'll find another terror group popping up and the same song and dance will occur.

Also, somewhat unrelated; ISIS is becoming an existential threat to Europe. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan... They all have ISIS-presences, and sooner or later they will pose a threat to Europe. The question is, should Europe as a collective act now, where we hold a clear conventional advantage and would have regional allies, or should we wait until they make a push for the Iberian and Balkan peninsulas, when we might not have allies?

FTA69

Incorrect. ISIS originated from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, a terrorist group formed in 1999, though they did increase in size during the Iraq war

It isn't incorrect in the slightest to say that they are here now in their current form as a result of the US invasion. I never said the Americans invented Islamic fundamentalists or anything, what I said was that their invasion created the conditions for these people to grow and assume a modicum of power. We had a low-level and small-scale conflict in Ireland and look at some of the whackos that that produced and allowed to come to prominence, never mind something on the scale of Iraq. We are seeing a similar set-up in Libya now today; we were spun a load of nonsense about helping gallant rebels and now we're stuck with a destabilised sh*t-heap that's fast going down the toilet as Islamic extremists have been allowed to gain a foothold.

Regardless of what the U.S.'s intentions for the war was, the fact remains: The U.S. shouldn't put troops back on the ground, as it will merely prolong the insurgencies and the body count will rise.

I agree with you here. They've done enough damage already.

Call me racist, but a Western life means more to me than a Middle Eastern one does

Yep. Insinuating the death of a human being is a lesser occurrence than the death of an American soldier et al is pretty racist.

The U.S. can not be the policeman that everyone runs to when things get tough. If the Iraqis don't want to be gutted, if the Jordanians don't want to be burned alive, if the Egyptians and the Kurds and Syrians don't want to be beheaded, then the onus is on them to combat this threat. Yes, the West should provide support, through training or armament or carrying out airstrikes, but not by putting its own men on the ground and doing the heavy lifting. That will solve nothing, because as soon as the West leaves, you'll find another terror group popping up and the same song and dance will occur.

That doesn't mean that the US should be absolved for it's power plays and support for other tyrants in the region that has left millions of people dead so they could advance their strategic and economic interests.

snubbleste

What does bible-belt 'murica say?

IrishTrajan

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't incorrect in the slightest to say that they are here now in their current form as a result of the US invasion. I never said the Americans invented Islamic fundamentalists or anything, what I said was that their invasion created the conditions for these people to grow and assume a modicum of power. We had a low-level and small-scale conflict in Ireland and look at some of the whackos that that produced and allowed to come to prominence, never mind something on the scale of Iraq. We are seeing a similar set-up in Libya now today; we were spun a load of nonsense about helping gallant rebels and now we're stuck with a destabilised sh*t-heap that's fast going down the toilet as Islamic extremists have been allowed to gain a foothold.

The Iraq war was/is not the only factor. You're oversimplifying.

FTA69 wrote: »

Yep. Insinuating the death of a human being is a lesser occurrence than the death of an American soldier et al is pretty racist.

I'm not sure if you're being sardonic or sincere.

FTA69 wrote: »

That doesn't mean that the US should be absolved for it's power plays and support for other tyrants in the region that has left millions of people dead so they could advance their strategic and economic interests.

I never said they should be absolved. I said that their current support (being airstrikes, providing training, providing materials, providing intelligence) is not "insignificant" or anything of the sort. I argued against Western escalation in the form of putting "boots-on-the-ground".

Do you think that we live on an idyllic planet where colonialism is dead? It's not. Hegemonic power is alive and kicking, it is just better hidden. Hegemony these days is a zero-sum game. We seen it when the Russians retreated across Europe after the Fall of the Soviet Union, when NATO hegemony expanded. We've seen it with Iraq, recently. The U.S. withdrew, and China/Iran came rushing in to win the Shia-government over.

You're being idealist if you think the world will run on "no more empires, we're all human". As idealist as those in the E.U. who pushed for Ukraine to integrate with Europe, and were then taken aback when Russia started stirring up trouble. Idealism is great, in small doses. Pragmatism is much preferred.


Also "millions"? The common estimate is 500,000. The higher estimate (when wanted to argue against the war) is 1,000,000. One million. Singular.

The cost of not intervening and playing the hegemonic game is, to put it simply, of several magnitudes more bloody.

FTA69

The Iraq war was/is not the only factor. You're oversimplifying.

I'm not oversimplifying. If the US hadn't smashed the region to bits and created a militarised vacuum over a decade, chances are these muppets wouldn't have come to any sort of prominence. Likewise, Libya was untroubled by Islamic fundamentalists for decades and within a couple of years of destabilisation they are now major actors in the country. It isn't a massive extrapolation to say that invasions and destabilisations will lead to dangerous loopers emerging.

I'm not sure if you're being sardonic or sincere.

It's a serious point? Why does a Middle Eastern life mean less than a Western one? A human being is a human being and every death is a tragedy. Especially those people killed needlessly in wars started over imperialist greed.

Do you think that we live on an idyllic planet where colonialism is dead? It's not. Hegemonic power is alive and kicking, it is just better hidden.

I'm aware of that fact, and I oppose colonialism and imperialism.

IrishTrajan

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm not oversimplifying. If the US hadn't smashed the region to bits and created a militarised vacuum over a decade, chances are these muppets wouldn't have come to any sort of prominence. Likewise, Libya was untroubled by Islamic fundamentalists for decades and within a couple of years of destabilisation they are now major actors in the country. It isn't a massive extrapolation to say that invasions and destabilisations will lead to dangerous loopers emerging.

The U.S. did what they did to protect their economic interests. The U.S. property bubble popped, and it brought the entire Western world into recession 7 years ago. You think that the petrodollar crashing wouldn't affect us and our lives?

I would add an addendum to your point about extremism. Low quality of living exacerbates extremism. We've seen it in Greece with the rise of Tsipras. Austerity and "low" (comparably) standards of living will lead to extremism.

The U.S. protecting the value of the dollar, and its economic viability as the world reserve currency through military force, arguably prevented extremism in the West.

FTA69 wrote: »

It's a serious point? Why does a Middle Eastern life mean less than a Western one? A human being is a human being and every death is a tragedy. Especially those people killed needlessly in wars started over imperialist greed.

Why are you asking me if it's a serious point?
A Western life means more to me because they live the same way that I do, we speak English, we rely on each other economically, culturally, militarily. I have a greater affinity for my neighbours than I do people who do not live the same way we do. It's quite simple really.

Once again, it wasn't "needless" Imperialism. I explained the vacuum that world hegemony resides in nowadays.

When these extremist groups say "death to the West" they don't mean "death to a handful of corrupt individuals", they mean death to the Western way of life. That means you and I wouldn't be able to have this conversation in criticism of a third party. We'd either convert or die. So yes, forgive me if the lives of people in the Middle East does not hold as much importance as the life of a European or American.

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm aware of that fact, and I oppose colonialism and imperialism.

You see, the problem with that stance is, even if your convince the Americans to drop their
"imperialist" ambitions, it's quite unlikely the Iranians, or the Chinese, or the Indians, the Russians and the Pakistani, the Brazilians and the Argentinians would follow.

"Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing, sooner than war".