ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: LionKing on November 23, 2014, 12:43:01 PM
-
Dear members,
I want to ask about the phenomenon of westerners coming to join ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ) forces? I didn't use to hear about people from the west, in hundreds, to be fond of such terrorist organizations to the extent of putting their lives in danger to support them. can you tell me more about this phenomenon and how do you read it?
thanks
edit: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/sweden-says-up-to-150-people-left-country-to-join-isis-1.2065155
-
I think the key is simply that you didn't used to hear about it. I have; I've studied history.
-
I think the key is simply that you didn't used to hear about it. I have; I've studied history.
can u expand on that? i want cases eere westerners joined islamic jihadists in the extent that is being reported and what were the causes
-
Several from my country (Denmark) has traveled to Syria and joined the IS-forces. They have danish citizenship and danish passports, but they are really immigrants from the MiddleEast or 1. or 2. generation descendants of immigrants. They have no real connection to the danish society, most live on welfare, and this is an "exciting" way for them to confirm their identity as muslims and not-danish. There has been reports in danish newsmedia that some of these people have been killed - some from their "own" side when they found out war is a scary and dangerous business, and they wanted to leave.
-
can u expand on that? i want cases eere westerners joined islamic jihadists in the extent that is being reported and what were the causes
There have always been people willing to travel to foreign lands and join causes they either don't know much about or support despite not really having a connection to it. And if Allan is right, there have certainly always been those willing to do something to feel a connection to their own past. It goes beyond one ideological issue. Look at the Spanish Civil War, for example, or Americans who joined Canadian or British armies to fight in World War I.
-
Here's an article in a danish newspaper referring information that 100 persons with danish passport has joined the IS: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/lederen/article5217230.ece
-
We are currently bringing in Laws to stop them going. I don't agree with those Law changes. I don't want any people with a mindset to want to join ISIL to be living in my country.
If we have the surveillance ability to know enough about these people to stop them going, then I would rather let them go, and then revoke their passports and citizenship after they leave so that they cannot come back.
-
can u expand on that? i want cases eere westerners joined islamic jihadists in the extent that is being reported and what were the causes
There have always been people willing to travel to foreign lands and join causes they either don't know much about or support despite not really having a connection to it. And if Allan is right, there have certainly always been those willing to do something to feel a connection to their own past. It goes beyond one ideological issue. Look at the Spanish Civil War, for example, or Americans who joined Canadian or British armies to fight in World War I.
And WWII had a few Americans as well before they officially joined. The Spanish Civil war as gillianren points out had few of UK people go over to fight, go back further and Swiss pikemen were prime troops for hire for many Kings and Queens in Europe. Crécy had mercenaries, even battles in the UK, they used foreign fighters to further their cause. Wars of the Roses for example.
What they are going for is the story I think, not the going.
-
Thanks guys
I am aware of people joining different lands for figths but I was just speakign about the Islami jihadist such as Al Qaeda and now ISIS as I haven't seen back then (Iraq after invasion) in the media this extensive spotlight on westerners joining forces with Qaeda that much.
now with the clarification about them being immigrants I understand more..
I don't want any of them either in my country..unfortunately they are (ISI) very rich adn they are takign big areas in Iraq and Syria and controlling resources. All states should gather and bombard them as they are a threat to humanity.
best
-
I just don't see anything terribly different about this as distinct from thousands of years of history of people joining conflicts far from home.
-
Dear members,
I want to ask about the phenomenon of westerners coming to join ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ) forces? I didn't use to hear about people from the west, in hundreds, to be fond of such terrorist organizations to the extent of putting their lives in danger to support them. can you tell me more about this phenomenon and how do you read it?
thanks
edit: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/sweden-says-up-to-150-people-left-country-to-join-isis-1.2065155
Here in Germany, we have some serious problems with salafists and German convertites. Especially in Northrhine-Westphalia there is a growing group. We have some well known hateful preachers (Pierre Vogel, Sven Lau). The public gets more and more worried, there are some cases, that German convertites went to the combat zone (i.e. Kobane) and fought there (and died in some cases). And there are messenges about another group of right-winged persons (rocker, hooligans etc.) going to Syria to fight against ISIS. And now we have some gib demonstrations against ISIS, but organized by right-winged organizations.
-
The decedents of immigrants often want to return to an ancestral homeland to find out something about themselves. Combine that with the attractiveness to young adults of the romance of a cause and the the righteousness of religion, and a jihad is the perfect storm of transformation for some people.
We are currently bringing in Laws to stop them going. I don't agree with those Law changes. I don't want any people with a mindset to want to join ISIL to be living in my country.
If we have the surveillance ability to know enough about these people to stop them going, then I would rather let them go, and then revoke their passports and citizenship after they leave so that they cannot come back.
Pretty much my thinking too. If you keep them in, then they just ferment trouble at home. Good riddance to them. Besides, how do you stop citizens from leaving the country based on ideological beliefs with out starting to look a lot like Soviet block totalitarians.
-
can u expand on that? i want cases eere westerners joined islamic jihadists in the extent that is being reported and what were the causes
There have always been people willing to travel to foreign lands and join causes they either don't know much about or support despite not really having a connection to it. And if Allan is right, there have certainly always been those willing to do something to feel a connection to their own past. It goes beyond one ideological issue. Look at the Spanish Civil War, for example, or Americans who joined Canadian or British armies to fight in World War I.
Weren't there USA pilots who fought with the RAF in the eary days of WW2, before US became allies?
And what about the French Foreign Legion?
-
can u expand on that? i want cases eere westerners joined islamic jihadists in the extent that is being reported and what were the causes
There have always been people willing to travel to foreign lands and join causes they either don't know much about or support despite not really having a connection to it. And if Allan is right, there have certainly always been those willing to do something to feel a connection to their own past. It goes beyond one ideological issue. Look at the Spanish Civil War, for example, or Americans who joined Canadian or British armies to fight in World War I.
And WWII had a few Americans as well before they officially joined. The Spanish Civil war as gillianren points out had few of UK people go over to fight, go back further and Swiss pikemen were prime troops for hire for many Kings and Queens in Europe. Crécy had mercenaries, even battles in the UK, they used foreign fighters to further their cause. Wars of the Roses for example.
What they are going for is the story I think, not the going.
toseeked by Tedward and then he trumped me.
-
We are currently bringing in Laws to stop them going. I don't agree with those Law changes. I don't want any people with a mindset to want to join ISIL to be living in my country.
If we have the surveillance ability to know enough about these people to stop them going, then I would rather let them go, and then revoke their passports and citizenship after they leave so that they cannot come back.
Successive British governments have always been fairly consistent about discouraging British citizens from fighting in foreign wars, from the Spanish Civil War to today (pretty ironic when you consider that London was pretty much the epicentre for mercenary recruitment in the '60's and '70's).
I agree with you though. They should just let them go if they want to go. I feel desperately sad for their families, however, as most of these people have zero military training or experience and are simply being used as cannon fodder - there's a family in Cardiff whose three sons all went to Syria. Two of them are now dead.
-
The idea of people from one country going to another to serve in their military is, as others have pointed out, not new. The reasons people have done have also varied, from simply seeking money or fame, to ideology to religion.
The reasons states are willing to employ mercenaries also vary, but usually relate to a lack of willing/available native recruits given current military needs.
For example, the Byzantine Empire experienced a dramatic shortage of soldiers in the late 11th century following defeats in the Battles of Manzikert and Dyrrhachium in 1071 and 1081, and a civil war in the intervening years. The new Byzantine Emperor sent out a call to various West European monarchs and the Pope, seeking mercenaries to allow him to fight back against the Turks. And he got quite a few. But his call also led (by a somewhat complex process) to Pope Urban to call for an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which we know better today as the First Crusade.
Others have mentioned the Spanish Civil War, and the International Brigades were a fairly extensive source of manpower for the Republican government, at least early in the war, although the proportion fell as more native Spanish were conscripted. In this case ideology was a strong factor, but it also had its drawbacks - the Communists hated both the anarchists and the anti-Stalinist Marxists (the POUM which Orwell joined) and red-on-red violence was a serious issue.
I've read only a little about the white mercenaries who fought in various conflicts in Africa (mostly) in the 1960s, but I get the impression a lot of the attraction was thrill-seeking by ex-professional soldiers. I also wonder if they had a bit of a sense of superiority over the poorly trained local soldiers they fought with and against, and perhaps felt their job wasn't particularly dangerous.
Australia also has a share of people who've left the country to fight in Syria. The first of these date to some time before ISIS became a news item. However in the last few months pretty much every report of people leaving Australia involves them going to join ISIS.
One thing which has struck me about the stories is that quite a few of the people involved seem to have had ties to organised crime and drug rings. I don't have the details but I get the impression that recruiters have been seeking out Muslim youths who've gone badly off the rails and offered them a path to redemption. In my opinion things aren't helped by a segment of the general community, egged on by irresponsible sections of the media and some ignorant comments from politicians, who have a negative attitude to all things Islamic, thus giving a free rein to new ISIS recruits to say they feel disaffected and not wanted in or part of mainstream Australia.
The other thing which probably hasn't helped is having police raids involving hundreds of officers which results in the arrest of a couple of people and virtually no charges being laid. It's easy to see that people wanting to inflame tensions can present these 'overkill' raids as the Muslim community being targeted by police and politicians.
-
I know people join waars in other countries. the issue that we thought that these were christians converted to islam, as people would join normally a cause they "belong" to. knowing now that these are of islamic origins made sense.
We have heard about a pop musician who is a mother joining ISIS
http://rt.com/uk/184212-british-mother-isis-christians/
She married a Muslim, but is she herself? just thought that leading a band life is too far from being ISIS member
-
Weren't there USA pilots who fought with the RAF in the eary days of WW2, before US became allies?
There were indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Squadrons
-
Weren't there USA pilots who fought with the RAF in the eary days of WW2, before US became allies?
There were indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Squadrons
And they served in Bomber Command. Many joining the RCAF I believe to get in early as opposed to getting across to join (RCAF=Royal Canadian Airforce).
-
Also, not a few Canadians fought in Vietnam and others have served in Iraq, so it goes both ways.
As for this ISIS business, one common trait of young people everywhere is a search for identity.
As the children of Immigrants who came looking for jobs, they probably don't feel especially strong ties to the countries their parents settled in (for all it's good points, Europe can still be a very racist place) yet they aren't really sure of their ties to their parent's home culture either, so, like young people everywhere, they are prone to drastic measures.
-
People also convert to other religions all the time, which is how Christianity and Islam exist.
-
the issue that we thought that these were christians converted to islam
The idea of a Christian may be very different here than in your country. Many people here have a Christian family heritage but do not think of themselves as Christian. Or if they do it is only as a family vestige rather than a personal commitment. Many of these"Christians" would not see becoming Islamic as converting from one religion to another so much as assuming a religious identity for the first time.
-
the issue that we thought that these were christians converted to islam
The idea of a Christian may be very different here than in your country. Many people here have a Christian family heritage but do not think of themselves as Christian. Or if they do it is only as a family vestige rather than a personal commitment. Many of these"Christians" would not see becoming Islamic as converting from one religion to another so much as assuming a religious identity for the first time.
Ah I see..thnx
-
good news!we captured Baghdadi's son and wife here..i hope we can get back our soldiers..each day they threaten to slaughter them..their poor families deserve a joyful christmass after these long months of immense stress
-
Isis Burns Down Mosul Library, Destroys 8,000 Rare Books and Manuscripts
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/isis-burns-down-mosul-library-destroys-8000-rare-books-manuscripts-624375
I weep for Iraq..Iraq of the ancient civilizations, Iraq of the Babylonians, Sassanids and Samanids.. all this to be burnt because some dogs think that their backwardness should prevail and everything else should be burnt..
is Israel taking part in collaborating with the rebels? http://www.ibtimes.co.in/un-report-israel-regular-contact-syrian-rebels-including-isis-616404
I wouldn't be surprized..
whoever it is who is supporting these rats, they should be stopped before they wipe out history and culture.. what if they took over Ba'albeck at some point and decided to bring the tower down? they already burnt a historical church in Iraq.. they have developed weapons, they are backwards but capable..they are frightening..
-
They're doing it specifically to get us upset and drive more people to their side.
I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War very well, though fortunately just young enough to avoid being drafted into it. At the time, the hawks presented it as an existential threat to US survival. The Viet Cong were ruthless terrorist savages, we had to stop them there so we wouldn't have to fight them here, anybody who opposed the war was an America-hating pinko hippie, yada yada yada. A succession of US presidents felt compelled to throw even more good money (and lives) after bad. You know, the way a gambler who's lost a bundle is driven to keep playing to win it all back.
Until we gave up and went home, that is. And it all just ended, just like that. Life went on. No Communist invasions of the "homeland". Not even a single domino fell. And less than 20 years later, the USSR collapsed under its own weight.
-
They're doing it specifically to get us upset and drive more people to their side.
who? can you further explain please? I feel I didn't get what you mean
ISIS is indeed a big threat and they caused a minority called the Yezidis to leave after massive killings..not speakign of the beheadings and their spread in Iraq and Syria
-
They're doing it specifically to get us upset and drive more people to their side.
who? can you further explain please? I feel I didn't get what you mean
Sorry, I thought it was fairly clear. Just as with their beheadings of westerners, they're trying to provoke a further violent reaction from us. We'll respond by stepping up our bombings and our drone strikes, killing more civilians and destroying more infrastructure in the process. We'll shrug, say "we don't target civilians" and cluck our tongues and express our regrets at the "unfortunate" collateral damage -- and then go right back to more bombing. And still more people will flock to their cause, including some from Western countries. We're playing right into their hands.
Haven't you noticed that virtually every one of them talks about avenging the killings of innocent Muslim civilians as their main reason for going? You don't have to like or agree with what they're doing to understand why they're doing it. That's a basic mistake we make again and again -- failing to understand our enemy. We'd rather paint them as something we'd feel better about killing.
ISIS is indeed a big threat and they caused a minority called the Yezidis to leave after massive killings..not speakign of the beheadings and their spread in Iraq and Syria
And not so long ago, we were at war with Eastasia, er, um, al Qaeda. Now we're at war with Eurasia, I mean ISIS, and have always been at war with Eurasia, I mean ISIS.
Unfortunately, the world is full of despots and militants who kill innocent people by the millions. But most never get much attention from the US government beyond some speeches from the State Department. The Pol Pot regime of the mid 1970s, for example. The massacres in Darfur, Sudan. Or the Rwandan genocide. Unless, that is, they happen to be fighting in countries that sit on a sea of oil. Then it becomes imperative that we go in and support democracy out of the goodness of our hearts.
-
And now for the obligatory Hermann Goering quote:
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
Goering may have been a murderous, cynical psychopath, but I think he had a better understanding of this aspect of human nature than almost anyone. He certainly knew how to apply it.
-
They're doing it specifically to get us upset and drive more people to their side.
who? can you further explain please? I feel I didn't get what you mean
Sorry, I thought it was fairly clear. Just as with their beheadings of westerners, they're trying to provoke a further violent reaction from us. We'll respond by stepping up our bombings and our drone strikes, killing more civilians and destroying more infrastructure in the process. We'll shrug, say "we don't target civilians" and cluck our tongues and express our regrets at the "unfortunate" collateral damage -- and then go right back to more bombing. And still more people will flock to their cause, including some from Western countries. We're playing right into their hands.
Haven't you noticed that virtually every one of them talks about avenging the killings of innocent Muslim civilians as their main reason for going? You don't have to like or agree with what they're doing to understand why they're doing it. That's a basic mistake we make again and again -- failing to understand our enemy. We'd rather paint them as something we'd feel better about killing.
ISIS is indeed a big threat and they caused a minority called the Yezidis to leave after massive killings..not speakign of the beheadings and their spread in Iraq and Syria
And not so long ago, we were at war with Eastasia, er, um, al Qaeda. Now we're at war with Eurasia, I mean ISIS, and have always been at war with Eurasia, I mean ISIS.
Unfortunately, the world is full of despots and militants who kill innocent people by the millions. But most never get much attention from the US government beyond some speeches from the State Department. The Pol Pot regime of the mid 1970s, for example. The massacres in Darfur, Sudan. Or the Rwandan genocide. Unless, that is, they happen to be fighting in countries that sit on a sea of oil. Then it becomes imperative that we go in and support democracy out of the goodness of our hearts.
Thanks for the explanation. The problem is that doing nothing towards them doesn't help but them. At least there should be some financing and training for the countries they are in , for the governments of these countries to be able to attack them properly.
-
No, allowing ourselves to be baited is what helps them. Without an enemy they have nothing to put on their recruiting posters.
Don't forget who created the environment for them to flourish in the first place. Countless people warned that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would create a highly unstable vacuum into which all sorts of groups would rush to grab control, none of whom we'd like.
Even Dick Cheney, though he quickly changed his tune once he got control of the government and all that power burned a hole in his pocket. And the predictions have been completely realized.
-
No, allowing ourselves to be baited is what helps them. Without an enemy they have nothing to put on their recruiting posters.
Don't forget who created the environment for them to flourish in the first place. Countless people warned that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam would create a highly unstable vacuum into which all sorts of groups would rush to grab control, none of whom we'd like.
Even Dick Cheney, though he quickly changed his tune once he got control of the government and all that power burned a hole in his pocket. And the predictions have been completely realized.
With respect I have to disagree here.
There was more than one step from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the rise of ISIS. The fact that more than 10 years passed between the invasion and the rise of ISIS is evidence of this.
For one thing, at one point I understand the US government paid a relatively modest amount of money to form Sunni militias loyal to the Iraqi government, attracting a lot of members from Al Qaeda In Iraq who were perfectly happy to accept American money rather than AQ money. My understanding is that the (Shiite-based) Iraqi government discontinued the payments, and so the now-unemployed militia members drifted to the next well-paying organisation - ISIS.
There was also the issue of the poor quality of the Iraqi army, with accusations of corruption among the officers and low morale among the soldiers. Had the Iraqi army been managed better I suspect they might have put up a better fight against ISIS.
As for the issue of baiting Westerners, the West only got involved because of what ISIS was doing to Iraqis and Syrians in the territory they controlled (that is, Christians, Yazidis, Shias and Sunni Kurds). In other words, even if the West hadn't got involved ISIS still has plenty of "enemies" in their own territory.
And this is a point that I think a lot of Westerners seem to miss - Muslims seem to have a great capacity for wanting to fight each other, seemingly sometimes more than their capacity for wanting to fight the West.
-
I don't think we disagree quite so much. Yes, it took time for ISIS to appear on the scene because even the US needed a lot of time and effort to screw things up so badly as to make them possible. But it was all perfectly predictable from the biggest screwup of them all: Bush invading Iraq.
And no, he can't blame it on the CIA. Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism 'czar' at the time, told us that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, Bush, Cheney et al dismissed his opinion out of hand that it had all the hallmarks of al Qaeda, and to go away and come back with "proof" that Saddam did it. When Clarke and the CIA couldn't do that, Bush et al told them to come back with "proof" of Saddam's WMD. One way or another, Bush and Cheney were going to invade Iraq and they weren't going to let mere facts stand in their way. We all know how that went. And now we're living with the results.
Saddam was far, far from being a saint, but he ran one of the few secular governments in the region. He'd be the last to tolerate Muslim terrorists (Sunni or Shiite) on his turf, or cooperate with them anywhere (which was why the accusations of his supporting al Qaeda were so ludicrous). Remember he attacked Iran not long after their theocratic revolution, and that instantly made him our best buddy even though we knew perfectly well he was using chemical weapons. There's a famous picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. He didn't fall out of our good graces until he invaded Kuwait and threatened to monopolize the oil supply. That would have been an intolerable assault on freedom and democracy.
Having already stomped every last dinner plate and drinking glass in that particular china shop into dust, we now seem to think that if we just send a few more bulls over there, they'll eventually stomp it all back into fine dinnerware. Experience (and some critical rather than wishful thinking) would seem to indicate otherwise.
-
I am currently listing to a podcast on the history of Byzantium. (http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/) Among the interesting and relevant parts are recent episodes that chronicle the rise of the Arab state and the swift conquering of Syria and Egypt from the Romans. Areas the Empire had held for centuries and whose loss led inexorably to the fall of Constantinople.
Among the topics covered are:
A discussion of what made for power in the region, it was whoever had the standing army in the field.
The tribalism and religious fractures that disaffected people from there governors, whose presence offered stability, and made them welcome new rulers despite the uncertain terms of the new rule.
The co-opting of the then still vague Mohamedian religion into medieval Islam by building a back story designed to legitimize and bless the military regime that wound up in control decades later.
History repeats itself because people, in aggregate are the same as we have always been.
It is enlightening to see how the same trends are playing out with ISIS.
-
I don't think we disagree quite so much. Yes, it took time for ISIS to appear on the scene because even the US needed a lot of time and effort to screw things up so badly as to make them possible. But it was all perfectly predictable from the biggest screwup of them all: Bush invading Iraq.
And no, he can't blame it on the CIA. Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism 'czar' at the time, told us that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, Bush, Cheney et al dismissed his opinion out of hand that it had all the hallmarks of al Qaeda, and to go away and come back with "proof" that Saddam did it. When Clarke and the CIA couldn't do that, Bush et al told them to come back with "proof" of Saddam's WMD. One way or another, Bush and Cheney were going to invade Iraq and they weren't going to let mere facts stand in their way. We all know how that went. And now we're living with the results.
Saddam was far, far from being a saint, but he ran one of the few secular governments in the region. He'd be the last to tolerate Muslim terrorists (Sunni or Shiite) on his turf, or cooperate with them anywhere (which was why the accusations of his supporting al Qaeda were so ludicrous). Remember he attacked Iran not long after their theocratic revolution, and that instantly made him our best buddy even though we knew perfectly well he was using chemical weapons. There's a famous picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. He didn't fall out of our good graces until he invaded Kuwait and threatened to monopolize the oil supply. That would have been an intolerable assault on freedom and democracy.
Having already stomped every last dinner plate and drinking glass in that particular china shop into dust, we now seem to think that if we just send a few more bulls over there, they'll eventually stomp it all back into fine dinnerware. Experience (and some critical rather than wishful thinking) would seem to indicate otherwise.
All of the above. I couldn't have written this more eloquently. There are times when ka9q and I have disagreed about approaches towards CTs, but his analysis on this subject chimes with me very clearly.
-
I didn't use to hear about people from the west, in hundreds, to be fond of such terrorist organizations to the extent of putting their lives in danger to support them.
Many westerners have the convenient option of supporting terrorism without ever leaving home, so I think it is a phenomenon which cannot simply be explained by fondness for terrorism.
I, being a westerner, have not felt anything throughout the rest of my life which approaches the disillusionment I now have with a western country that was my home for decades. That country has been transformed, in a profoundly negative way, by an incident which caused its murder rate to be slightly higher than it usually is in one particular year out of the last few decades. The reaction to that incident has gotten more people from that country killed than the original incident itself. If you count people from other countries (and I assure you, the residents of the particular country to which I refer, do not), the number of people killed in the original incident is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of people killed by the reaction.
I don't plan on joining ISIS or any such organisation, but perhaps the westerners who do, feel the same type of disillusionment I feel. Just more keenly.
-
the number of people killed in the original incident is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of people killed by the reaction.
Indeed. The US response to 9/11 is the biggest case of anaphylactic shock in human history.
Are you translating for Obama? :)
-
Are you translating for Obama? :)
I think there might be some joke here that I'm not quite getting, but if so, you can enlighten my slow-witted brain at such time as may be convenient for you.
But, I do not translate for Obama, my words and thoughts are my own. I would certainly not wish to translate, or provide any other service, which might bring my existence to the attention of someone (even if that someone has a Nobel Peace Prize) who claims the right (and regularly acts on that claim) to murder anyone he likes any time he feels like it, based solely on his suspicion of what his victim might have done in the future, had s/he not been murdered.
-
I am currently listing to a podcast on the history of Byzantium. (http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/) Among the interesting and relevant parts are recent episodes that chronicle the rise of the Arab state and the swift conquering of Syria and Egypt from the Romans. Areas the Empire had held for centuries and whose loss led inexorably to the fall of Constantinople.
Among the topics covered are:
A discussion of what made for power in the region, it was whoever had the standing army in the field.
The tribalism and religious fractures that disaffected people from there governors, whose presence offered stability, and made them welcome new rulers despite the uncertain terms of the new rule.
The co-opting of the then still vague Mohamedian religion into medieval Islam by building a back story designed to legitimize and bless the military regime that wound up in control decades later.
History repeats itself because people, in aggregate are the same as we have always been.
It is enlightening to see how the same trends are playing out with ISIS.
The problem is that the state in Islam is very important. the history starts with year after Hijra, when the Islamic state was created. Such fundemantal groups want a state, but they can't do this without being supported an financed, and here were dirty politics from outside countries interfere to achieve certain political benefits or to pressure certain states.
by the way what do you all think about the new map for the middle east that was brought about?http://mtv.com.lb/en/News/257940
-
by the way what do you all think about the new map for the middle east that was brought about?http://mtv.com.lb/en/News/257940
Maybe it will work out just as well as the last time foreigners drew a new map of the middle east!
-
I think there might be some joke here that I'm not quite getting, but if so, you can enlighten my slow-witted brain at such time as may be convenient for you.
Yes, it was. Sorry about that, since I don't even know what country you're in, but I had to try.
I'm referring to a recurring character named Luther played by the comedian Keegan-Michael Key on the Key & Peele sketch comedy show on the Comedy Central channel. Key's partner, Jordan Peele, does a deadly Obama impersonation, and they have a routine going where "Obama" delivers some dry "fireside television chat" to the nation and Luther, his "anger translator" repeats it for the audience as Obama would really like to say it but can't because he's President. Luther screams, jumps, runs around the set and practically melts down by the end of each sketch. "Obama" just sits there passively, only occasionally roping Luther back in when he gets too far out of hand.
It can be hysterically funny, and the bit got a big boost when the real Obama appeared on a talk show and said he liked it.
I believe this is the first time they did this sketch. Hopefully you can watch it wherever you are.
-
I think there might be some joke here that I'm not quite getting, but if so, you can enlighten my slow-witted brain at such time as may be convenient for you.
Yes, it was. Sorry about that, since I don't even know what country you're in, but I had to try.
I'm referring to a recurring character named Luther played by the comedian Keegan-Michael Key on the Key & Peele sketch comedy show on the Comedy Central channel. Key's partner, Jordan Peele, does a deadly Obama impersonation, and they have a routine going where "Obama" delivers some dry "fireside television chat" to the nation and Luther, his "anger translator" repeats it for the audience as Obama would really like to say it but can't because he's President. Luther screams, jumps, runs around the set and practically melts down by the end of each sketch. "Obama" just sits there passively, only occasionally roping Luther back in when he gets too far out of hand.
It can be hysterically funny, and the bit got a big boost when the real Obama appeared on a talk show and said he liked it.
I believe this is the first time they did this sketch. Hopefully you can watch it wherever you are.
Ah, I see. I have seen Key & Peele, I'm not sure where. I don't think I've seen in it where I am right now (South Africa), but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places.
But, I'm pretty sure Obama would not like some of my "translations" of what he says!
-
And in this short sketch, Obama teaches his daughter to drive. It's one of the funniest things I've ever seen on television:
These guys are pure genius.
-
And in this short sketch, Obama teaches his daughter to drive. It's one of the funniest things I've ever seen on television:
These guys are pure genius.
I can see both the videos. Not bad for a country that didn't have television until 1976.
-
Good. Youtube (like a lot of commercial sites) often try to restrict their stuff to specific countries. Of course, anybody who knows how to use a proxy can always get around it.
-
I think there might be some joke here that I'm not quite getting, but if so, you can enlighten my slow-witted brain at such time as may be convenient for you.
Yes, it was. Sorry about that, since I don't even know what country you're in, but I had to try.
I'm referring to a recurring character named Luther played by the comedian Keegan-Michael Key on the Key & Peele sketch comedy show on the Comedy Central channel. Key's partner, Jordan Peele, does a deadly Obama impersonation, and they have a routine going where "Obama" delivers some dry "fireside television chat" to the nation and Luther, his "anger translator" repeats it for the audience as Obama would really like to say it but can't because he's President. Luther screams, jumps, runs around the set and practically melts down by the end of each sketch. "Obama" just sits there passively, only occasionally roping Luther back in when he gets too far out of hand.
It can be hysterically funny, and the bit got a big boost when the real Obama appeared on a talk show and said he liked it.
I believe this is the first time they did this sketch. Hopefully you can watch it wherever you are.
sure very funny videos :)
-
Good. Youtube (like a lot of commercial sites) often try to restrict their stuff to specific countries. Of course, anybody who knows how to use a proxy can always get around it.
Well, sometimes. If I know about a particular proxy, odds are, the Chinese government knows about it as well :(
-
I don't think we disagree quite so much. Yes, it took time for ISIS to appear on the scene because even the US needed a lot of time and effort to screw things up so badly as to make them possible. But it was all perfectly predictable from the biggest screwup of them all: Bush invading Iraq.
And no, he can't blame it on the CIA. Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism 'czar' at the time, told us that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, Bush, Cheney et al dismissed his opinion out of hand that it had all the hallmarks of al Qaeda, and to go away and come back with "proof" that Saddam did it. When Clarke and the CIA couldn't do that, Bush et al told them to come back with "proof" of Saddam's WMD. One way or another, Bush and Cheney were going to invade Iraq and they weren't going to let mere facts stand in their way. We all know how that went. And now we're living with the results.
Saddam was far, far from being a saint, but he ran one of the few secular governments in the region. He'd be the last to tolerate Muslim terrorists (Sunni or Shiite) on his turf, or cooperate with them anywhere (which was why the accusations of his supporting al Qaeda were so ludicrous). Remember he attacked Iran not long after their theocratic revolution, and that instantly made him our best buddy even though we knew perfectly well he was using chemical weapons. There's a famous picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. He didn't fall out of our good graces until he invaded Kuwait and threatened to monopolize the oil supply. That would have been an intolerable assault on freedom and democracy.
Having already stomped every last dinner plate and drinking glass in that particular china shop into dust, we now seem to think that if we just send a few more bulls over there, they'll eventually stomp it all back into fine dinnerware. Experience (and some critical rather than wishful thinking) would seem to indicate otherwise.
Yes, I think that's an analysis I can agree with. I've remained ambivalent about whether the invasion was the right thing to do, both in itself and in a larger context. One point I remember a commentator saying somewhere was that Saddam's regime had been providing a lot of funding to Palestinian groups launching attacks on targets in Israel, and that overthrowing it put an end to that funding. However I accept now that this would be a very minor benefit when set against the problems caused by the invasion. Another point was that removing the regime gave democracy a chance in Iraq, though one of the counters to that argument was that the USA made no attempt to do the same thing with other undemocratic countries around the world (for example North Korea...).
-
I am currently listing to a podcast on the history of Byzantium. (http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/) Among the interesting and relevant parts are recent episodes that chronicle the rise of the Arab state and the swift conquering of Syria and Egypt from the Romans. Areas the Empire had held for centuries and whose loss led inexorably to the fall of Constantinople.
Among the topics covered are:
A discussion of what made for power in the region, it was whoever had the standing army in the field.
The tribalism and religious fractures that disaffected people from there governors, whose presence offered stability, and made them welcome new rulers despite the uncertain terms of the new rule.
The co-opting of the then still vague Mohamedian religion into medieval Islam by building a back story designed to legitimize and bless the military regime that wound up in control decades later.
History repeats itself because people, in aggregate are the same as we have always been.
It is enlightening to see how the same trends are playing out with ISIS.
I've long had an interest in Byzantine history (thanks to my interest in wargaming), and so followed the link.
In the context of your comments above about the 7th century collapse of Byzantine power in Egypt and Syria, I was about to recommend Tom Holland's "In the Shadow of the Sword" when I saw that one of the earlier episodes was an interview with Holland.
Oh well, I'll recommend the book anyway. Holland is a superb writer, and the points he makes in ITSOTS suggest a subtly different origin for Islam than I was familiar with. The key thing for me is that he doesn't speculate much. Instead the story he tells is firmly grounded in the work of (Western) academics relying on archaeological and textual evidence.
(And Holland's other books are fascinating reads too.)
-
sure very funny videos :)
Absolutely. My favorites so far:
Many (though not all) of the Obama/Luther sketches, especially "Obama Shutdown" when Michelle and Malia get their own translators.
The first and third substitute teacher sketches
Alien imposters
Suburban zombies
Das Negroes
Little Homie
Killing an African Warlord
Slow Brotion
Text message confusion
They do have a lot of running gags that require you to be familiar with previous skits.
-
by the way what do you all think about the new map for the middle east that was brought about?http://mtv.com.lb/en/News/257940
The map of the Middle East is ever changing. There is little reason to think this particular vision will come to reality or if it does, the boundaries will stay for long.
-
It's certainly different now than before WW1, that's for sure.
-
Instead the story he tells is firmly grounded in the work of (Western) academics relying on archaeological and textual evidence.
That is what appeals to me about him. It is also the major criticism I've read of his work. He is, according to these critics, is a westerner that ignores "traditional" sources, etc. His take on the origins of Islam, in the podcast, was revelatory to me because I hadn't read much about the subject. But as he points out, the idea that a group of bickering desert tribes could suddenly put a history of hatred and fighting aside to join together and form an empire, simply lacks plausibility. Without, that is, invoking divine intervention, as the Koran and other post event sources do. At which point one is no longer doing history.
-
Another point was that removing the regime gave democracy a chance in Iraq, though one of the counters to that argument was that the USA made no attempt to do the same thing with other undemocratic countries around the world (for example North Korea...).
Within the understanding that you are not personally making these points, I'd like to make a few comments.
The notion that one country can make a democracy out another through violence is folly. Much less in a place like Iraq that has never been a nation but rather has been an administrative district characterized by religious and ethnic strife. The best that could reasonably have been hoped for was something similar to Egypt. A less brutal secular military regime.
The questioning of US actions in Iraq by saying "if that were the true motive then they would do the same in N. Korea" is little more than a polemical conspiracy theory. It essentially puts an algebraic equal sign between the countries, Iraq=N. Korea that begs the question of absolute equality. As we know the difference between countries are as subtle as they are vast and motives are never "pure" or unitary.
-
the Ninawa Museum 's time..not all are authentic as Iraqis are saying, but some are..civilization of thousands of years being destroyed by ISIS.. someone , anyone..do something..this is not the property of Iraq..it is the property of humanity
-
The notion that one country can make a democracy out another through violence is folly.
Absolutely. Of course, the people who claimed that we would never really believed it anyway.
-
The notion that one country can make a democracy out another through violence is folly.
Absolutely. Of course, the people who claimed that we would never really believed it anyway.
How much people who are advocating for a government position "really" believe it is an interesting question. And one that is terribly difficult to answer because self reporting after the fact is unlikely to point to what people believed at the time. Nor is evidence of a mixed feeling all that useful in determining a "real" belief, because there is always the need to play for the team, if you believe hat the overall goals of the team are right,even if one personally disagrees with some of them. Neither of those positions is any more "real" than the other.
So there is always some degree of personal uncertainty in any organizational representative. Nevertheless, the bogus idea was used to market defective goods. And more importantly enough people believed the marketing, bought the goods and enjoyed them for many years. While a bunch of other people got killed by them. If this were a car manufacturer, the president of the company would be in jail. But governments hold themselves to a different standard.
-
In few days, ISIS will be wiped off iraq..aleppo in syria is free of them too.
Is this after pressuring qatar? Most probably so. The question is: why until now to pressure qatar? What price did Trump get to us rid of ISIS?
-
The battle to liberate Mosul has been raging for nine months. I don't think the development in the last few weeks vis a vis Qatar have been significant in this.
-
The battle to liberate Mosul has been raging for nine months. I don't think the development in the last few weeks vis a vis Qatar have been significant in this.
They have been fighting for months. Why now they succeeded? It was clear from what Trump said that pressuring Qatar will be very fruitful strategy in drying up resources of terror. Anyways, I hope the rotten fanatics disappear with their atrocities. I am, however, concerned about the syrian situation that Assad won the game under the propaganda that he is fighting terror..and that as usual he manages to go out unscathed..and that the true, free syrian people would be oppressed again under his rule.
-
The success hasn't come out of the blue. There has been slow but steady progress. Eastern Mosul was liberated during the Winter. Western Mosul has been progressing slowly since.
-
Why on Earth would anyone think that what Trump says has anything to do with how things actually are?
-
What has been happening recently with Qatar has absolutely nothing to do with the looming victory over ISIS.
-
What has been happening recently with Qatar has absolutely nothing to do with the looming victory over ISIS.
perhaps, although they have recordings with Qaddafi trying that proves they were trying to interfere with other countries' affairs. Pressuring them to quit terror funding, therefore, should have a favorable result.
-
Just wa5ched few moments captured of the qatari reply. Hey said: we are not the only ones funding terror, it is all over the region and we are at the bottom of the list..
True admission
-
Just wa5ched few moments captured of the qatari reply. Hey said: we are not the only ones funding terror, it is all over the region and we are at the bottom of the list..
True admission
Do you have a source by any chance?
-
Just wa5ched few moments captured of the qatari reply. Hey said: we are not the only ones funding terror, it is all over the region and we are at the bottom of the list..
True admission
Do you have a source by any chance?
-
As i read the qatari website it seems he was saying that Qatar is accused to be in the list as a last name rather than him admitting..still the conversation with qaddafi saying they want to topple KSA they can't deny.
Edited to add:
a video from a Libyan general showing Al Fatis who is a Qatari now given promotion for his role in Libya, and he shows him in different places with terrorists in Libya and there is a video were he carries weapons with them.
I know KSA is not innocent and might have a hand in funding terror, and I am with punishing all not just Qatar. We lost many of our soldiers to terror and they should be wiped off the face of earth.
-
No nation should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and it is simply vile to say so. Terrorists? Okay, so you kill all the terrorists--then what? How do their families feel? Their friends? Are they going to be on your side, or have you just convinced them to rise up against you? "Wipe them off the face of the Earth" is simplistic thinking that got us in this situation in the first place, along with "the local people don't need to have a say in what country they belong to."
-
No nation should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and it is simply vile to say so. Terrorists? Okay, so you kill all the terrorists--then what? How do their families feel? Their friends? Are they going to be on your side, or have you just convinced them to rise up against you? "Wipe them off the face of the Earth" is simplistic thinking that got us in this situation in the first place, along with "the local people don't need to have a say in what country they belong to."
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
-
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
Only in the more barbaric parts of the world.
The civilised world did away with capital punishment decades ago.
-
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
Only in the more barbaric parts of the world.
The civilised world did away with capital punishment decades ago.
The usa are not civilized?
Whatever..this is not the topic anyways
-
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
It's not as simple as you think. For example Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who pleaded guilty to killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, far from being killed for killing, is, it emerged over the weekend, being paid 10.5 million dollars by the Canadian government for the way he was treated after being captured on the battlefield.
More of that sort of thing would be the result of attempting to wipe all members of an identifiable group off the map, in my opinion.
-
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
It's not as simple as you think. For example Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who pleaded guilty to killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, far from being killed for killing, is, it emerged over the weekend, being paid 10.5 million dollars by the Canadian government for the way he was treated after being captured on the battlefield.
More of that sort of thing would be the result of attempting to wipe all members of an identifiable group off the map, in my opinion.
He was badly treated so he retaliated. This is different than getting children and smashing them in a bakery, cutting throats, drowning and burning people. The victims' families deserve some relief feeling that justice is done. You are not int heir place and if you were i bet you would want those who did those atrocities to your loved ones face the death penalty. They even get out of prisons and never repent. What would deter them from doing all this? Ok i agree there should be compulsory education and ways to decrease poverty, and rehabilitation programs. If this doesn't work, like with osama bin laden who was very rich and still a terrorist..what to do? Put them innprison for life? Ok be it..just don't let them live among normal people. They will spoil the youth
-
If you kill you get killed.
An eye for an eye....
Load of old cobblers, and entirely nonsensical if you actually think it through beyond the simplistic idea because it applies equally well to both sides. So now you're into the justifications and rationalisations. Both sides kill, and both sides retaliate based on the idea quoted above. Ah, you say, but they killed first. Ah, they say, but our people died because of your actions in some time and some place, so actually you killed first. Ah but, you say, we only took those actions because something you did led to some deaths even further back, so actually you killed first. BUT, they say... and so on ad infitum. And going forward, we kill in retaliation, then whoever's left retaliates against us, so we retaliate again, and so on ad infinitum.
The point is that for either side the idea that the enemy must be 'wiped off the face of the earth', as you put it, is just about the most stupid response possible.
But what do I know, I'm just a weak lefty liberal, after all... ::)
-
You are not int heir place and if you were i bet you would want those who did those atrocities to your loved ones face the death penalty.
You would lose that bet with me. We abolished the death penalty some time ago and I am happy to keep it that way.
-
No nation should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and it is simply vile to say so. Terrorists? Okay, so you kill all the terrorists--then what? How do their families feel? Their friends? Are they going to be on your side, or have you just convinced them to rise up against you? "Wipe them off the face of the Earth" is simplistic thinking that got us in this situation in the first place, along with "the local people don't need to have a say in what country they belong to."
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
Anyone with any sense does. Not just because those families are human as well but because, well, you actually want to stop terrorism, right? Or do you just want to revel in revenge? Because the most sensible way to stop terrorism is caring what those people think. It might stop the conditions that radicalize them in the first place and create terrorism, whereas "wiping them off the face of the Earth," ye Gods, is just breeding up a new generation.
As far as the death penalty is concerned? Yes, that is one of the ways my country is uncivilized. I have a list. It's long. And one of them is how many people on Death Row are innocent, surely something that ought to be of concern to even the most fervent death penalty supporter. Our judicial system is too flawed for us to even consider killing people. And that's even if the death penalty were something I approved of in a perfect system, which I don't.
-
All these acid attacks in London are really distressing to hear about. It is particularly distressing because it is so easy to dismiss ISIS as barbarians, evolutionary throwbacks, with their brutality and their cruelty. But acid attacks are on that same level. Unspeakably cruel and barbaric. Barbarians are our own.
-
He was badly treated so he retaliated. This is different than getting children and smashing them in a bakery, cutting throats, drowning and burning people. The victims' families deserve some relief feeling that justice is done. You are not int heir place and if you were i bet you would want those who did those atrocities to your loved ones face the death penalty.
This is why we have a justice system and we don't rely on the families of the aggrieved to met out punishments. You cannot rely on a devastated family to have impartiality.
The usa are not civilized?
Compared to places like North Korea or Syria, the US is civilised. Compared to the rest of the modern developed world the US is positively barbaric. It has the highest number or homicides, has more people in prison (even more than Russia!) and executes more prisoners than anywhere else in the civilised world. Gun ownership is rife and mass shootings of innocents are a daily occurrence. In many, many ways the US is a horrific, barbaric place.
Whatever..this is not the topic anyways
Thanks, but I'll leave the moderation of topics to LunarOrbit.
It's very much on-topic as you are calling for Bronze-Age punishments such as an "eye-for-an-eye". That sort of stuff appeals to the religious fundamentalists that you get in countries like the Islamic States and in many parts of the US. Many of the US' problems can be traced directly back to bible-bashing politicians pandering to knuckle-dragging religionists.
All these acid attacks in London are really distressing to hear about. It is particularly distressing because it is so easy to dismiss ISIS as barbarians, evolutionary throwbacks, with their brutality and their cruelty. But acid attacks are on that same level. Unspeakably cruel and barbaric. Barbarians are our own.
I think that the acid attacks were worse in some respects. ISIS and their ilk are fighting for twisted beliefs, whereas the acid attacks were carried out by teenagers intent on robbing someone of a poxy scooter worth a few hundred pounds. To have that little regard for another person and to be prepared to inflict lifelong injuries for something of so little value shows just how low some people are.
-
This is why we have a justice system and we don't rely on the families of the aggrieved to met out punishments. You cannot rely on a devastated family to have impartiality.
I think the original reason for having a justice system was because feuds are disruptive and destructive.
They make it so much harder to have a society at all.
Having someone to strong to fight against, the (proto-)state, cutting the knot and breaking the cycle of revenge benefited everybody.
Imparting impartial justice (whatever that is) was secondary.
-
Our judicial system is too flawed for us to even consider killing people.
Something like 1,400 people who have passed through the flawed judicial system in your country have been executed since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976.
Want to guess how many foreign civilians have been killed by your government this year alone, with the benefit of no judicial system at all?
-
Too many.
-
Our judicial system is too flawed for us to even consider killing people.
Something like 1,400 people who have passed through the flawed judicial system in your country have been executed since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976.
Want to guess how many foreign civilians have been killed by your government this year alone, with the benefit of no judicial system at all?
I'd guess it would be in the high multiple tens of thousands, perhaps even higher.
-
If you kill you get killed. Even in the states, the death penalty is there. No one cares about how the families of the killers of children think. Same goes here.
It's not as simple as you think. For example Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who pleaded guilty to killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, far from being killed for killing, is, it emerged over the weekend, being paid 10.5 million dollars by the Canadian government for the way he was treated after being captured on the battlefield.
More of that sort of thing would be the result of attempting to wipe all members of an identifiable group off the map, in my opinion.
He was badly treated so he retaliated. This is different than getting children and smashing them in a bakery, cutting throats, drowning and burning people. The victims' families deserve some relief feeling that justice is done. You are not int heir place and if you were i bet you would want those who did those atrocities to your loved ones face the death penalty. They even get out of prisons and never repent. What would deter them from doing all this? Ok i agree there should be compulsory education and ways to decrease poverty, and rehabilitation programs. If this doesn't work, like with osama bin laden who was very rich and still a terrorist..what to do? Put them innprison for life? Ok be it..just don't let them live among normal people. They will spoil the youth
Any captured, repatriated, and convicted Canadian terrorists would likely not serve a full life sentence (although not repenting would affect their ability to be paroled), and upon release would likely live among normal people.
Ottawa may have no choice but to repatriate, prosecute captured Canadian ISIL members (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ottawa+have+choice+repatriate+prosecute+captured+canadian+isil/13803561/story.html)
Some experts say Ottawa has no choice but to try to repatriate and prosecute in Canada any detained ISIL members, ensuring they aren’t tortured or otherwise mistreated by local forces. As for those ISIL children, if they have one Canadian parent, they would be citizens and, lawyers say, deserve help.
Others note there would be little public sympathy — especially after the controversial payment made to Omar Khadr — for bringing back foreign fighters, even if they were to face justice in Canada.
The issue is not just an academic one. Unconfirmed reports suggest 20 female foreign participants in ISIL were caught by Iraqi forces in Mosul last weekend. Local media outlets suggested two were Canadians, though Iraqi sources have told the National Post the group included only Russian, French and German women.
Regardless, federal officials have told Dawson they are discussing the prospect of Canadian ISIL activists surfacing overseas, and seem to have come to some firm conclusions about what to do.
“They always stress … ‘We cannot in any way afford to allow our actions to result in a Canadian citizen receiving basically torture, or abuse. That will never happen again’.”
Turning a blind eye to maltreatment by Iraqis or others could lead to a human-rights claim like Khadr’s, Dawson said. Though accused of killing an American soldier while a teenage member of al-Qaida, Khadr received a $10.5-million settlement recently over Canada’s role in his torture and other rights violations while in U.S. military custody.
Estimates from the government and outside researchers suggest as many as 100 Canadians have travelled to Iraq or Syria to join ISIL, including 15 to 20 women, most of whom have reportedly had children there.
-
Now the time of Lebanon to get rid of terrorists of ISIS. "now we have the weapons from USA and the British" as the army spokesman said..the question is: why until now?
anyways, with all the victories the army did today, still I feel sorry about the rumors we are hearing that there is a cave with corpses that could be for the soldiers kidnapped since some years.. :( their poor parents have been demonstrating and following up since years.
-
Now the time of Lebanon to get rid of terrorists of ISIS. "now we have the weapons from USA and the British" as the army spokesman said..the question is: why until now?
anyways, with all the victories the army did today, still I feel sorry about the rumors we are hearing that there is a cave with corpses that could be for the soldiers kidnapped since some years.. :( their poor parents have been demonstrating and following up since years.
Hi, LionKing - I hope things are at least somewhat okay in your neck of the woods. :D
Could you post a link or two to what you are talking about here, or simply elaborate on it?
That would make dialogue so much easier.
Thanks!
-
Now the time of Lebanon to get rid of terrorists of ISIS. "now we have the weapons from USA and the British" as the army spokesman said..the question is: why until now?
anyways, with all the victories the army did today, still I feel sorry about the rumors we are hearing that there is a cave with corpses that could be for the soldiers kidnapped since some years.. :( their poor parents have been demonstrating and following up since years.
Hi, LionKing - I hope things are at least somewhat okay in your neck of the woods. :D
Could you post a link or two to what you are talking about here, or simply elaborate on it?
That would make dialogue so much easier.
Thanks!
Thanks Geordie. I am far away in Beirut the capital. Those are in outskirts of the Bekaa. Some youth from my village however are enrolled in the army and are at the fronts now.
What I was saying that I heard the army spokesman (could not find yet a link) saying that we have weapons from the British and the US and there is now political cover, so I was wondering why until now that all this political cover happened. There have always been this weaponry help, but there was no determination or political cover to uproot ISIS, although they kidnapped soldiers. Here, there have been skirmishes here and there with al nusra but not like this time..the army is determined and it is "official war". That took a long time to happen, however. it happened because ISIS is weakened now with all the strikes it has been receiving in nearby countries so we can finish them off. But, those nearby countries have been suffering since 2011 (the syrian revolution) from such terrorists. Why until now that everywhere they are being finishes off.. and not before
-
Now the time of Lebanon to get rid of terrorists of ISIS. "now we have the weapons from USA and the British" as the army spokesman said..the question is: why until now?
anyways, with all the victories the army did today, still I feel sorry about the rumors we are hearing that there is a cave with corpses that could be for the soldiers kidnapped since some years.. :( their poor parents have been demonstrating and following up since years.
Hi, LionKing - I hope things are at least somewhat okay in your neck of the woods. :D
Could you post a link or two to what you are talking about here, or simply elaborate on it?
That would make dialogue so much easier.
Thanks!
Thanks Geordie. I am far away in Beirut the capital. Those are in outskirts of the Bekaa. Some youth from my village however are enrolled in the army and are at the fronts now.
What I was saying that I heard the army spokesman (could not find yet a link) saying that we have weapons from the British and the US and there is now political cover, so I was wondering why until now that all this political cover happened. There have always been this weaponry help, but there was no determination or political cover to uproot ISIS, although they kidnapped soldiers. Here, there have been skirmishes here and there with al nusra but not like this time..the army is determined and it is "official war". That took a long time to happen, however. it happened because ISIS is weakened now with all the strikes it has been receiving in nearby countries so we can finish them off. But, those nearby countries have been suffering since 2011 (the syrian revolution) from such terrorists. Why until now that everywhere they are being finishes off.. and not before
Thanks for your reply, LionKing.
My cynical, two-bit analysis of your situation is this: risk aversion. Democracy's best friend. There's political cover now because there is no longer much, if any, risk of losing. Of losing both the war and the next election. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon when the other side has been attritioned down by someone else's citizens. What's the test to determine whether or not to send in the troops? It's this: do the people who need protection have the vote in your country? If they do, then risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game)) it. If they don't, eff 'em. Did I mention that I'm cynical?
I'm old enough to remember the seventies and eighties when Beirut was in the news daily, for all the wrong reasons. I can't imagine what it is like to live that close to the action. We suffer from politically motivated decisions (and lack thereof) here, too, except our problems are a joke when compared to yours. (Not entirely, many of our communities don't have safe water to drink; are plagued with through-the-roof suicide rates; have hundreds of fentanyl overdose deaths per year. The list goes on and on. Any money spent on those problems would have had to come out of the funds that were used to host two world's fairs, three Olympic games, and possibly the 2026 FIFA World Cup. You have to get your priorities straight, after all. Our government doesn't promote that information, for some reason....)
Us non-American-northern-north-americans like to think that the events in far-off Lebanon and Syria, etc., have no direct impact on our lives. But there are a growing number of people who (A), have never set foot in Canada, (B), have lived their entire lives in ISIS encampments, etc., and (C), enjoy full Canadian citizenship; who could conceivably show up here at anytime and waltz right in. I can imagine all sorts of messed-up scenarios arising over the next two or three decades.
You've only had to run so far
So good
But you will come to a place
Where the only thing you feel
Are loaded guns in your face
And you'll have to deal with
Pressure
-Billy Joel, Pressure
On the other hand, Canadian-born Omar Khadr was taken to Afghanistan when he was very young, fought for the Taliban, and wound up in Guantanamo Bay; but yada yada yada he's now a productive member of society in Edmonton, Alberta.
Hollow to say though it is, I hope you, your country, and your region enjoy peace, sooner rather than later.
-
Now the time of Lebanon to get rid of terrorists of ISIS. "now we have the weapons from USA and the British" as the army spokesman said..the question is: why until now?
anyways, with all the victories the army did today, still I feel sorry about the rumors we are hearing that there is a cave with corpses that could be for the soldiers kidnapped since some years.. :( their poor parents have been demonstrating and following up since years.
Hi, LionKing - I hope things are at least somewhat okay in your neck of the woods. :D
Could you post a link or two to what you are talking about here, or simply elaborate on it?
That would make dialogue so much easier.
Thanks!
Thanks Geordie. I am far away in Beirut the capital. Those are in outskirts of the Bekaa. Some youth from my village however are enrolled in the army and are at the fronts now.
What I was saying that I heard the army spokesman (could not find yet a link) saying that we have weapons from the British and the US and there is now political cover, so I was wondering why until now that all this political cover happened. There have always been this weaponry help, but there was no determination or political cover to uproot ISIS, although they kidnapped soldiers. Here, there have been skirmishes here and there with al nusra but not like this time..the army is determined and it is "official war". That took a long time to happen, however. it happened because ISIS is weakened now with all the strikes it has been receiving in nearby countries so we can finish them off. But, those nearby countries have been suffering since 2011 (the syrian revolution) from such terrorists. Why until now that everywhere they are being finishes off.. and not before
Thanks for your reply, LionKing.
My cynical, two-bit analysis of your situation is this: risk aversion. Democracy's best friend. There's political cover now because there is no longer much, if any, risk of losing. Of losing both the war and the next election. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon when the other side has been attritioned down by someone else's citizens. What's the test to determine whether or not to send in the troops? It's this: do the people who need protection have the vote in your country? If they do, then risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_(game)) it. If they don't, eff 'em. Did I mention that I'm cynical?
I'm old enough to remember the seventies and eighties when Beirut was in the news daily, for all the wrong reasons. I can't imagine what it is like to live that close to the action. We suffer from politically motivated decisions (and lack thereof) here, too, except our problems are a joke when compared to yours. (Not entirely, many of our communities don't have safe water to drink; are plagued with through-the-roof suicide rates; have hundreds of fentanyl overdose deaths per year. The list goes on and on. Any money spent on those problems would have had to come out of the funds that were used to host two world's fairs, three Olympic games, and possibly the 2026 FIFA World Cup. You have to get your priorities straight, after all. Our government doesn't promote that information, for some reason....)
Us non-American-northern-north-americans like to think that the events in far-off Lebanon and Syria, etc., have no direct impact on our lives. But there are a growing number of people who (A), have never set foot in Canada, (B), have lived their entire lives in ISIS encampments, etc., and (C), enjoy full Canadian citizenship; who could conceivably show up here at anytime and waltz right in. I can imagine all sorts of messed-up scenarios arising over the next two or three decades.
You've only had to run so far
So good
But you will come to a place
Where the only thing you feel
Are loaded guns in your face
And you'll have to deal with
Pressure
-Billy Joel, Pressure
On the other hand, Canadian-born Omar Khadr was taken to Afghanistan when he was very young, fought for the Taliban, and wound up in Guantanamo Bay; but yada yada yada he's now a productive member of society in Edmonton, Alberta.
Hollow to say though it is, I hope you, your country, and your region enjoy peace, sooner rather than later.
Thank you Georgie for your good wishes and the good analysis... Yes, *sigh* the political parties and their hidden agendas .. although fighting ISIS admittedly would have cost us more lives when it was stronger.. this is why I stopped supporting any of them..I was younger and affected bythe assassinations happening..not knowing it is all a thieves' fight ..
anyways, hope a ISIS-free region would still be a better region, and a better world for all, including the people in the west who are receiving refugees and their politicians paying the money for wars rather than helping them out.
Stay good