bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
The ISIS Megathread
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
PriestTheyCalledHim
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 14,714
I found this article. The comments are interesting and not surprising.
http://rt.com/usa/187452-foley-family-us-ransom-threats/
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Then why post it?
Lol, Napoleon Dynamite's brother is projecting again
Seriously guys, this thread isn't about living with parents or Napoleon Dynamite. This is a final warning before infraction points start getting handed out. It's mainly you two in particular that perpetuate thread derailment across the forum, both of whom I've personally warned several times. No more warnings.
PriestTheyCalledHim
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 14,714
Now Isis claims to have decapitated a man from the UK.
http://www.news.com.au/world/islami...-americas-allies/story-fndir2ev-1227057904652
The Foley family is claiming this:
http://news.yahoo.com/james-foleys-mother-says-government-threatened-family-not-182735673.html
http://www.news.com.au/world/islami...-americas-allies/story-fndir2ev-1227057904652
The Foley family is claiming this:
http://news.yahoo.com/james-foleys-mother-says-government-threatened-family-not-182735673.html
Last edited:
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
The smart thing for Western leaders in the wake of John Kerry's session with Arab leaders in Jeddah on Thursday last, would have been to bide their time. And it would have been smart too to bide their time a bit more after Sunday's grim reports of another Westerner beheaded by these crazed thugs who strut as Islamic freedom fighters in the deserts of Syria and Iraq.
But Tony Abbott leapt straight in – committing 600 Australian military personnel and more aircraft to the conflict, thereby giving the Arab leaders good reason to believe that if they sit on their hands for long enough, the West will fight their war for them.
Even as Abbott made his announcement in Darwin, the US Secretary of State was trailing his coat-tails in Cairo, making little headway with pleas for assistance from a murderous military regime that will shoot its own people, but seemingly dares not volunteer to face the so-called Islamic State on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.
Either collectively in Jeddah or in one-on-one meetings with Kerry as in Cairo, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Lebanon all have baulked at making explicit military commitments to confront a force that they all see as a direct threat to their thrones, bunkers and, in one or two cases, tissue-thin democracies. With the exception of Iraq, which has no option because it is under attack at home, none has publicly committed military support.
Conversely, Abbott was coy in claiming that this new deployment did not mean that Australia was at war. Australia has been at war since its first airlift of weapons and ammunition to the Kurdish Peshmerga in the north of Iraq last week.
Because they are on the ground in the UAE doing logistics and maintenance or in Baghdad and Irbil as military advisers certainly would not absolve any of them from being a target if IS fighters contrived to get access to them. The deployment is an escalation from the other side of the world that likely will put the IS madmen on the lookout for Australian targets.
It's also a dramatic instance of mission-creep in a conflict bedevilled by uncertainty and missing any clear sense of a timeline or even the vague contours of what "victory" might look like.
US President Barack Obama demanded that Iraq form an inclusive, representative government before he would commit. But just three days after the new prime minister said he would behave himself, Obama had aircraft over Iraq, and we still know nothing about how different this Iraqi leadership will be from the last. There is no certainty that it will win the confidence of the Iraqi Sunni tribes.
An air war cannot succeed without a substantial boots-on-the-ground accompaniment – and that part of what Obama calls a strategy is very much on a wing and a prayer.
The Kurdish Peshmerga can fight, but they can't defend all of Iraq. The Iraqi army, trained and equipped by Washington at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, is erratic and more likely to cut and run than to stand and fight. Next door in Syria, Obama is banking of the ranks of the Free Syrian Army – which for years he has complained could not be counted on, and which Washington now tries to convince us can be taken to Saudi Arabia, retrained and sent home to win the war.
More than a decade trying to wave a magic wand over the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan should have convinced the White House that relying on these newly trained forces qualifies for dismissal under the Obama dictum of "don't do stupid stuff!"
Abbott must have had his hands over his ears last week as Obama spoke to the US nation and analysts around the globe distilled his words to mean a conflict that will last for years.
Oddly, the Prime Minister warned Australians to prepare for a fight that might last "months rather than weeks, perhaps many, many months indeed…" Seems he's in as much of a hurry to get into this war, as he seemingly thinks he will get out of it.
It's not clear why. This "we must do something right now" response is likely to create a bigger mess than already exists in the region. Consider: the death of 200,000 locals in Syria failed to rouse much of a reaction in the West; but the deaths of two Americans – and now a Briton – has raised a crescendo for international war when it might have made more sense to tackle regional politicking and feuding first.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/fools-r...definition-20140914-10gtib.html#ixzz3DHTtOZN8
But Tony Abbott leapt straight in – committing 600 Australian military personnel and more aircraft to the conflict, thereby giving the Arab leaders good reason to believe that if they sit on their hands for long enough, the West will fight their war for them.
Even as Abbott made his announcement in Darwin, the US Secretary of State was trailing his coat-tails in Cairo, making little headway with pleas for assistance from a murderous military regime that will shoot its own people, but seemingly dares not volunteer to face the so-called Islamic State on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.
Either collectively in Jeddah or in one-on-one meetings with Kerry as in Cairo, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Lebanon all have baulked at making explicit military commitments to confront a force that they all see as a direct threat to their thrones, bunkers and, in one or two cases, tissue-thin democracies. With the exception of Iraq, which has no option because it is under attack at home, none has publicly committed military support.
Conversely, Abbott was coy in claiming that this new deployment did not mean that Australia was at war. Australia has been at war since its first airlift of weapons and ammunition to the Kurdish Peshmerga in the north of Iraq last week.
Because they are on the ground in the UAE doing logistics and maintenance or in Baghdad and Irbil as military advisers certainly would not absolve any of them from being a target if IS fighters contrived to get access to them. The deployment is an escalation from the other side of the world that likely will put the IS madmen on the lookout for Australian targets.
It's also a dramatic instance of mission-creep in a conflict bedevilled by uncertainty and missing any clear sense of a timeline or even the vague contours of what "victory" might look like.
US President Barack Obama demanded that Iraq form an inclusive, representative government before he would commit. But just three days after the new prime minister said he would behave himself, Obama had aircraft over Iraq, and we still know nothing about how different this Iraqi leadership will be from the last. There is no certainty that it will win the confidence of the Iraqi Sunni tribes.
An air war cannot succeed without a substantial boots-on-the-ground accompaniment – and that part of what Obama calls a strategy is very much on a wing and a prayer.
The Kurdish Peshmerga can fight, but they can't defend all of Iraq. The Iraqi army, trained and equipped by Washington at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, is erratic and more likely to cut and run than to stand and fight. Next door in Syria, Obama is banking of the ranks of the Free Syrian Army – which for years he has complained could not be counted on, and which Washington now tries to convince us can be taken to Saudi Arabia, retrained and sent home to win the war.
More than a decade trying to wave a magic wand over the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan should have convinced the White House that relying on these newly trained forces qualifies for dismissal under the Obama dictum of "don't do stupid stuff!"
Abbott must have had his hands over his ears last week as Obama spoke to the US nation and analysts around the globe distilled his words to mean a conflict that will last for years.
Oddly, the Prime Minister warned Australians to prepare for a fight that might last "months rather than weeks, perhaps many, many months indeed…" Seems he's in as much of a hurry to get into this war, as he seemingly thinks he will get out of it.
It's not clear why. This "we must do something right now" response is likely to create a bigger mess than already exists in the region. Consider: the death of 200,000 locals in Syria failed to rouse much of a reaction in the West; but the deaths of two Americans – and now a Briton – has raised a crescendo for international war when it might have made more sense to tackle regional politicking and feuding first.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/fools-r...definition-20140914-10gtib.html#ixzz3DHTtOZN8
cashfl0w_d0nkey
Bluelight Crew
Calling it the "we must do something now" response is the author putting his spin on it. Which is fine, if this article is understood as it rightfully should be-- as an opinion piece.
Did the crisis in Syria really not rouse much of a reaction in the West? Conveniently ignored in this perspective is the fact that the Assad regime has two major regional powers backing it. ISIS has no such support. Also, was it really the beheadings that caused the military effort in Iraq to materialize? It seems like the author is conveniently ignoring that the IS is committing genocide in Iraq. He is trying to play on the racist notion that the West values the lives of three Westerners more than 200,000 Middle Easterners. I'm afraid the author is writing not to honestly analyze the situation but rather to appeal to war-averse Australians.
War aversion seems a pretty reasonable position in light of the catastrophic results of Western military involvement in Iraq over the last 2 or 3 decades.
There was talk in the mainstream press before the 2003 invasion about the power vacuum that would be created by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in conjunction with the further radicalisation of people in the region (and across the world) who may not have been loyal jihadists prepared to take up arms - but the extremists were given a huge recruitment boost by the disaster that played out (particularly) from March 2003 onwards.
Do you think that the suggestion of Westerners being more willing to deploy military force in the wake of the 3 western hostages being executed - is racist?
I'm not taking a position on either the article or the larger argument it makes, as I think this is a really complex situation that I am not personally well informed enough about - but in the case of Australian domestic politics, this point seems rather valid.
For those of us in Australia that have followed Mr Abbott's track record of cruelty and absence of compassion in indefinitely detaining people fleeing genocide in places such as Sri Lanka (there is a thread in this subforum that expands on this at length) cannot help but find his sentiments a little contradictory.
For all of the "cruelty" and "pure evil" comments from both the Australian and British prime ministers over these beheadings of western hostages - amid reports of IS committing acts of mass murder, rape and a range of other appalling atrocities - I really don't see how it is 'racist' to point out that their reaction to the murder of 3 westerners is so much more scathing and aggressive.
It is not the journalist ignoring the other atrocities carried out by IS/ISIL - but (to my way of reading the article) noting the escalation in political rhetoric relating to this conflict.
It is worth mentioning that Australia had been placed on "high alert" for a terrorist attack,
There is an implication of western lives being more valuable than the thousands of innocent people being killed in Syria and Iraq by these militants - and whether that is true or not, the media impact (that these Prime Ministers have seized upon) is both cynical and exploitative on their part, and just another aspect of a wider propaganda campaign that these horrific deaths have been used to support.
If anyone is not being honest about the situation - and appealing "to war-averse Australians" - it is our deeply unpopular prime minister, who is both doing what he is told to do by his military masters - but also leading our country into another war without even having debated the action in Parliament.
The article may not seem contextually relevant to a reader outside of Australia, but it is from an Australian newspaper, and is referring largely to the domestic implications of this situation; a situation that doesn't sit well for many Australians, as our elected representatives have not been consulted in the commitment to join this next phase of the Iraq War quagmire - no debates were held nor bills voted upon.
This was, in an Australian domestic sense, a unilateral act undertaken by Prime Minister Abbott.
Much like his Conservative party predecessor, who marched us into both of George W's disastrous military expeditions in the Middle East, there has been no consultation with the people.
Just confected outrage at events perceived to strike enough of a chord anongst the public to pledge military support for America's latest attempt to create peace in the region with air strikes.
It is this calculated political approach - along with a deep scepticism of the effectiveness of American military efforts (as judged by their outcomes in Iraq) that makes Australians so "war-averse".
Why wouldn't we be?
As I have already stated, I do not wish to make any statements in support or condemnation for this latest international effort to prevent further atrocities and bloodbaths by the IS forces - but on the domestic front, in my own country - I am not at all surprised to see such hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to talk of "humanitarian" interventions and concern for the people of Iraq or Syria. The deaths of westerners have been so blatantly exploited to support the australian government's position - for once a mainstream news source is doing their job by pointing this out.
This is not the first time in recent history that a conservative government has been extremely unpopular in the polls, and has used fear of terrorism - and a "tough" response to create a situation in which they can attempt to turn their approval ratings around; it worked for the last conservative federal government - and call me cynical (or call me 'war-averse'; I'll wear that one proudly) but this is a game we've seen play out before.
Only it isn't a game - it's deadly serious, and i would really hate to see the disaster we helped create in Iraq become even more of a humanitarian crisis because our creep of a Prime Minister wants to hold onto his tenuous grip on power.
That's my convoluted 2 cents anyway.
There was talk in the mainstream press before the 2003 invasion about the power vacuum that would be created by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in conjunction with the further radicalisation of people in the region (and across the world) who may not have been loyal jihadists prepared to take up arms - but the extremists were given a huge recruitment boost by the disaster that played out (particularly) from March 2003 onwards.
Do you think that the suggestion of Westerners being more willing to deploy military force in the wake of the 3 western hostages being executed - is racist?
I'm not taking a position on either the article or the larger argument it makes, as I think this is a really complex situation that I am not personally well informed enough about - but in the case of Australian domestic politics, this point seems rather valid.
( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/australia-to-deploy-military-force-to-uae/5742498 )
For those of us in Australia that have followed Mr Abbott's track record of cruelty and absence of compassion in indefinitely detaining people fleeing genocide in places such as Sri Lanka (there is a thread in this subforum that expands on this at length) cannot help but find his sentiments a little contradictory.
For all of the "cruelty" and "pure evil" comments from both the Australian and British prime ministers over these beheadings of western hostages - amid reports of IS committing acts of mass murder, rape and a range of other appalling atrocities - I really don't see how it is 'racist' to point out that their reaction to the murder of 3 westerners is so much more scathing and aggressive.
It is not the journalist ignoring the other atrocities carried out by IS/ISIL - but (to my way of reading the article) noting the escalation in political rhetoric relating to this conflict.
It is worth mentioning that Australia had been placed on "high alert" for a terrorist attack,
( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/australia-increases-terrorism-threat-level/5739466 )
There is an implication of western lives being more valuable than the thousands of innocent people being killed in Syria and Iraq by these militants - and whether that is true or not, the media impact (that these Prime Ministers have seized upon) is both cynical and exploitative on their part, and just another aspect of a wider propaganda campaign that these horrific deaths have been used to support.
If anyone is not being honest about the situation - and appealing "to war-averse Australians" - it is our deeply unpopular prime minister, who is both doing what he is told to do by his military masters - but also leading our country into another war without even having debated the action in Parliament.
The article may not seem contextually relevant to a reader outside of Australia, but it is from an Australian newspaper, and is referring largely to the domestic implications of this situation; a situation that doesn't sit well for many Australians, as our elected representatives have not been consulted in the commitment to join this next phase of the Iraq War quagmire - no debates were held nor bills voted upon.
This was, in an Australian domestic sense, a unilateral act undertaken by Prime Minister Abbott.
Much like his Conservative party predecessor, who marched us into both of George W's disastrous military expeditions in the Middle East, there has been no consultation with the people.
Just confected outrage at events perceived to strike enough of a chord anongst the public to pledge military support for America's latest attempt to create peace in the region with air strikes.
It is this calculated political approach - along with a deep scepticism of the effectiveness of American military efforts (as judged by their outcomes in Iraq) that makes Australians so "war-averse".
Why wouldn't we be?
As I have already stated, I do not wish to make any statements in support or condemnation for this latest international effort to prevent further atrocities and bloodbaths by the IS forces - but on the domestic front, in my own country - I am not at all surprised to see such hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to talk of "humanitarian" interventions and concern for the people of Iraq or Syria. The deaths of westerners have been so blatantly exploited to support the australian government's position - for once a mainstream news source is doing their job by pointing this out.
This is not the first time in recent history that a conservative government has been extremely unpopular in the polls, and has used fear of terrorism - and a "tough" response to create a situation in which they can attempt to turn their approval ratings around; it worked for the last conservative federal government - and call me cynical (or call me 'war-averse'; I'll wear that one proudly) but this is a game we've seen play out before.
Only it isn't a game - it's deadly serious, and i would really hate to see the disaster we helped create in Iraq become even more of a humanitarian crisis because our creep of a Prime Minister wants to hold onto his tenuous grip on power.
That's my convoluted 2 cents anyway.
Last edited:
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Every US president for the previous quarter century has attacked/invaded Iraq and every time it just made things worse - there is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.
quiet roar
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2003
- Messages
- 4,990
Are you still here? Careful your mother doesn't catch you on this site.
Lube4Jesus
Ex-Bluelighter
I think that Europe should do more to help. It's stupid how everyone thinks that the us is their personal army. We can't afford to police the world alone.
Some would argue that if any nation starts wars against the wishes of much of the world community, then they have some responsibility to rein in barbaric violence that arises in the wake of such wars.
When you make a mess, you got to bear some responsibility for what happens afterwards.
The US chose to "go it alone" (ie create its own non-UN sanctioned coalition) to invade Iraq to begin with - and this is what happens.
Incidentally, this latest military action is far from the USA "alone". More like a vigilante mob than a police force, but that's debatable.
When you make a mess, you got to bear some responsibility for what happens afterwards.
The US chose to "go it alone" (ie create its own non-UN sanctioned coalition) to invade Iraq to begin with - and this is what happens.
Incidentally, this latest military action is far from the USA "alone". More like a vigilante mob than a police force, but that's debatable.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Oh man. Its always like this and it can go on for pages. Useless, belittling comments that are just a waste of time. Thats why i stopped coming here. Ill check in every once in awhile but its just annoying to have to go through all of it that has nothing to do with the topic. Childish sums it up good. Its just dominated by a few people that jump down anyones throat that disagrees with them. Seems they just feed off the confrontation. Isnt that one part of having intelligent conversations? Different views? I dont know but to me, its just ruined what could be a good thing.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
I really hope this can restore some order here.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Havent seen anyone comment on the humanitarian aid the u.s. gave to those people that were trapped on the mountain that were about to be slaughtered.
Its obvious that its not just about the 2 americans and 1 british beheading. It goes far beyond that. I think it has to do with the genocides and mass killings and oil of course.
One thing is these people are not muslim. I work with alot of muslims and muslims dont condone these acts or support them. I think religion is flawed but to claim all this in the name of God is just horrific.
To stand by and do nothing wouldn't be right. I thought Obamas address to the nation speech was embarrasing but i do feel that if other nations are capable of putting these people down, then its only the right thing to do. Killing innocent people along with defenseless women and children is something that should be stopped as soon as possible.
Its obvious that its not just about the 2 americans and 1 british beheading. It goes far beyond that. I think it has to do with the genocides and mass killings and oil of course.
One thing is these people are not muslim. I work with alot of muslims and muslims dont condone these acts or support them. I think religion is flawed but to claim all this in the name of God is just horrific.
To stand by and do nothing wouldn't be right. I thought Obamas address to the nation speech was embarrasing but i do feel that if other nations are capable of putting these people down, then its only the right thing to do. Killing innocent people along with defenseless women and children is something that should be stopped as soon as possible.
These people are indeed Muslims and to suggest that they are not based on the statements of Muslims you work with is a pretty good example of the no true Scotsman Fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.
Since you brought up the subject, you might like to take a look at this clip from Q&A last month. Tell me that this man is not speaking the objective truth
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
i agree with what he said. I meant that most muslims around the world dont support what they are doing.
Yet here we are, once again demonstrating how the peaceful majority are irrelevant.
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Why do you think we dont hear from the "peaceful" muslims when this violence is going on?
legalizeall
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 967
Why isnt it plausible? 95