• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

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.
In what alternative universe is not Sunnis gassing Kurds or putting down Shia uprisings not sectarian violence? There are hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia buried in mass graves that would disagree with you. Look up Al-Anfal campaign for example and then tell me that it was just a coincidence that it happened to target the Kurds and other minorities.
 
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?

You mean from the Turks with US weapons?
 
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
Certainly that was a bit of a blunder, but I doubt they were just "ordinary soldiers". They were most likely used to doing the same shit under Saddam: terrorizing the population to keep it under its thumb. And the Shias forming their own militias certainly didn't help.

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?
Assad supported terrorists before the Syrian civil war, because A) it was a nuisance to US efforts in Iraq, and B) by allowing a small number of extremists operate it could claim that any dissidents against the regime were extremists and justify violent measures against them. Those tactics got out of hand when ISIS came back to bite the hand that was feeding it.
 
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.
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.
Oh goody goody... because take 10,000 gun owners, 10 of them (or their children) will actively be grumpy and claim they'll shoot people up, and 1 will actually succeed and kills a dozen or two. Take 10,000 knife owners and that pretty much never happens.

So when talking about guns, we must protect the sacred rights of people to own guns, but when talking about actual people... fuck 'em.
 
Assad supported terrorists before the Syrian civil war, because A) it was a nuisance to US efforts in Iraq, and B) by allowing a small number of extremists operate it could claim that any dissidents against the regime were extremists and justify violent measures against them. Those tactics got out of hand when ISIS came back to bite the hand that was feeding it.
Where do you get this bullshit? Your head?
Civil war started without any terrorists involved. And Assad was ready and in fact had given up to demands of the protesters who had nothing to do with Islamism or terrorism and were basically against corruption, crappy economy and police brutality. But Assad was too late. Certain players (USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) decided it was time to get rid of Assad and sent terrorists in. I mostly blame US for this, because SA and other "friends" are predictable when it comes that sort of things.

Also, Assad was not and still is not completely free in his decisions. Despite western perception of complete and utter ruler of Syria he was not any such thing. There are a lot of people in his clan who take part in the decision process and early during revolution they were against giving people anything.
 
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
Certainly that was a bit of a blunder, but I doubt they were just "ordinary soldiers". They were most likely used to doing the same shit under Saddam: terrorizing the population to keep it under its thumb. And the Shias forming their own militias certainly didn't help.
Terrorizing - yes, islamism - no. Saddam was a mostly secular despot (same with Assad who is even more secular and less of a despot).
Saddam actually put some effort to keep his army secular, islamists had no chance to advance far in the army.
 
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?
Being xtian in a muslim world isn't compatible. Islam tolerates no other religion. The Yazidis, are the wrong religion.
 
This was a terrible tragedy. So what's the solution?

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

I don't disagree, but how can you get rid of capability to be a suicide bomber?

What about US capabilities to bomb civilians? That's not a tit-for-tat remark, by the way.

What about also bringing those who planned the bombing and hostage-taking to justice? What about bringing W to justice?

Axulus said:

Could you summarize these links?
 
Assad supported terrorists before the Syrian civil war, because A) it was a nuisance to US efforts in Iraq, and B) by allowing a small number of extremists operate it could claim that any dissidents against the regime were extremists and justify violent measures against them. Those tactics got out of hand when ISIS came back to bite the hand that was feeding it.
Where do you get this bullshit? Your head?
Civil war started without any terrorists involved. And Assad was ready and in fact had given up to demands of the protesters who had nothing to do with Islamism or terrorism and were basically against corruption, crappy economy and police brutality. But Assad was too late. Certain players (USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) decided it was time to get rid of Assad and sent terrorists in. I mostly blame US for this, because SA and other "friends" are predictable when it comes that sort of things.
Probably true. But KSA and others probably would have gone ahead with their plans anyway, with or without US help.

As for Assad, he's been playing both ends of the field with islamist extremists since 2003. For example:
The Telegraph said:
After September 11, he co-operated with the United States’ rendition programme for militant suspects; after the invasion of Iraq, he helped al-Qaeda to establish itself in Western Iraq as part of an axis of resistance to the West; then when the group turned violently against the Iraqi Shias who were backed by Assad’s key ally, Iran, he began to arrest them again.

As the uprising against his rule began, Assad switched again, releasing al-Qaeda prisoners. It happened as part of an amnesty, said one Syrian activist who was released from Sednaya prison near Damascus at the same time.

“There was no explanation for the release of the jihadis,” the activist, called Mazen, said. “I saw some of them being paraded on Syrian state television, accused of being Jabhat al-Nusra and planting car bombs. This was impossible, as they had been in prison with me at the time the regime said the bombs were planted. He was using them to promote his argument that the revolution was made of extremists.”

(...)

Syrian intelligence has historically had close connections with extremist groups. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph after he defected, Nawaf al-Fares, a Syrian security chief, told how he was part of an operation to smuggle jihadist volunteers into Iraq from Syria after the 2003 invasion.
Without help from Assad, ISIS in Iraq would have been much weaker.
 
And the causes of the attempted genocide against the Yazidis is what? What actions did they perform to cause their fate?
Being xtian in a muslim world isn't compatible. Islam tolerates no other religion. The Yazidis, are the wrong religion.

Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita tax levied by a Muslim state on non-Muslim subjects permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law.[1][specify][2][3] Islamic jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting the women, slaves, minors, poor, and the insane,[4][5] as well as musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands).[6] Jizya is mandated by the Quran and the Hadiths.[7][8]

The application of jizya varied throughout Islamic history. Jizya and kharaj collected from non-Muslims, were terms that were sometimes used interchangeably,[9][10][11] and together were the predominant contributor to total annual taxes collected by the Muslim officials in various Islamic states.[12][13] Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income,[14] to 50% of annual produce.[15] Muslims have been exempt from Jizya tax, paying a 2.5% Zakat tax on annual income instead.[16][17]

Jizya is an example of taxes that depended on the religion of the individual. Some scholars[18][19] state Jizya to be a discriminatory tax. Historically, the Jizya tax has been rationalized in Islam as a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the permission to privately practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims' submission to the Muslim state and its laws.[16][20] Jizya has also been rationalized as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam.[21][22][23]

The jizya tax was historically imposed on Jews and Christians in Arabian peninsula, the Levant, Iraq, North Africa, Caucasus and Spain, and on Hindus in South Asia into the 19th century, but almost vanished in the 20th century.[24] The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world, moderate Muslims consider the dhimmi system as inappropriate for the modern era,[25][26] though modern era Islamic scholars such as Abul A'la Maududi of Pakistan and Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Egypt have argued that Jizya should be re-imposed on non-Muslims in a Muslim nation.[27][28] There have been occasional reports of religious minorities in conflict zones and political instability in Muslim regions being forced to pay jizya,[24][29] such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant enforcing it in some areas they have captured.[30]

The overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims reject the dhimma system, and therefore jizya, as anachronistic, in the sense that it is inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democracies.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
 
Where do you get this bullshit? Your head?
Civil war started without any terrorists involved. And Assad was ready and in fact had given up to demands of the protesters who had nothing to do with Islamism or terrorism and were basically against corruption, crappy economy and police brutality. But Assad was too late. Certain players (USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) decided it was time to get rid of Assad and sent terrorists in. I mostly blame US for this, because SA and other "friends" are predictable when it comes that sort of things.
Probably true. But KSA and others probably would have gone ahead with their plans anyway, with or without US help.

As for Assad, he's been playing both ends of the field with islamist extremists since 2003. For example:
The Telegraph said:
After September 11, he co-operated with the United States’ rendition programme for militant suspects; after the invasion of Iraq, he helped al-Qaeda to establish itself in Western Iraq as part of an axis of resistance to the West; then when the group turned violently against the Iraqi Shias who were backed by Assad’s key ally, Iran, he began to arrest them again.

As the uprising against his rule began, Assad switched again, releasing al-Qaeda prisoners. It happened as part of an amnesty, said one Syrian activist who was released from Sednaya prison near Damascus at the same time.

“There was no explanation for the release of the jihadis,” the activist, called Mazen, said. “I saw some of them being paraded on Syrian state television, accused of being Jabhat al-Nusra and planting car bombs. This was impossible, as they had been in prison with me at the time the regime said the bombs were planted. He was using them to promote his argument that the revolution was made of extremists.”

(...)

Syrian intelligence has historically had close connections with extremist groups. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph after he defected, Nawaf al-Fares, a Syrian security chief, told how he was part of an operation to smuggle jihadist volunteers into Iraq from Syria after the 2003 invasion.
Without help from Assad, ISIS in Iraq would have been much weaker.
Even if we assume any of that is true (big assumption) it's very minor infraction on the part of the Assad.
People who defect are known to make up shit, remember Iraq's WMD?..... exactly!
 
What was amazing about the WMD, is the bullshit was swallowed hook line and sinker by most Americans. Many even today still believe Saddam had, or was about to acquire WMD's.
 
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 kinda silly. Toppling Saddam simply removed an Islamic Terrorist hurdle. If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, there would have been simply a bloodier civil war following the Arab Spring. It would have been more brutal than the initial civil war between the Sunni terrorists and Bashar.
 
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.
I hate to burst your ideology, but having lots of oil is not all that great today. There is an abundance of oil on the market today. Most oil producing nations are in severe economic trouble unless they are diversified.
 
Their is plenty of blame in the ME. Yes the Iraq invasion was a disaster. But to ignore all the other factors, people, and history is very naïve. The ME starting falling behind the world in the 1400s. European redrawing of the map after WW1 was a disaster. We could go back and forth forever. IMO, the ME will continue to be a hellhole until there is a successful liberal democracy that the people can believe in.

It's much simpler than that. Once we removed the targeted ruthless leaders, the fanatics whom they held in place ran amuck and the rest is history. So the root of this was America and its allies cock ups by missing the obvious.

Most of the places the people ran amok without our doing anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Question: How many million times are you going to repeat this same bogus claim?

Islam has been on the warpath for it's whole existence.

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

We didn't do much of anything for the first 100 years.
 
Your characterization of the US as having been engaged in terrorism is as exagerative as a child's hand being slapped with a ruler by a teacher as being regarded as child abuse in the 1950's. People's emotions get the best of them to such a degree that any form of unacceptable physical contact in today's climate is met with the most extreme distortions of a word's meaning. Terrorism my ass!

It is textbook terrorism.

The illegitimate use of force to effect political change.

Quit buying your textbooks in Moscow.

Terrorism is the use of force on civilians to effect political change by frightening them into doing what you want.

Overthrowing a government, whether justified or not, is not terrorism.
 
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.

Exactly. There is major league repression all through the Islamic lands.

Things were stable with one side in power. Removing that had led to a very brutal power struggle.

- - - 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.
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.

You're admitting we are right but still trying to blame the US for things we didn't do.
 
People have never been killed for 'drawing cartoons'. They have been killed for deliberately and pointlessly insulting other people's religion, as you know. If someone kicks you in the balls, laddie, you will have objections. Think on!
The belief that having your religion deliberately and pointlessly insulted is on a level with being kicked in the balls is a communicable mental illness, laddie.
Well, it is communicable.
 
It's much simpler than that. Once we removed the targeted ruthless leaders, the fanatics whom they held in place ran amuck and the rest is history. So the root of this was America and its allies cock ups by missing the obvious.

Most of the places the people ran amok without our doing anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Question: How many million times are you going to repeat this same bogus claim?

Islam has been on the warpath for it's whole existence.

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

We didn't do much of anything for the first 100 years.
We were pretty much at war for our first 100 years and nearly all of our existence.
 
Back
Top Bottom