Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
dupe
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Your first point is more on the mark. It has nothing to do with morality or human suffering, though that's a great way to sell it.
Nato bombed the Serbs over Kosovo...not Bosnia. Different conflict. Different response. Morality nowhere in site.
As for Chechnya doing better...who knows...maybe the Yazdis will be better off after their brutalization. Are you suggesting we give ISIS a chance?
The moral imperative is incumbant on all humanity. Its doing something to protect those who cannot protect themselves where ever we can.
Your argument is that because they arent bombing Boko Haram or other such groups, they must have ulterior motives in bombing ISIS. I dont buy into such a cynical world view. The reason the dont bomb Boko Haram is not because they dont care, but because the situation in Nigeria has not spiriled out of control the way it has in Iraq. They bomb ISIS because not to do so would mean turning a blind eye to genocide. If they could avoid doing so they would, because involving themselves in such conflicts can always have unforseen consequences, but because the situation is do dire and so acute, action must be taken.
Chechnya.. There is no comparison between iRAQ and Chechnya. The militants there cannot compare to the insanity of ISIS. You cannot draw a comparison as you attempted to do.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
I don't agree with this. This is the kind of thinking that got us to this mess. There is more than one way to eliminate a threat like this. The bombing that we are seeing is very short-sighted. I would have liked them use containment followed by elimination. Because, if you bomb and kill these guys, the violent ideology behind it will survive and spread. And it will be very expensive to counter once it spreads to the west. The moral imperative you mentioned earlier is to kill that ideology first and then go after these guys. It is not easy, but then the easy path that was tried in 2003 did not really work. We have used the stick of bombing and it failed. We have used the carrot of democracy, and that failed too. We need a different approach, because we are reading it wrong.
PS: I don't think anyone here will disagree with you that ISIS needs to go. Only the way to deal with it.
Thats like saying we should treat malignant melanoma with herbal medicine and prayer. i dont think they are going away without aggresive surgery and heavy chemo. didnt we learn that lesson with the TTP ?
Ideally you would treat cancer by removing the tumor and containing its spread simultaneously.
By all means, counter the ideology etc all you like, but ISIS is a clear and present danger that has to be dealt with on an emergency basis.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Ideally you would treat cancer by removing the tumor and containing its spread simultaneously.
.
Unfortunately the current plan only calls for removing the tumor. There is nothing beyond that. TTP is not the right comparison here, but 2003 is. These are not pakistanis; they are arabs.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
US were involved from the start ... From post 9-11 ... ,,,
Post WW-I is more accurate.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Unfortunately the current plan only calls for removing the tumor. There is nothing beyond that. TTP is not the right comparison here, but 2003 is. These are not pakistanis; they are arabs.
Well we can criticize after they have removed the immediate threat. Extremist criminal organizations r essentially the same across the globe. The thing that they all have in common is a lust for power, and wealth. Once they have tasted both, dont expect them to relinquish it easily, regardless of whether they are Arab, Pakistani or any other nationality.
ISIS is something that constitutes a very real and present danger. Just ask those who r their victims. You think those Yazidi who were being killed would be willing to wait while the US tries to deradiclize the extremists?
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
This one was posted two days ago in Guardian.
This is the moment in any war when peace goes dumb. The cause is just. The enemy is in our sights, and the provocation is extreme. Blood races through tabloid veins. It is white feathers for dissenters. The British government’s evident eagerness to bomb Iraq will be put by David Cameron to the House of Commons on Friday. With an election in the offing, Labour’s Ed Miliband dares not disagree.
The prime minister’s case, made to the United Nations on Wednesday, is that the Islamic State (Isis) rebellion is “an evil against which the whole world must unite”. No one would quarrel with that. Unlike Cameron’s abortive bid to bomb Syria last year, legality is covered by an invitation from Iraq’s hapless rulers in Baghdad and a refusal to bomb Syria. Past mistakes in Iraq, says Cameron, should not be an excuse for inaction. “We must not be so frozen with fear that we do not do anything at all.”
Nor should we be so intoxicated by war fever as to do the wrong thing. Iraq has been chief bomb target for western electoral machismo since Bill Clinton’s “Monica Lewinsky” air strikes in 1998](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7390.html). They initiated a decade of mendacity. Saddam Hussein’s weapons arsenal was declared eliminated, then it was not. After killing hundreds of civilians, Tony Blair and his cabinet declared that Iraq still posed “an imminent threat to Britain”. The subsequent war was said to have installed freedom and democracy in that country, another untruth. As the Royal United Services Institute concluded in a recent survey, far “from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it”.
Those demanding a resumption of the bombing should explain how things are different this time – or be guilty of willing mission creep. So far they could hardly be less convincing. An indication is their resort to adjectival hysteria, Isis being variously repulsive, genocidal, atrocious, monstrous, unspeakable, satanic. Everyone seems to accept that air strikes “alone” cannot win. Yet everyone also asserts that there is no question of following them with ground attacks, which is the essence of coordinated war. They are merely to “degrade Isis assets”, mostly by demolishing empty buildings at vast expense. They are sending “a message” to someone or other.
Cameron’s strategy is apparently to leave local Iraqi forces to deliver victory. That might be reasonable, given that they are the most expensively trained troops on earth. But they have shown themselves useless. They have been given intensive bombing cover by the Americans for seven weeks, and Isis is firmly in place. Meanwhile, Cameron refuses to hold his nose and form a tactically vital alliance with Assad of Syria and with the Iranians. He appears not to want to win.
If Britain intends victory, Cameron should do what George Bush and Tony Blair did last time in Iraq and go full tilt at the enemy with planes, troops, tanks and guns galore – and to hell with the consequences. There is no logistical hurdle. Baghdad is begging to have British troops fighting alongside his army. So why is Cameron tying his own hand behind his back? It looks suspiciously as if this is all for domestic consumption. The new Iraq war has no strategy, not even tactics. It is a show, a token, a pretence of a strut on the world stage.
This dispute has all the menace of religious hatred down the ages, leading a retreat into tribalism and fear. Western intervention stirred it by undermining the secular, mostly Ba’athist, regimes that emerged after the second world war. The best hope now – indeed, the only hope – is that the regional powers can assert order, as Syria’s dictator did in Lebanon after the failure of western “policing” in the 1980s. Every corner is stiff with armies and weapons, including Turkey, Iran, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. All are more threatened by Isis than is Britain. The Saudis have more than 700 jets, enough to bomb everywhere in sight. They should need no outside help.
Sooner or later Isis must disintegrate into its warring factions. The caliphate is an implausible construct. These horrors pass. Even the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan were mutating into a less vicious regime, until Bush and Blair came to their rescue by invading their country in 2001. In Iraq a pincer movement of Syria, Iran, Kurdistan and Iraq itself should one day grind Isis into submission. In doing so a new balance of power should be established in the region, the stronger for being self-generated.
Western air strikes are supposed to aid that disintegration. For once, British bombs are at least propping up an established government rather than toppling one. But they are far more likely to help Isis, by recruiting volunteers and turning Muslim opinion once more against the west. The resort to drones and the consequent killing of civilians will also win little political ground. Even the hawkish former US representative to Nato, Kurt Volker, warns that drones nowadays “allow our opponents to cast our country as a distant, high-tech, amoral purveyor of death. It builds resentment, facilitates terrorist recruitment and alienates those we should seek to inspire”.
The return to war will reinforce the politics of fear – which is the grimmest legacy of the Blair era in Britain. It has Cameron popping in and out of his Cobra bunker like a rabbit in a hole. Every government office, every train, every airport welcomes visitors to Britain with terror warnings and alerts. Cameron does this because he knows he can only get Britons to go to war by portraying Isis as a “threat to Britain’s national security”. Some Isis adherents may have criminal intent, but that is a matter for the police. Britain survived a far greater menace from the IRA without crumbling. Its existence is not threatened by jihadism. The claim is ludicrous. Cameron must have no faith in his own country.
The contrast between Asia’s eastern and western extremities is now stark, the one booming, the other descending into catastrophic instability and medieval horror. It is impossible not to relate this to two centuries of western imperialism and meddling. It strains belief that further intervention – through the crudest of all forms of aggression – can bring peace and reconciliation.
Islam’s wars are not Britain’s business. We owe their human victims all the aid we can to relieve suffering. We do not owe them our incompetence in trying to recast their politics. That is a task for the Arabs and their neighbours, not for Britain’s soldiers and taxpayers.
Britain
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Look deeper … Social media between the lines, look at media history, establish facts through past experiences … Truth comes out … Like WMDs in Iraq … The truth came out didn’t it ?.. Best thing to do is learn critical thinking … Be suspect of the news and realise that it is a point of view not pure facts … Find to the best of your ability the counter-perspective … ask journalists personal opinions. Look at whistleblowers and wiki leaks … Find ways of getting the bigger picture … Remain 85% confident of your conclusions … Ready to modify them.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
911 controversies are legit. Its really begs the question, is media not controlled at all? But it rather is the one controlling us.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
The moral imperative is incumbant on all humanity. Its doing something to protect those who cannot protect themselves where ever we can.
So it is said...
[quote]
Your argument is that because they arent bombing Boko Haram or other such groups, they must have ulterior motives in bombing ISIS.
[/quote]
Yes, and it's not cynicism it's simple causality. There is none between the degree of brutality and the anticipated response.
Acting for reasons other than morality may not be a bad thing, as I've suggested to Queer.
Your forcing the point in suggesting that the carpet bombing of a city full of civilians is somehow not on par with what ISIS is doing. Or that what Assad is doing, in terms of people evicted from their homes and/or killed, is not on par with ISIS is doing. Or what boko is doing, albeit on a smaller scale. If one wants to push the morality angle, it seems they must trivialize the suffering of others in other conflicts to excuse inaction in those. No thanks. I'd prefer to look for other reasons as to why there is action/inaction. You are correct in that ISIS expansionism is the root behind the alarm. Incorrect to suggest that the brutal nature of their actions is a motivator to stop them on the world stage. Much too many counterexamples to lend credence to that view.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Look deeper ... Social media between the lines, look at media history, establish facts through past experiences ... Truth comes out ... Like WMDs in Iraq ... The truth came out didn't it ?... Best thing to do is learn critical thinking ... Be suspect of the news and realise that it is a point of view not pure facts ... Find to the best of your ability the counter-perspective ... ask journalists personal opinions. Look at whistleblowers and wiki leaks ... Find ways of getting the bigger picture ... Remain 85% confident of your conclusions ... Ready to modify them.
Look deeper? Would you like me to go to Iraq and see for myself ? unfortunately, I cant do that.
The purpose of media is too look deeper and disseminate information. For me to look deeper would require me to go to sources, and those sources happen to be the media. Your argument essentially boils down to go learn to swim, but stay clear of the water.
With WMD's the truth came out after the media reported it. It didnt come out because of some insight I garnered on my own through a magic crystal ball or chicken bones, but through media reporting.
I understand that we should look for reputable sources. Thats what we are doing. I try to avoid CNN, and FOX for example as I see them being a bit bias. BBC is a descent site for example. But if we are going to judge credibility on whether reporting conforms to my perception of the world, then I doubt any source can be deemed credible.
The consensus seems to be that ISIS are nuts, they are going around murdering people, they control large parts of Iraq and Syria, and if nothing is done to stop them they will commit atrocities of the most deplorable kind. ISIS has flooded the internet with videos of their crimes (beheadings, executions etc.) so why the doubt?
There is a minute chance that they will change their ways, but the consequences of making such assumptions if they are wrong, is to great to allow. Too many lives are at risk. I support the US in her allies in destroying this threat, because alternative means more corpses.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Who said Assad is a saint? What you perceive as inaction is being prudent and circumspect in my opinion. Being dragged into another conflict in the Middle East is the last thing anyone needs. That being said, the US and others havent been standing on the sidelines, they have supplied arms to Syrian rebels. But either way, the US is damned if they do or dont.
(U.S. has secretly provided arms training to Syria rebels since 2012)
You cannot respond to every conflict in the same manner. The issue with Assad is a complex one, and while we would all love for him to be sidelined (Assuming that doesnt mean reprisals against the Shia in Syria by rebels), the complexities of the situation mean that you cannot fight Assad in an all out war. So long as there is an opposition in place, there are rebels to keep the pressure on however, the Syrian conflict will not see significant intervention.
ISIS on the other hand, you have a situation which is quickly spiraling out of control and no one can stop it. In such a case, it is incumbent on those who can stop them to do so. Weighed against the consequences of inaction, intervention is the only option. To not do so would mean allowing such atrocities to occur unhindered.
When you are the only one with the power to stop something like ISIS, when no one else can, and when it threatens to destroy everything and everyone, and you allow it to fester, that then is immoral.
Ultimately, if the present strategy doesnt work, they may well have to go in with troops. But lets hope it doesnt come to that.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
PD drumbeat of war has started. This gives excuse not to cut defense budget. Defense related stocks are soaring. Where have we seen this before.
It is deja vs all over again. It's so depressing I don't watch news anymore. Bombing is the solution to everything it seems.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Well there is something different between how you do things and how I do things … I was giving you sincere advice … You can take it or not.
ISIS can be stopped easily … That is just a none sense statement to actually believe they are difficult … Again rocking to the tune of the pied-piper … It serves the West political premise to allow ISIS and make it in to another hydra head of the phantom menace …
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Well there is something different between how you do things and how I do things ... I was giving you sincere advice ... You can take it or not.
ISIS can be stopped easily ... That is just a none sense statement to actually believe they are difficult ... Again rocking to the tune of the pied-piper ... It serves the West political premise to allow ISIS and make it in to another hydra head of the phantom menace ...
Advice is appreciated, and its flattering that you think my opinion important enough that its worth you expending energy in changing it, but ultimately my opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme off things. For what its worth, I see the situation as an emergency. And its safer to assume it is then risk more isis victims.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Advice is appreciated, and its flattering that you think my opinion important enough that its worth you expending energy in changing it, but ultimately my opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme off things. For what its worth, I see the situation as an emergency. And its safer to assume it is then risk more isis victims.
Brother Med911
My qualm is not that ISIS are or are not a risk ... I think we have established they are a huge risk, but they are more than that, they are already a problem for the Arabs. The risk to wayward Westerners who have gotten too close is not yet a problem - so long as other good people from the West - stay away. ISIS's real intent is to gain power over the life blood of war ... The oil ... Doing something about ISIS will be more to do with securing oil rather than anything to do with risk to people ...
ISIS are playing in to the hands of the dominant media ... they are the gem of the propaganda game by choosing to infuriate the Western elite by slowing down the oil stream exiting Iraq they have raised a few concerns, so the media has been dispatched to pick up on some of their most heinous acts and used those to create a huge monster out of just another problem group - additionally ISIS believe they are making an impact and will continue doing those subhuman acts.
Trust me ISIS will not be allowed to get a foothold ... too much at stake ... however, the interim condition is beneficial on the media level - so the West are milking it ... There was enough to take out ISIS early ... but no one on the planet would have known about them ... by letting them be for a while - ISIS gained and are gaining a bit of infamy - taking them out after a bit of a delay will be more satisfying for the West. Even then they can't afford to crush them completely ... they need them for instability purposes.
This is no conspiracy theory - it makes perfect military sense to destablise the region and keep it in that state. It also makes sense to never admit this to a public ear ... People want to hear that their country is on moral high ground.
My personal plan would be this:
Stop giving ISIS a media voice
Walk in troops to the areas that need protecting - i.e. resources/ oil fields ...
A few soldiers die - so be it - that is what they are there for ...
Find the organised, sane and majority voice and give them legitimacy.
Walk out of the area.
This formula does not involve securing oil .... but it is the one that will work for peace.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Wow, you must be a military adviser with that plan. I mean just walk in, secure the area against a guerilla force and just walk off.
Thanks John Rambo.
You are exactly what is wrong with Muslims in general. It is always someone else's fault, always a conspiracy.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
Oh and whoever titled this thread. It isn't a war on Muslims at all, unless you associate ISIS with Islam? It is a war on animals, they should behead them live on YouTube in my opinion to deter other idiots going out there.
Re: Pitfalls of yet another U.S. war on Muslims
they should behead them live on YouTube in my opinion to deter other idiots going out there.
Ever heard of the phrase " violence begets violence"? Obviously not.