News that makes you say WTF! (45 Viewers)

[icemaη]

Iran and ISIS have the same objectives in regards to who their enemies are. We will see them fighting in the same team before we see them fight themselves IMO.

Oh boy

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Fred]

I was talking about terrorism in general. Obviously Iran and ISIS are enemies, but that doesn't make Iran good guys.

Saudi Arabia doesn't fund terrorism officialy and neither does Qatar. But it's not exactly the same thing as a British or Belgian citizen funding terrorism. The rich people in Saudi Arabia are all either part of the government, related to the royal family or at the very least well connected. The Saudi government tolerates their sponsoring of terrorism. Same applies to Qatar.

Btw, if a lot of rich people from France started financing terrorism, the French government would be partially to blame for not doing enough to crack down that activity.

I didn't say Iran were good guys, I didn't even say Saudi Arabia were good guys. That wasn't the discussion at all, the discussion is whether or not those countries fund ISIS and whether or not they can or should be blamed for the terror attacks in europe.

The point is, neither is responsible at all. Iran's funding of Hizbullah while being something I completely abhor, also has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on hand.

Sometimes countries can be held responsible. Large scale terrorist funding from private individuals can be attributed to Saudi Arabia if they consistently fail to do anything about it.

Don't know if that's the case though, I have zero knowledge about how ISIS or other organizations are funded. And I doubt Juliano13 has more, he's assuming way too much.

In the end all of this is as simple as it is complex. The only one responsible for all this is the terrorist who has decided to carry out this attack. You have to admit that he may have been motivated by what the US (let's just say it like it is, not the west, not the UN, no, the US) did to Iraq and it's obvious huge mistakes were made there. The situation of muslims in Europe could probably be improved as well. In the end though he decides to act on his motivations, whatever they may be, and he's the only one who should be held accountable.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn A0001 met Tapatalk

That is fair enough. However I don't believe that it is tolerated at all by the Saudi regime, they actually are cracking down on funding that goes to such groups, and have on occasion prosecuted and jailed people not only if they are caught funding ISIS, but also if they in any way shape or form support ISIS even in expressing favorable opinions on them. There has been many occasions where individuals have been jailed for voicing favorable opinions of ISIS or their operations, it goes that far.

Iran and ISIS have the same objectives in regards to who their enemies are. We will see them fighting in the same team before we see them fight themselves IMO.

No you won't. ISIS would much rather ally with "western infidels" as they call them than they would Iran.

and saying what you said, is exactly like saying ISIS and the US have the same objectives in regards to who their enemies are. Because Iran and Bashar al Assads regime in Syria are considered both the US and ISIS enemies. In fact most people who support Bashar's regime also strongly believe ISIS is funded by the US. which of course is highly improbable, but it is just as improbable as ISIS and Iran being allies.

 

[Juliano13]

1. Had the US not invaded Iraq, Saddam would probably have still been around. Which obviously means that ISIS would definitely be nowhere near Iraq.

It also would have meant having an evil, sadistic and power hungry dictator around who rules with an iron fist and a reign of terror on anyone who opposes him in Iraq, which is an extremely terrible option to have to choose, however unfortunately time has shown us that it probably was the least terrible option to have by some margin. Same applies to Arab spring countries, especially Libya and Syria IMO.
2. I think the US should not have been in Iraq at all in the first place, because that is what caused the vacuum of power that ISIS has taken advantage of. I think the insurgency in Syria like the one in Libya while most (ordinary) people who were for it(myself included btw) had different hopes in mind, unfortunately countries like those(and Iraq) who do not have any legitimate institutions in place and were completely dependent on previous dictators and their small tightly knit circle of influence, inevitably face absolute chaos when those dictators regimes are taken down, and no group in this region are as organized and as prepared to be able to take advantage of such chaos as radical groups are. So what inevitably happens is those radical groups create strongholds in such countries, and when they have such strongholds they then have access to resources that allows them to spread their terror all around the world. The countries they occupy are much worse off of course. Iraq, Syria and Libya are absolutely devastated by ISIS and their ilk. Yet people like you want us to apologize for the very people who have caused us more misery than they've caused you.

1. Would we keep imposing sanctions on Iraq? If we lift them, then Saddam gets a pass, looks victorious in the eyes of the world and is free to continue trying to get WMDs, exterminating his own people and invade other countries.
If we keep the sanctions that brings even more misery to the Iraqi people and it also forces Saddam to cooperate with the Islamic fundamentalists, which is what he was doing since the Gulf War.
Also, would the Arab spring have happened and how would it have affected Iraq?

2. You didn't really answer my question.

 

[Hust]

Oh boy

Think about who their "enemies" are or at least who they claim they want to get rid of: the West. You don't need to see them take arms on the battle field shoulder to shoulder to to get the point. Sure they have different views of their own religion but their enemies are pretty much the same.

 

[Fred]

Oh boy

It is typical. I'm not referring to Hustini in particular here, but just a general trend I see. People are so ignorant about this region that it leads to such far fetched and ridiculous claims. Saying Iran and ISIS are allies or can be allies, or that Iran funds ISIS has got to be one of the dumbest things you can say in this topic. It just shows how people just think all these people are muslims, so lets just lump them all together.

 

[Seven]

If you are saying the person who did the attack is responsible, how or why will they ever stop in the future? By soul searching, do you mean repay the consequences from the actions of leaders with the blood of civilians?

Well, there are several things that have to be looked into.

What the US did to Iraq was a disgrace. With a far bigger toll on human life than these attacks will ever have. Frankly, I'd like to see the people responsible for this brought to justice.

As for a reaction towards ISIS.. Sure. I'd agree with that. But the question will be how. If ISIS was an organization grouped in one particular place we'd just bomb it and get it over with. Unfortunately it is far more insidious.

Besides, a friggin' truck was the weapon of choice. Anyone can rent a truck. Maybe it's a lone wolf and ISIS will claim the attack because it makes them look strong.

 

[Seven]

It is typical. I'm not referring to Hustini in particular here, but just a general trend I see. People are so ignorant about this region that it leads to such far fetched and ridiculous claims. Saying Iran and ISIS are allies or can be allies, or that Iran funds ISIS has got to be one of the dumbest things you can say in this topic. It just shows how people just think all these people are muslims, so lets just lump them all together.

In America I agree. In Europe most people would know that muslim groups fight among each other. At the very least I can see that it comes up in the news quite often. Bagdad especially is highlighted quite often.

Now if you're speaking about Iran, most wouldn't know which muslim groups would be prevalent there.

 

[Hust]

It is typical. I'm not referring to Hustini in particular here, but just a general trend I see. People are so ignorant about this region that it leads to such far fetched and ridiculous claims. Saying Iran and ISIS are allies or can be allies, or that Iran funds ISIS has got to be one of the dumbest things you can say in this topic. It just shows how people just think all these people are muslims, so lets just lump them all together.

1.) I never said allies. I'm alluding to them both working towards the same goal and more or less staying out of each other's way.
2.) I'm not lumping them together. A terrorist group which makes up a minute pool coupled with the Iranian government which is even smaller is hard lumping them all together.

 

[Seven]

Think about who their "enemies" are or at least who they claim they want to get rid of: the West. You don't need to see them take arms on the battle field shoulder to shoulder to to get the point. Sure they have different views of their own religion but their enemies are pretty much the same.

That's not how it works. Most Iraqi refugees are muslims running from other muslims for example.

 

[Seven]

1.) I never said allies. I'm alluding to them both working towards the same goal and more or less staying out of each other's way.
2.) I'm not lumping them together. A terrorist group which makes up a minute pool coupled with the Iranian government which is even smaller is hard lumping them all together.

They don't have the same goal.

 

[Juliano13]

Well, there are several things that have to be looked into.

What the US did to Iraq was a disgrace. With a far bigger toll on human life than these attacks will ever have. Frankly, I'd like to see the people responsible for this brought to justice.

As for a reaction towards ISIS.. Sure. I'd agree with that. But the question will be how. If ISIS was an organization grouped in one particular place we'd just bomb it and get it over with. Unfortunately it is far more insidious.

Besides, a friggin' truck was the weapon of choice. Anyone can rent a truck. Maybe it's a lone wolf and ISIS will claim the attack because it makes them look strong.

But nowhere near the toll on human life that Saddam was.

 

[Maddy]

It is typical. I'm not referring to Hustini in particular here, but just a general trend I see. People are so ignorant about this region that it leads to such far fetched and ridiculous claims. Saying Iran and ISIS are allies or can be allies, or that Iran funds ISIS has got to be one of the dumbest things you can say in this topic. It just shows how people just think all these people are muslims, so lets just lump them all together.

Nothing wrong in pointing out Hustini's ignorance, albeit he does a good job himself.

Btw. what you wrote is just how I feel about "the west"

 

[Juliano13]

1.) I never said allies. I'm alluding to them both working towards the same goal and more or less staying out of each other's way.
2.) I'm not lumping them together. A terrorist group which makes up a minute pool coupled with the Iranian government which is even smaller is hard lumping them all together.

Iran and ISIS are fighting each other and fighting the west at the same time. It's not one or the other, but they won't be doing joint operations or anything like that.

 

[Maddy]

But nowhere near the toll on human life that Saddam was.

That's a simplistic dick measuring contest.

What is clear is that the iraq war was a failure. Noth in terms of modernizing the middle east and saving human lifes and preventing terror and keeping totalitarian regimes from ruling and and and and and and we can keep going.

 

[Hust]

They don't have the same goal.

One Wishes the west's existence ended and the other wants to kill non-believers. Where will you find the largest pool of non-beleievrs? In the west. Again it's only an opinion

- - - Updated - - -

Iran and ISIS are fighting each other and fighting the west at the same time. It's not one or the other, but they won't be doing joint operations or anything like that.

I already said you won't see them arm up shoulder to shoulder on the battle field but if you look at their objectives how are they really that different?

 

[Seven]

One Wishes the west's existence ended and the other wants to kill non-believers. Where will you find the largest pool of non-beleievrs? In the west. Again it's only an opinion

- - - Updated - - -



I already said you won't see them arm up shoulder to shoulder on the battle field but if you look at their objectives how are they really that different?

Well, for starters both have the extermination of the other as an objective.

 

[Juliano13]

That's a simplistic dick measuring contest.

What is clear is that the iraq war was a failure. Noth in terms of modernizing the middle east and saving human lifes and preventing terror and keeping totalitarian regimes from ruling and and and and and and we can keep going.

No, its not simplistic. Going to war or not is a difficult decision, always. What's simplistic is the retarded pacifists' logic "war is bad, we want peace" or the leftists' "we invaded Iraq and now we have ISIS, therefore the war in Iraq was a failure."

 

[Fred]

1. Would we keep imposing sanctions on Iraq? If we lift them, then Saddam gets a pass, looks victorious in the eyes of the world and is free to continue trying to get WMDs, exterminating his own people and invade other countries.
If we keep the sanctions that brings even more misery to the Iraqi people and it also forces Saddam to cooperate with the Islamic fundamentalists, which is what he was doing since the Gulf War.
Also, would the Arab spring have happened and how would it have affected Iraq?

2. You didn't really answer my question.

1.
I don't think Saddam was pursuing WMD's at that point anymore. Read al Baradei's book "The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times" you'll see what the UN inspectors and IAEA's perspective on that was. Saddam would never cooperate with Islamic fundamentalists, that is highly unlikely, they are absolute enemies, secular dictators are one of the fundamentalists biggest enemies. In fact I think in a war on fundamentalist groups, secular dictators such as Bashar and Saddam would probably almost always be your biggest ally in such a war.

2. That's because its a pointless question. You want me to answer if the US should have pulled out completely in 2011-2012? I think it would have made little difference other than postponing the inevitable. The damage was already done in the invasion. Unless the US was completely committed in building a country from scratch in Iraq, and actually put a lot of resources to ensure that Iraq was able to build legitimate institutions, then a vacuum of power was inevitable, and when that happens ISIS will always be ready to pounce on such an opportunity.

 

[icemaη]

Think about who their "enemies" are or at least who they claim they want to get rid of: the West. You don't need to see them take arms on the battle field shoulder to shoulder to to get the point. Sure they have different views of their own religion but their enemies are pretty much the same.

No, they are not. You should read (a lot, lot more) about the factional differences in Islam. It's fascinating.

It is typical. I'm not referring to Hustini in particular here, but just a general trend I see. People are so ignorant about this region that it leads to such far fetched and ridiculous claims. Saying Iran and ISIS are allies or can be allies, or that Iran funds ISIS has got to be one of the dumbest things you can say in this topic. It just shows how people just think all these people are muslims, so lets just lump them all together.

It's just the general lack of knowledge really. Nothing a healthy discussion can't fix (at least a little bit).

 

[Juliano13]

One Wishes the west's existence ended and the other wants to kill non-believers. Where will you find the largest pool of non-beleievrs? In the west. Again it's only an opinion

- - - Updated - - -



I already said you won't see them arm up shoulder to shoulder on the battle field but if you look at their objectives how are they really that different?

You said "fighting in the same team," that's how I understood it.