Baghdad is falling

One would hope that civilization has moved on since the displaying of heads on spikes.

Examples of where others used crucifixion, does not justify it... at all,

by your reasoning, it would seem that any atrocity is justifiable , if it has been done before.
 

It is not justifiable at all. If you read my posts I am against the death penalty for criminals so I would hardly justify war atrocities.
What I am saying that what we are seeing currently is not what I would characterise as terrorism. At least, not the same thing as bombing aeroplanes and embassies or crowded markets. These actions are part of more organised military attacks and so far it is a civil war.

IMO it does not pay to buy into a civil war too readily. They go on and on for generations.

I've been reading an account in the Washington Post that talks about the different groups that are in conflict. The conflict goes beyond Iraq. Syria and Iran are involved. The whole area is destabilising rapidly.

http://news.google.com.au/news/url?...D&bvm=section&did=-1148531441557282714&ssid=h

From the UK and Australia point of view I think the biggest threat is from young men who rush over there to take sides in this civil war, become radicalised and then come home again. This is where future terrorists are likely to cause trouble away from the Middle East. It is a challenge for our intelligence services.
 
I'm thinking that it is the fault of thinking that these conflicts are able to be confined within national borders. Military action in Iraq without attention to Syria is possibly as much a cause as anything else. Syria has no oil ?

Once Saddam was deposed and after the internal insurrection damped down, didn't power transfer from the Sunnis to the Shiites? Syria was/is Sunni and Iran is Shiite. After Syria imploded, I suppose the fanatics took advantage to grab power and military armaments. Such people are never content with small conquests. They want more. Iran has no option but to oppose them or risk isolation and annihilation.

I don't understand all the ins and outs of this situation. I just hope the diplomats and foreign affairs specialists do.
 
Shirley said:
Those people have been fighting and killing each other for over 2000 years. You can't impose peace on anyone. I think we should get our butts out of there and let them have at it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, I like to help others, but it's true, this is not going to stop. I truly believe that. It's like one of those feuds in the South that never ends, because (I think) they don't want it to end, just my opinion.
 
My grasp of history is rather weak and I have to keep looking things up. In my mind are two phrases relating to European history. I've heard of the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War. These long running wars were essentially about conflicting claims to land and power.

Deutche Welle has an article suggesting that we could be seeing the start of another Thirty Years War. It does call the ISIS leader a terrorist, which he certainly is. But he aims to be much more than that.

Opinion: Thirty Years' War in the Middle East?

The leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is in the process of starting a religious war in the Middle East, one that could go on for a very long time, writes DW's editor-in-chief, Alexander Kudascheff.

The situation is downright alarming: an army of crusaders has brought the Middle East to its knees. Ten thousand fighters who belong to the Islamist, fundamentalist and murderous group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) are headed for Baghdad with aims of seizing Iraq's capital city and deposing its president - all in a bid to bring down Iraq's Shiite rule.
Their objective includes bringing about a reversal of postwar order in the Middle East: an end to nation states, the founding of a new Muslim community, or ummah, and a caliphate, within which Sharia is to be the code of conduct. ISIS members have already displayed political and religious readiness for a violent conflict, evocative of jihad, one of the early tenets of Islam that calls believers to martyrdom.

These Sunni jihadists led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - whose name calls to mind the first of all caliphates, the "descendents" of the Islamic prophet Muhammad - are looking to oust not only President Maliki and the Shiites from Baghdad, however. They have ignited the entire region. Iran has pledged support to stand by Iraqi Shiites and is even considering, as contradictory to traditional political alliances as this may seem, to join sides with Washington. US President Barack Obama, meanwhile, has yet to announce plans for how he intends to support Maliki.

More here: http://www.dw.de/opinion-thirty-years-war-in-the-middle-east/a-17708413#
Click to expand...
 
Dame, I don't think there is much we can or should do over there anymore. Other than funding and arms, they really don't want "any" of us in their countries. They have shown that more outside intervention is unwelcome, and has persistently disregarded all attempts for change.
It might be time for all of us to think defensively, and spend our money's accordingly. :dunno:
 
I agree. And brace for more and more refugees on the move.
The whole world could be destabilised, starting with the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
Israel is certainly very vulnerable. This is where and why the US will most likely be drawn in.
We should forget about foreign oil. Other sources of energy are available for much of our needs.
 
We here and all over should be making our voices heard. No more. We have to quit playing their game, they are much better at it than we ever will be. Their motivations are at opposite ends than ours. They are using oil to manipulate us for their religious desires. They are living for religion, and it has been so for hundreds of years. As long as we fight alternative energies, they will have a way to gather arms.
 
I certainly agree with that, Dame Warrigirl. the returning soldiers, pose a danger to us..

although They have already been radicalized before they went to fight.

Sadly many are radicalised in Great Britain.

Not sure it is the biggest threat, but it is the most immediate one certainly.

Geography is not the problem, whether it is Syria or Iraq.. the problem is with the twisted hate fuelled Muslim Clerics who have

distorted the religion of Islam, and pump out hatred.

Everyone is afraid of them including the moderate Muslims who are afraid to speak out


Since you are very interested in this subject, I suggest that you Read more about ISIS...


And also an excellent Book called about the radicalization of youth in Britain, one man's experience:

Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism

by Maajid Nawaz



Maajid Nawaz spent his teenage years listening to American hip-hop and learning about the radical Islamist movement spreading throughout Europe and Asia in the 1980s and 90s. At 16, he was already a ranking member in Hizb ut-Tahrir, a London-based Islamist group. He quickly rose through the ranks to become a top recruiter, a charismatic spokesman for the cause of uniting I...more

Wonderful, insightful book, I learned a LOT!
 
Thanks, Elysabeth. I'm aware of the radicalisation that is happening in England. I hope that over time they will become isolated within the English muslim community and lose relevance. The radical clerics and prayer halls need careful and continuous watching but I'm sure the authorities are doing just that, and from the inside too.
 
They will not become irrelevant, that is a pipe dream.

If you honestly want to understand this problem,
read the book I mentioned, you can probably get it at the library.

You can then speak with a bit more understanding about the radicalization progress and problems,
and how it can be addressed realistically. I think that your predictions, at present, are a bit on the naïve side

The author is now active in trying to help to stop such radicalizations from taking place
 
I admit to being a bit naïve because I try to see hope in every situation.
I place my hope in those people charged with protecting the public.

I also place my trust in education and an inclusive society.

That's why my nickname is Pollyanna.
 
The President said no boots on the ground. I hope he sticks to it and adapts a wait and see policy. One war at a time, please and we've already spent ten years over there. Let Syria and Iran help out their favorite factions while we close down Afghanistn and bring our troops home, give them a nice rest and then maybe we can pick and choose our next war.
 
Last edited:
drifter said:
The President said no boots on the ground. I hope he sticks to it and adapts a wait and see policy. One war at a time, please.
Click to expand...
He is sending 300-400 troops over there to protect the embassy,so thats BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
Who's kidding who here.
 
You've got a point there. Remember how Viet Nam started, how Iraq started. It's been a successful method of entrance into a wider conflict. I guess sthe president had to do that because John McCain and lindsey Graham were about to bust a gut. Maybe others, too.
 
I remember,I think, we sent "advisors" to Vietnam to train their military,I think Korea falls in that category too.
 
Davey Jones said:
I remember,I think, we sent "advisors" to Vietnam to train their military,I think Korea falls in that category too.
Click to expand...


Yep, works every time. We send "Advisers" , they kill a few of them. We can't let them get away with that so we send the troops in.
 
Fern said:
that's interesting, he was talking of air strikes, so no boots on the ground, no air strikes, what then, !! no action will be taken, yere right.
Click to expand...


Lets put it this way,lately he has no idea what the hell he is doing...His rating have dipped to a new low according wall street/nbc polls.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top