Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[untermensche]

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

What's getting tiresome is portrayal of ISIS as "victims" and somehow justified in their actions. Let alone Saddam or Assad.

Who put the Iraqi shia in power? The Iraqi demographics did. US respected the democratic elections, but for the result Iraqis can blame themselves. Or if you want to extend the cause and effect, it's the ethnic divisions inherited from Saddam's rule. What are you suggesting? That Americans should have stepped in and nullified the elections?

Your answer to all the worlds problems is for the leading terrorist nation, the US, to step in and force a settlement.

The US is the problem, not any solution.

 

[Jayjay]

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

What's getting tiresome is portrayal of ISIS as "victims" and somehow justified in their actions. Let alone Saddam or Assad.

Who put the Iraqi shia in power? The Iraqi demographics did. US respected the democratic elections, but for the result Iraqis can blame themselves. Or if you want to extend the cause and effect, it's the ethnic divisions inherited from Saddam's rule. What are you suggesting? That Americans should have stepped in and nullified the elections?

Your answer to all the worlds problems is for the leading terrorist nation, the US, to step in and force a settlement.

The US is the problem, not any solution.

When has US ever stepped in and forced a settlement? They basically let Iraqis govern themselves. Their failure to do so had much deeper roots than the recent US invasion.

 

[untermensche]

When has US ever stepped in and forced a settlement? They basically let Iraqis govern themselves. Their failure to do so had much deeper roots than the recent US invasion.

You're living in an alternate universe.

The US overturned the Iraqi government with force.

That is stepping in and forcing a settlement.

The only problem is it was a plan of morons and we are getting a lot of blowback.

 

[arkirk]

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

What's getting tiresome is portrayal of ISIS as "victims" and somehow justified in their actions. Let alone Saddam or Assad.

Who put the Iraqi shia in power? The Iraqi demographics did. US respected the democratic elections, but for the result Iraqis can blame themselves. Or if you want to extend the cause and effect, it's the ethnic divisions inherited from Saddam's rule. What are you suggesting? That Americans should have stepped in and nullified the elections?

Your answer to all the worlds problems is for the leading terrorist nation, the US, to step in and force a settlement.

The US is the problem, not any solution.

When has US ever stepped in and forced a settlement? They basically let Iraqis govern themselves. Their failure to do so had much deeper roots than the recent US invasion.

I feel that the problems in the ME will cool down once we are embarked on alternative energy solutions for our country and the world. It is the constant reaching for resources and then reinforcing that reach with our military that is to blame. The disputes in the ME will untangle themselves as soon as the warring native parties discover there is nothing there to be selling out to foreign powers. Once they establish there will not be some magic formula for riches to pour down on the area, it will be time for the bombs to stop pouring down on the area. These religious wars are phoney. They are real, but there are real non religious reasons why they are happening.

 

[Jayjay]

When has US ever stepped in and forced a settlement? They basically let Iraqis govern themselves. Their failure to do so had much deeper roots than the recent US invasion.

You're living in an alternate universe.

The US overturned the Iraqi government with force.

That is stepping in and forcing a settlement.

The only problem is it was a plan of morons and we are getting a lot of blowback.

The blowback is not from US invasion, it's from sectarian strife that predates it by decades. US may have blown the lid off early but the underlying reasons are much deeper, and ignoring those reasons and pinning it all on a few mistakes by the US is naive.

 

[untermensche]

I feel that the problems in the ME will cool down once we are embarked on alternative energy solutions for our country and the world. It is the constant reaching for resources and then reinforcing that reach with our military that is to blame. The disputes in the ME will untangle themselves as soon as the warring native parties discover there is nothing there to be selling out to foreign powers. Once they establish there will not be some magic formula for riches to pour down on the area, it will be time for the bombs to stop pouring down on the area. These religious wars are phoney. They are real, but there are real non religious reasons why they are happening.

It is more.

It is also the US military industrial complex Eisenhower warned of.

People made millions with the US invasion of Iraq. People that had nothing to do with oil. Construction companies, supply companies, logistical companies.

People make millions due to all the US military and intelligence activity all over the world.

It is a massive transfer of wealth from working Americans to defense contractors.

- - - Updated - - -

You're living in an alternate universe.

The US overturned the Iraqi government with force.

That is stepping in and forcing a settlement.

The only problem is it was a plan of morons and we are getting a lot of blowback.

The blowback is not from US invasion, it's from sectarian strife that predates it by decades. US may have blown the lid off early but the underlying reasons are much deeper, and ignoring those reasons and pinning it all on a few mistakes by the US is naive.

There was NO sectarian violence in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorized the place and drove people into the arms of the most radical as terrorism can do.

 

[Jayjay]

You're living in an alternate universe.

The US overturned the Iraqi government with force.

That is stepping in and forcing a settlement.

The only problem is it was a plan of morons and we are getting a lot of blowback.

The blowback is not from US invasion, it's from sectarian strife that predates it by decades. US may have blown the lid off early but the underlying reasons are much deeper, and ignoring those reasons and pinning it all on a few mistakes by the US is naive.

There was NO sectarian violence in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorized the place and drove people into the arms of the most radical as terrorism can do.

Tell that to the Kurds who were gassed to death by Saddam. Or the Shia who ended up in mass graves for being uppity.

 

[untermensche]

You're living in an alternate universe.

The US overturned the Iraqi government with force.

That is stepping in and forcing a settlement.

The only problem is it was a plan of morons and we are getting a lot of blowback.

The blowback is not from US invasion, it's from sectarian strife that predates it by decades. US may have blown the lid off early but the underlying reasons are much deeper, and ignoring those reasons and pinning it all on a few mistakes by the US is naive.

There was NO sectarian violence in Iraq for hundreds of years until the US terrorized the place and drove people into the arms of the most radical as terrorism can do.

Tell that to the Kurds who were gassed to death by Saddam. Or the Shia who ended up in mass graves for being uppity.

You mean the Kurds gassed with US helicopters? And at the time the US didn't say a word. It instead increased weapons sales to Iraq.

It was only when the US wanted to launch a terrorist attack it cared about the gassing of those Kurds.

And fools like you ate that shit whole.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a tough one. The problem is that people have always killed each other when competing over resources.

So you think the root cause of the issue comes down to resources once really and rigorously analyzed at its core?

Ultimately, yes, even though it doesn't seem so at first. Doesn't make things any simpler. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted resources. WW2 was fought over resources. The list is virtually endless.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So you think the root cause of the issue comes down to resources once really and rigorously analyzed at its core?

Ultimately, yes, even though it doesn't seem so at first. Doesn't make things any simpler. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted resources. WW2 was fought over resources. The list is virtually endless.

I don't know if you are correct or not, but in defense of your argument, if the people of Iraq were economically secure, I don't think we'd be seeing the same kind of thing we do now.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ultimately, yes, even though it doesn't seem so at first. Doesn't make things any simpler. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted resources. WW2 was fought over resources. The list is virtually endless.

I don't know if you are correct or not, but in defense of your argument, if the people of Iraq were economically secure, I don't think we'd be seeing the same kind of thing we do now.

Not simply secure, but optimistic and having opportunity.

 

[untermensche]

So you think the root cause of the issue comes down to resources once really and rigorously analyzed at its core?

Ultimately, yes, even though it doesn't seem so at first. Doesn't make things any simpler. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted resources. WW2 was fought over resources. The list is virtually endless.

There were many people not involved in oil that made millions in Iraq. There was also a lot of fraud from these contractors in Iraq.

But the US didn't invade to TAKE the oil.

It did it to CONTROL the oil. There is great power and wealth to be made in controlling Iraqi's oil.

But ultimately the US failed in this despite the massive effort and cost.

 

[barbos]

I think what we need to understand and appreciate is those who would blow themselves up to kill others. I think this understanding is key. We can destroy ISIS. We can destroy Al Qaeda, but to think another group with a new name would not emerge is very short-sighted. Perhaps we're not fighting the right enemy.

Yeah, we aren't.

We should be going after the recruiters and those who are funding it.

You mean after Saudi Arabia and Qatar? But they are US allies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ultimately, yes, even though it doesn't seem so at first. Doesn't make things any simpler. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted resources. WW2 was fought over resources. The list is virtually endless.

There were many people not involved in oil that made millions in Iraq. There was also a lot of fraud from these contractors in Iraq.

But the US didn't invade to TAKE the oil.

It did it to CONTROL the oil. There is great power and wealth to be made in controlling Iraqi's oil.

But ultimately the US failed in this despite the massive effort and cost.

You're splitting hairs. It's little difference whether you control the resources of use them directly. But certain factions in the U.S. certainly wanted those resources and thought they could be had cheaply enough. And enough U.S. citizens were stupid enough to buy it.

 

[untermensche]

There were many people not involved in oil that made millions in Iraq. There was also a lot of fraud from these contractors in Iraq.

But the US didn't invade to TAKE the oil.

It did it to CONTROL the oil. There is great power and wealth to be made in controlling Iraqi's oil.

But ultimately the US failed in this despite the massive effort and cost.

You're splitting hairs. It's little difference whether you control the resources of use them directly. But certain factions in the U.S. certainly wanted those resources and thought they could be had cheaply enough. And enough U.S. citizens were stupid enough to buy it.

On the contrary, there is a great difference.

Controlling the oil gives you power over nations that need it.

Taking it just gives you money.

 

[barbos]

They focus on US intervention because they blame the US for all that goes wrong in the world.

Yes, much like how the self hating Europeans blame Versailles for WWII and German aggression.

The Iraqi invasion created a massive amount of instability. Much like how the proxy war in Afghanistan helped forge a path towards 9/11, the Iraqi Invasion helped continue anti-west sentiment and destabilized the Middle East, creating a new Afghanistan.

Now while I think you would want to ignore any implication that could exist from the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, and the uncounted civilian death toll from all sorts of strikes since, these things don't dissipate in the minds of those living over there, suffering from shit American foreign policy decisions and occupations. This stuff is quite real to them. And there are a few that are egging people to become radicalized.

The US and Europe didn't attack Paris, but their policies in the Middle East were certainly a major ingredient for the motive of the attacks.

There is no doubt that Iraq war was stupid and destabilized the region, but some leftists here directly link US army transgressions to current terrorism, when in reality all that stupid invasion has done was allowing terrorists and other scambags to take better hold.
These eggheads in the US government don't learn. They are convinced if you remove bad guys then by definition better (!!!) guys would come and replace them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're splitting hairs. It's little difference whether you control the resources of use them directly. But certain factions in the U.S. certainly wanted those resources and thought they could be had cheaply enough. And enough U.S. citizens were stupid enough to buy it.

On the contrary, there is a great difference.

Controlling the oil gives you power over nations that need it.

Taking it just gives you money.

We're basically in agreement. I'll leave it at that.

 

[barbos]

Not thinking of body/missile ratio.

http://www.newsweek.com/november-dr...en-children-reportedly-killed-pakistan-288448

In the six attempts it took to kill Qari Hussain, for example, 128 people were killed, including 13 children.

They were trying to kill a terrorist, and how many of these 128 were terrorists, just with different from "Qari Hussain" name?

How many were innocent?

128 minus terrorists.

A logically null statement.

Same to you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, much like how the self hating Europeans blame Versailles for WWII and German aggression.

The Iraqi invasion created a massive amount of instability. Much like how the proxy war in Afghanistan helped forge a path towards 9/11, the Iraqi Invasion helped continue anti-west sentiment and destabilized the Middle East, creating a new Afghanistan.

Now while I think you would want to ignore any implication that could exist from the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqis and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, and the uncounted civilian death toll from all sorts of strikes since, these things don't dissipate in the minds of those living over there, suffering from shit American foreign policy decisions and occupations. This stuff is quite real to them. And there are a few that are egging people to become radicalized.

The US and Europe didn't attack Paris, but their policies in the Middle East were certainly a major ingredient for the motive of the attacks.

There is no doubt that Iraq war was stupid and destabilized the region, but some leftists here directly link US army transgressions to current terrorism, when in reality all that stupid invasion has done was allowing terrorists and other scambags to take better hold.
These eggheads in the US government don't learn. They are convinced if you remove bad guys then by definition better (!!!) guys would come and replace them.

That "Shock and Awe" thingy must work both ways. Pity Bush and his cronies didn't possess the intellect to figure that one out. And a greater pity he had so much support for his WMD propaganda.

 

[untermensche]

On the contrary, there is a great difference.

Controlling the oil gives you power over nations that need it.

Taking it just gives you money.

We're basically in agreement. I'll leave it at that.

But again. There was more than oil money to be made in an invasion.

Many good Republican donors made millions in Iraq with shoddy construction and other fraud. None of it investigated.