32
   

Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:24 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
No. Supporting Assad would be like supporting Hitler. Some things just can't be done.


Nonsense and if there was some damn way of digging Saddam up and bringing him back to life and putting him in back in charge of Iraq I would be all for it.

There are things a lot worst then Assad and Saddam and ISIS is one of those things
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:31 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
No. Supporting Assad would be like supporting Hitler. Some things just can't be done.


Nonsense and if there was some damn way of digging Saddam up and bringing him back to life and putting him in back in charge of Iraq I would be all for it.

There are things a lot worst then Assad and Saddam and ISIS is one of those things

How many people care what happens to the Syrians so long as they dont burden our lives? 1 in 500 maybe?? I mean I know that a lot of people posture, but for how many is this truth?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:35 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Don't forget that the Russians caused the bulk of German military casualties and armor destroyed, at a cost of 27 million military casualties. Don't forget that it took TWO atomic bombs before Japan surrendered. Don't forget that the Allies occupied both countries for decades.


So?

ISIS is no 1940s Germany or the Empire of Japan or even the CSA for that matter.

Hell the Army of Northern Virginia given some minor updates of weapons under Lee would eat ISIS in an afternoon.

They are once more out in the open and trying to be a nation state where conventional military forces could deal with them before they could return to hiding.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
How many people care what happens to the Syrians so long as they dont burden our lives? 1 in 500 maybe?? I mean I know that a lot of people posture, but for how many is this truth?


Do you think for a second that the Syrians would be better off under the rule of ISIS?

Talk about a hell on earth.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:41 pm
@BillRM,
Being under DAESH is way worse than being under Assad, which a lot of people now know. "it can always be worse" is a bit a wisdom it would have been nice for the Syrians to have had about 5 years ago.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Nov, 2015 11:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
I looked up DAESH. I will try to remember it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:15 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No. Supporting Assad would be like supporting Hitler. Some things just can't be done.

Nonsense

Assad is a genocidal maniac who has deliberately massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

You may be OK with the massacre of countless innocents, but I am not.


BillRM wrote:
and if there was some damn way of digging Saddam up and bringing him back to life and putting him in back in charge of Iraq I would be all for it.

Luckily for the Iraqis, they are forever free of Saddam's brutality.


BillRM wrote:
There are things a lot worst then Assad and Saddam and ISIS is one of those things

Assad created Islamic State.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:19 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Do you think for a second that the Syrians would be better off under the rule of ISIS?
Talk about a hell on earth.

The Sunnis don't particularly like Islamic State, but they find living under Islamic State to be preferable to ending up in a mass grave.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:19 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Assad is a genocidal maniac who has deliberately massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.


Evidence. You need it for credibility anywhere in life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cD8uYOsBo
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:22 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Assad created Islamic State.
Daesh was created by Shrub, when he dissolved the Iraq military and forbid any Baathist from power.It was helped along when the US military but especially the CIA showed preferential treatment to shia when we occupied the country. Daesh was born in Camp Bucca, which was wholly run by the USA with incompetence and lack of awareness to reality. It was nourished after birth by about 40 governments, a list which includes the USA.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:25 am
@roger,
Kerry of Vietnam has taken to using it which is almost reason enough for me not to.

Supposedly ISIS hates it's so there's a reason to use it, but it also provides administration officials with a name that doesn't include "Islamic" in its acronym form.

I never understood why they insisted on using ISIL when the rest of the world has settled on ISIS or even just IS. Whatever the reason, it was clear the memo made the rounds and was read, because I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the administration, (until just recently) use anything but ISIL.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:26 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Being under DAESH is way worse than being under Assad, which a lot of people now know. "it can always be worse" is a bit a wisdom it would have been nice for the Syrians to have had about 5 years ago.

They did know.

The Iraqi Sunnis used to be ruled by Islamic State under their former name: "al-Qa'ida in Iraq".

The Sunnis of both Iraq and Syria knew exactly what they were getting into when they allowed Islamic State to take over their territory.

Some people just prefer not to be massacred, and will choose any other option, no matter how bad it is.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:39 am
@Olivier5,
Well we agree on something.

Interesting how an attack on one's homeland can provide clarity of thought.

Leaving ISIS alone is the worst thing that can be done. In addition to the reasons you've cited is the fact that if left alone they will continue with their local campaign of murder, rape and enslavement. Aside from anything they've done or will do to Westerners, a special place in hell has been reserved for them as a result of their actions in the region.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:57 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Daesh was created by Shrub, when he dissolved the Iraq military and forbid any Baathist from power.It was helped along when the US military but especially the CIA showed preferential treatment to shia when we occupied the country. Daesh was born in Camp Bucca, which was wholly run by the USA with incompetence and lack of awareness to reality. It was nourished after birth by about 40 governments, a list which includes the USA.

The US may have been responsible for throwing a bunch of Baathists out of their middle class jobs and embittering them. But far from nourishing them, by the time we had pulled out of Iraq, we had given the Iraqi Sunnis an alternative path, and the Sunnis had overthrown the Baathist extremists who had been dominating their region.

The only preferential treatment the US showed the Iraqi Shia was our acknowledgement of their rightful status as the majority population in a democracy.


Assad deliberately freed all terrorists from his prisons, welcomed all foreign terrorists who wanted to enter Syria, deliberately avoided making any military attacks against terrorists, and used his military power to weaken and eliminate any moderate rivals to the terrorists.

The only reason Islamic State has their current position in Syria is because Assad has very carefully nurtured their growth.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:59 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The only reason Islamic State has their current position in Syria is because Assad has very carefully nurtured their growth.


and the cia, and the mossad, and,

It is really one big fabrication of the west!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:00 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I never understood why they insisted on using ISIL when the rest of the world has settled on ISIS or even just IS. Whatever the reason, it was clear the memo made the rounds and was read, because I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the administration, (until just recently) use anything but ISIL.

ISIS and ISIL are mostly equivalent.

"Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham"

"Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant"

ISIS has the possibility of being confused with the name of an ancient fertility goddess.

As far as I know there is no consensus for one version over the other.


"Islamic State" is their new name. When they declared their intent to take over the entire world, they had to drop the geographic borders from their name.

DAESH is the pronunciation of the ISIS/ISIL acronym as it appears in Arabic writing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:03 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The only reason Islamic State has their current position in Syria is because Assad has very carefully nurtured their growth.
And not because they got donations from wealthy individuals in Gulf Arab states, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who supported its fight against Assad?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:04 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The only reason Islamic State has their current position in Syria is because Assad has very carefully nurtured their growth.

Come down off the ledge. 80% of this war is powered by people outside of syria, and their purpose has nothing to do with anything Assad chose, it is part of the vast Sunni/Shia war.

I like you oralloy, usually you at least try to take reality into account, but you are way off the reservation here.

CONFESS YOUR SINS AND ASK FORGIVENESS!
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:12 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
And not because they got donations from wealthy individuals in Gulf Arab states, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who supported its fight against Assad?


Nailed it. Here's a US Marine to concur with that claim, Walter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0KfAqu1KOM
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:25 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And not because they got donations from wealthy individuals in Gulf Arab states, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who supported its fight against Assad?

Until recently Islamic State was no in need of any donations, as they made lots of revenue from stealing and then selling Syria's oil.

It's hard to overstate the advantage to the terrorists of never being attacked while all their competitors were ruthlessly pummeled.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 07:20:25