Far from it...now your trying to deflect...your next post will say 'bite' no doubt. Read ****s like you like a book.
We'd gone off discussing that several posts ago and onto a pointless tit for tat exchange, given your comments on here and on the thread on the Liverpool board discussing the same thing you've clearly got yourself worked up and so I attempted to bring things to a close here with a bit of rival fan banter to lighten the mood. Clearly I should of just continued as we were and called you an ignorant **** who can't fathom anyone having an alternate opinion to himself. My apologies for trying to go down the civil route
All your doing is trying to belittle. Anyone can have what thought they want...I just gave my thoughts..which are not Based on what the media tell me...so I got attacked and then decided to stand up for myself. You couldn't handle that...so you started abusing...just like the other guy on the Liverpool board. You became the tit...I just became tat...anyway let's forget it.
Everyone is horrified and emotional over the news, but we are all upset at the level of hatred around in society these days. Afcftw is t the problem and neither is spurlock. We all need to discuss these issues without personal attacks and then hopefully more and more people across the country will realise that actually we want the same thing - innocents to stop dying, terrorists behind bars and the removal of the god awful conditions/situations which make people susceptible to extremism/facism of any form
Garbage. Pure and simple. Garbage. He's identifying the beginning of how this conflict started. Where do you think ISIS get their funding and ammunition from? Thin air? Don't be naive. Of course the terrorists deserve to be blamed - they are the direct perpetuators of the attacks. But why are you so reluctant to point the finger at who started this off in the first place? You can't absolve the states and governments who have caused so much destruction and turning the ME into a hellhole. Why can't you blame the people that started it off, whilst showing sympathy for the lives that have been lost? Obviously the people that died and who were held hostage should be prioritised, but in the aftermath, certain issues need to be identified and dealt with. This includes dealing with the terrorists, and it should also include those who were complicit in these heinous acts indirectly. As disgusting and repulsive as the situation in France is, things like this happen all the time in parts of Africa and Asia, but the loss of human lives and destruction caused by corrupt regimes, interventions and military dictatorships barely ever get reported in mainstream outlets. Why don't people show the same anger and devastation for the hundreds of thousands that have died in Syria or the people in Swaziland living in poverty, food shortages and low life expectancies? It really isn't the same at all and it is worrying how you can't see why.
It really is the same. It's just as stupid to suggest Muslims as a whole are to blame as is it to suggest the UK or Israel are to blame. To oversimplify such a complex issue and ascribe blame so easily is stupid regardless of who your pointing the finger at. That's not to say actions by certain countries or individuals don't have an impact on the rise of terrorist organisations, but it would be foolish to overlook the part played by the actual terrorists in an attempt to apportion blame to the west. In this particular situation he was blaming Israel for an attack against France, to me that is pushing his own separate agenda and pre-determined thought to an atrocious act that just happened and wasn't in the UK, US or Israel. You may see that differently and may not have found his comments disrespectful, that's fine, but I did. Also what is with the condescending tone every time you debate with me? In your first line you've managed to decide you know my thoughts on how ISIS are funded and then called me naive for holding the view you've imagined I hold... "As disgusting and repulsive as the situation in France is, things like this happen all the time in parts of Africa and Asia, but the loss of human lives and destruction caused by corrupt regimes, interventions and military dictatorships barely ever get reported in mainstream outlets. Why don't people show the same anger and devastation for the hundreds of thousands that have died in Syria or the people in Swaziland living in poverty, food shortages and low life expectancies?" This is an interesting point and I assume comes down to human nature. When things are closer to us they seem more significant, like when you go on holiday all of sudden your problems back home don't seem such an issue, they're miles away. As the world becomes more and more globalised this is starting to change but I'd imagine distance will always make things seem less urgent and as such get less attention. When the danger is nearer it seems more real as it could effect people you know etc.... In other countries and continents around the world I'd imagine it is the same, in the news in Africa I'm sure there is more focus on what is actually happening in Africa than what is going on in Europe or the west.
I'm not blaming everyone in those countries though, I'm blaming the officials at the top level who make these decisions. There may be certain MPs and whatnot who don't agree with what the Cabinet do, but there is a concept called collective cabinet responsibility where they need to publicly support the government on certain issues, even if they disagree with in privately. Those people are still complicit in the crimes our government have been involved in. To try and equate that to blaming 1.6 billion Muslims around the world is disingenuous and absurd to put it mildly. I'm not oversimplifying anything. The reasons for why there has been a rise in these terrorist organisations is multifaceted. But there are people who altogether dismiss interventionist/foreign policies and I think this is wrong. Go to page 14 on this pdf by the Think Tank Claystone: http://mabonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Claystone-rethinking-radicalisation.pdf Really interesting insight! I apologise if I come across as being condescending, but you have to appreciate that I have seen so much nonsense and anti-Islamic bile and hatred on all forms of social media which has pissed me off big time. It angers me that people are using this tragic event as a platform to express their racist and prejudiced views.
I see some MPs want air strikes on ISIL in Syria. Wrong and not very clever guys. IMO the West needs to send in spies and agents and wipe out the head henchmen and his cohorts before these kind of events take place again.
Strange that a similar outrage on Thursday evening in Beirut received a news report but no outpouring of widespread sorrow. Why is that?
ISIS was not created in response to Western foreign policies. It is an ideologically fed abomination that believes the West is bad, democracy is bad, women are inferior, homosexuality should carry a death sentence and ultimately wants to create a Caliphate that engulfs the entire planet. This is not to say that Western foreign policy has no part in aggravating the rise in radicalisation of young Muslims because it obviously does. ISIS knows only too well that for every atrocity they commit, the West (+ Russia) will retaliate against them, so feeding their recruitment drive and that each atrocity will further fuel Islamophobia in our society, also aiding the recruitment of extremists. The whole mess has become a vicious wheel that needs to be broken and the first step, maybe the most influential step towards to fixing it is to resolve the Palestinian nightmare. The West (mainly USA veto) have been complicit in the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians for far too long.
I actually agree with what you said (shock horror!) apart from the bit I've quoted. Well, sort of. You're right that it is an ideologically fed idea that the West and democracy is bad, that anyone who is a non-Muslim should die because they are disobeying God etc, and that the persecution of Yazidis and Shia factions are justified. However, part of the message that they are trying to get across - and it's why a number of young people are going over - is that they are indoctrinating Muslims in Europe & parts of America with the idea that Jihad means they should be fighting enemies who commit crimes against God and that everyone in the West has played a complicit role in the Iraq war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan et al - where their 'brothers and sisters of Islam' have died. They may twist and re-interpret scripture and Hadith to guilt-trip Muslims into going over there, but the fundamental aim is to cause separation and division amongst people - and I'm damn sure that the examples they use to tell these naive, ignorant people that they're Muslim and have no allegiance to anyone in the West is in relation to the examples I stated above.
Russia's intervention into Syria has put a major spanner in the works for the West (including Turkey and Israel) and Gulf states, who have been indirectly supporting militant extremest groups (including ISIL), to destabilise the Asad dictatorship. The problem is Russia has gone straight in and bombed all these groups without distinction and made serious inroads, which has changed the balance of power. There is no surprise that the two main headline's recently have been about Russia, the aeroplane tragedy that killed over 200 Russians and the Olympics allegations. Make no mistake, this situation is far from over and don't be surprised if they put boots on the ground in Syria, the Paris incident sadly has given them the best reason to now.
The US have in fact, been directly supporting militant rebel groups in Syria. The CIA armed, trained and supplied weapons to the Free Syrian Army which then morphed into ISIS. So whilst the US are not responsible for the actions of ISIS, they have certainly had a direct influence in their creation (due to the mess they and the UK caused in Iraq and the subsequent supply of arms) Russia's support of Assad can be understood when put into context against all the fractious groups fighting it. Their rationale is that Assad is the lesser of several evils, but it goes directly against the West and Saudi support for the Rebel groups. Add Turkey into the equation who view the Kurds as Terrorists, Iran supplying arms to Assad and the Saudi's supplying arms to the rebels and the whole picture gets very messy and that's before the factions between Sunni and Shia Muslims and other interpretations of the Quran are taken into account. The recent deal between the US and Iran over nuclear and trade, could actually turn out to be a very interesting strategic move in the Middle East (as much as it alarms Israel) as Iran could put pressure on Russia to stop backing Assad if Iran follow suit. The trouble is, who replaces Assad ? There is no coherent alternative and simply arming rebels creates factions such as ISIS. I read an interesting article that claimed that whilst ISIS claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, it was actually unlikely to be them, as Jihadists who go to the Califate actually go there as a one way trip to live in the Islamic State with it's strict ideology. Foreign fighters are recruited to fight in Syria and Iraq, but do not leave the Califate to fight overseas. The article was suggesting that it was far more likely to be a plot from Al-Qaeda or an associated group who have carried out similar attacks before.
It's a messy situation with a lot of different nations and groups involved and trying to get a piece of the geopolitical pie. But what these guys don't realise is that they are creating an increasingly unstable world. Their greed and reckless abandon will come back around and bite them on backside in a very bad way. Their true intentions towards the middle east will become clear sooner or later, let's just hope they haven't screwed things up too much...
I'd say they realise exactly that - look at both Gulf wars, both massive events in the Middle East - but who benefitted? It wasn't the Iraqi's - millions of innocents dead, economy back in the stone ages, country crumbling due to civil war and extremists running amok. It wasn't the Western public - increased Islamphobia, increased hatred of the West, increased radicalisation of youths across the world, increased terrorist attacks. It wasn't the soldiers - thousands killed in fighting, untold numbers with PTSD and left to beg forgotten on the streets of UK, USA and others. But the USA got a hugely important strategic area under its control, with troops right in the heart of the ME, right on the border of Iran, with all countries within easy bombing range. They got control of huge oil fields, they got a pipeline built through Afghanistan from the ME to connect to Europe. Private defence companies like Halliburton made huge profits from the war(s), the military industrial complex benefitted hugely - testing and selling all sorts of weapons, cleaning up from the increased 'defence' spending from the bigger Western countries. The instability has kept USA access to oil much easier, kept oil prices up (until Russia stopped playing ball then the prices magically dropped), and a destabilised region keeps a lot of these countries relying on the USA's defence power. And for all these huge profits and strategic gains I imagine they'd view the couple of hundred innocent people who have died in Madrid, London, Paris ect as small potatoes, and the small risk was worth the huge gains - even though to any sane person they are an awful, despicable acts. As are the millions killed in the ME over the last 2 decades.
The USA is also arming and supporting a Iraqi government militia army which is terrorising the Sunni population (kidnappings, torture, killings ect) basically what ISIS is doing to the Shia population (though without the forced recruitment). This is descending the country in to even most carnage. In the same way that handing out tonnes of weapons to factions in Syria was only ever going to end with lots and lots of civilians deaths. Actually in the same way as removing dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi from power and allowing all the factions who'd been oppressed to arm themselves and start a civil war did as well. It's interesting how Al-Qaeda were all over the news, with reports they were everywhere - ME, North Africa, East Africa, Europe a few years ago and then suddenly there's not one report mentioning them in the news anywhere for the past few years.
