Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[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.

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.

Nice dodge. It doesn't matter if it's helicopter or t-shirts, you'll always find some inane way to blame the US for all the world's ills. The question here was not whether anyone "cared about" the Kurds, it's your incorrect statement that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before US invasion in 2003.

Besides you gotta make up your mind. Do you think US should have sold goods to Iraq before 1991? Or do you think US should have sanctioned Iraq like it did after 1991? Either way, I bet you think US was wrong.

 

[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.

Nice dodge. It doesn't matter if it's helicopter or t-shirts, you'll always find some inane way to blame the US for all the world's ills. The question here was not whether anyone "cared about" the Kurds, it's your incorrect statement that there was no sectarian violence in Iraq before US invasion in 2003.

Besides you gotta make up your mind. Do you think US should have sold goods to Iraq before 1991? Or do you think US should have sanctioned Iraq like it did after 1991? Either way, I bet you think US was wrong.

You are pathetically desperate.

Hussein's gassing of the Kurds with US support was not sectarian violence.

Sectarian violence hadn't existed for 200 years in Iraq until the US terrorist attack.

The sectarian violence was just more torture unleashed against the Iraqi people thanks to the US.

 

[Cycad]

Meanwhile in Paris

Charlies reply to Pray for Paris

 

[untermensche]

Trump says tight gun laws are to blame (pandering?).

Is it a good idea to let people bring guns into concerts and sporting events?

 

[barbos]

What does ISIS in it's current form have to do with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein?

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.

Same tactics, they were pretty ordinary soldiers.
What really happened was that all of them lost their jobs as a result of US invasion. And if one thing you can be sure of is throwing out people with guns without any prospects is never a good thing, not even in Finland

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.

If Saddam was not so brutal he would not have been in power in the first place. Saddam was adequately brutal for ME.

And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing.

What are you talking about? Seriously, what are you talking about?

And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing.

That I totally agree with and have talked about earlier.

There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

Yes.

 

[untermensche]

There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

Yes.

What do you think ISIS would be minus it's top military leadership and easy recruits and US weapons?

Because it has all of these things because of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

 

[barbos]

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.

Yes, US effectively put Shia in power, but the problem is, they were not brutal enough when underwhelming number of ISIS operatives tried to attack them. Shia based Iraqi army was nice enough to run away leaving all the US supplied weapons and money to ISIS.
If they were properly (for ME) brutal they would have rounded up every single one Saddams soldier and executed.

 

[barbos]

Yes.

What do you think ISIS would be minus it's top military leadership and easy recruits and US weapons?

Because it has all of these things because of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
And are you suggesting US stop making weapons?

 

[untermensche]

What do you think ISIS would be minus it's top military leadership and easy recruits and US weapons?

Because it has all of these things because of the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Intentions mean nothing.

But ISIS in it's current form is a contingency of US action.

I don't care if people are hypocrites and refuse to label US terrorism what it is.

 

[Will Wiley]

Christian Member of Saddam Hussein’s Government, Tariq Aziz, Dies in Prison

Weeks before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, carried out on the pretext that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a member of the Baghdad government paid a visit to Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. Tariq Aziz, Hussein’s deputry prime minister, was trying to make the case with European leaders that support for a US-led war against Iraq would be perceived by many Muslims around the world as an assault on their faith and could have terrible consequences, the Washington Post explained.

“If other countries, especially here in Europe — the Christian countries — if they participate in such a war of aggression, it will be interpreted by the Arab and Muslim world as a crusade against the Arabs and against Islam,” Aziz said at the time.

There is absolutely no reason to think ISIL would even exist without the illegal invasion based on documented lies.

 

[repoman]

This is relevant:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The video ends with "This Muslim caller does not represent all Muslims, but he definitely applies Islam as it is in its original sacred texts." However, the host of the show used examples in the Quran to both prove the caller was following sacred texts and prove he was not. Muhammed was merciful and he was not, Islam is peace and it is not, Christians should be killed and they should be allowed to live but pay a tax. The problem with religious texts (other than that they preach for the existence of unreal things) is that you can use them to prove anything when they are sufficiently contradictory. When the circumstances of the followers suck, they may look for the radical interpretations more frequently and more intensely. But I think that even if Islam did not exist, the current followers in their situations would pray to something else and still have a desire to outdo the West. It's not like totalitarianism and fascism cannot exist without religion.

 

[angelo]

Christian Member of Saddam Hussein’s Government, Tariq Aziz, Dies in Prison

Weeks before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, carried out on the pretext that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a member of the Baghdad government paid a visit to Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. Tariq Aziz, Hussein’s deputry prime minister, was trying to make the case with European leaders that support for a US-led war against Iraq would be perceived by many Muslims around the world as an assault on their faith and could have terrible consequences, the Washington Post explained.

“If other countries, especially here in Europe — the Christian countries — if they participate in such a war of aggression, it will be interpreted by the Arab and Muslim world as a crusade against the Arabs and against Islam,” Aziz said at the time.

There is absolutely no reason to think ISIL would even exist without the illegal invasion based on documented lies.

That's assuming Saddam Hussain had discovered the secret of immortality. He was at any time a target of his many enemies. Sooner or later there would've been no more Saddam even without the American invasion. Then what?

 

[Axulus]

Yes, I am sure the slaughter of innocent French and foreign tourists in Paris was well deserved. You want a plane ticket to go to their funerals and dance on their graves?

Nobody says it is justified or deserved.

Only that things like this are a likelihood after you invade for no good reason, bomb, kill and torture people for over a decade. Massive war crimes like the US invasion of Iraq produce consequences that are not pretty or rational.

And what did the Yazidis do to deserve what happened to them by this group?

 

[Will Wiley]

Christian Member of Saddam Hussein’s Government, Tariq Aziz, Dies in Prison



There is absolutely no reason to think ISIL would even exist without the illegal invasion based on documented lies.

That's assuming Saddam Hussain had discovered the secret of immortality. He was at any time a target of his many enemies. Sooner or later there would've been no more Saddam even without the American invasion. Then what?

Is there a kangaroo loose in the top paddock?

 

[Axulus]

Great job endearing yourself to the general public again, muslims.

Yes, because all the world's Muslims gave the green light for this before it went ahead.

Now let's watch the parade of fearmongering and collective blame from people who purport to be protecting "Western" values.

While your point is valid, there is a valid concern from the anti-Muslim immigration crowd. Take in 10,000 Middle Eastern Sunni Muslims into your country, 10 of them (or their children when they grow up) will actively try to join a Jihadist Islamist organization and 1 of them will actually succeed and attempt to carry out a terrorist act. Take in 10,000 Chinese and such a concern is basically non-existent.

 

[Axulus]

Why do some people focus on "US Intervention in the Middle East" as a way to justify this horrible act?

Protip: no one's justifying the act. They're merely looking at the causes. There's a clear difference.

And the causes of the attempted genocide against the Yazidis is what? What actions did they perform to cause their fate?

 

[Axulus]

This was a terrible tragedy. So what's the solution?

Short term: destroy the capabilities and cut off resources of groups such as ISIS.

Long term: Countering the ideology itself. Let Maajid Nawaz explain it:

https://www.ted.com/talks/maajid_nawaz_a_global_culture_to_fight_extremism?language=en

http://www.wsj.com/articles/maajid-nawaz-neutralizing-radical-islamism-1421004689

 

[barbos]

This is relevant:

This video makes me angry. If I was "Putin" of Sweden I would have voice id that piece of shit and kicked him out of the country, And would have made a show out of it too, taking everything what Sweden provided to him, including clothes, left him naked in the middle of the fucking holly land.
Chances are, this fucker is not as tough as he tries to look, and he would break.

And If I was Swedish taxpayer I would have demanded Swedish government to pull off government support for that piece of shit

 

[Will Wiley]

This is relevant:

Thanks