Sigh...

my brother thinks that the only reason ISIS hasn't been destroyed is that the "oil Arabs are secretly funding them. What else are they gonna do with all their money?"

Is his crazy idea have even the slightest chance of truth?

Also, the US is at a crossroads.

Either we declare war, at which everyone will complain "America gets too involved in wars that aren't its problem" (looking at you Brits. I know some of you are good, but seemingly a large amount of Brits will jump on anything if it can make the US look stupid)

Or we sit back, at which everyone will complain "America doesn't help when people are being butchered"

It also raises another question: in an area of such ethnic and religious difference, how could the Ottoman Empire comfortably control Iraq for centuries but Westerners can never fix it?

The Ottomans weren't enforcing Westernization or stealing oil

1: "Oh my God! You need to stay out of other countries' business! Look at all the damage you caused, stay out of it next time!"

2: "Oh my God! Look at all the horrible stuff happening, why don't you do something about that?! You're so cowardly!"

The same folk kind are not saying the same things. Many folk will say "Oh darn, that hero, that great man, Nigel Farage got the popular vote, but thanks to the bureaucracy of the devil, Cameron got it." and then the others say "Oh, glad that neofascist nazi didn't get elected. He got the popular vote, though, better watch out for another 1932. Folk will have different opinions. Mainly, it's Americans who are shouting #2, and the folk who get "freed" and most others who care who say #1.

The same folk kind are not saying the same things.

Many of them are the same though. Case in point, Angry Koala spent a good deal of time criticizing U.S involvement in the Middle East and how terrible America was for doing all of that. Then he turns right around and calls the U.S cowardly for not using military intervention on ISIS.

Afghanistan was a necessary call. Iraq was completely and utterly stupid. ISIS should already have been eradicated. But, that's just me.

Afghanistan was a necessary call.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

Smedley, did you even read the article? The US wanted Osama handed over, not put on trial by the unrecognized government that gave Al-Qaeda and Osama funding and sanctuary.

Yes, so instead of a bad trial we'll have a invasion with tens of thousands of deaths.

Well, Osama bin-Laden is not the only member of Al-Qaeda. Why did the Taliban not simply hand him over, rather than risk invasion with tens of thousands of deaths? Plus, your source says that this stuff went down before Al-Qaeda committed 9/11, which was, in essence, a declaration of war by Al-Qaeda.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Bush turned down the offer of Osama bin-Laden being handed over to a neutral country. A neutral country. The man that has been wanted by the US for decades would be handed over, not to the US, but to a "neutral" country, that would not be pressured by the US. This is after Al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers, mind you. One man is not enough, especially since he would not even be given to the States, since Al-Qaeda is made of much more than one man, and since they are funded and sheltered by the "government" known as the Taliban. If anyone's actions were stupid, it was the Taliban's.

Bush turned down the offer of Osama bin-Laden being handed over to a neutral country. A neutral country. The man that has been wanted by the US for decades would be handed over, not to the US, but to a "neutral" country, that would not be pressured by the US. This is after Al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers, mind you. One man is not enough, especially since he would not even be given to the States, since Al-Qaeda is made of much more than one man, and since they are funded and sheltered by the "government" known as the Taliban. If anyone's actions were stupid, it was the Taliban's.

Throw away your nationalism - the American government refused to hear him out and wanted to get bombing.

And of course they're not going to give him to America - you know what America did once they did get him? America is far from a neutral country.

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

Edited 9/30/2015 03:37:31

Many of them are the same though. Case in point, Angry Koala spent a good deal of time criticizing U.S involvement in the Middle East and how terrible America was for doing all of that. Then he turns right around and calls the U.S cowardly for not using military intervention on ISIS.

Panda is mad, Panda does not know how to argue politely (and refuses to read up on how to do so).

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

No.

Throw away your nationalism - the American government refused to hear him out and wanted to get bombing.

Or, The US was fed up with the Taliban's sh*t and saw no reason for them not to give Osama up. If I were the head of the Taliban, and I had to choose between handing one man over and possibly deal with his subordinates, or piss off a world superpower, I'd go with the former. And if you are talking about post-9/11, then there is no reason to hear anybody out at that time.

Also, you may be thinking otherwise, since I am a heretic and am actually defending the USA, but nationalism is not my forte.

Жұқтыру:
Panda is mad, Panda does not know how to argue politely (and refuses to read up on how to do so).

Unlike you Juq I read everything and try to answer every comments and sentences, you however have most of the time no solid arguments and answers, btw polite? do you know the definition of this word? You are the worst here about how "arguying politely" since most of the time you will argue for one hour about things that dont matter at all, and nobody shall contradict you because "you have to be right" everytime even if what you are saying is uttterly wrong, your demagogy is beyond limit.
The thing is most of the time you try to get people mad and prove to everybody your opinion is the true one, that does not work, find a new hobby man, seriously, instead of having pointless debate about whether how Baas is correctly spelled or whether -8 is the best temperature, could we have some interesting and good dialogues like you used to do before? Stop being angry and yeah lets "discuss politely" together.


Eklipse,
I forgot to answer your last thread (i will do it later as I usually do answering each of your sentences)
Something first, we were talking about Russia right? and I pointed out that war wasnt the good answer, and gave one example about the war in Iraq, then you came around and you were justifying the US intervention or why they did not reacted while they were still intervening in Iraq. Eklipse, f I disagree that does not mean I am against the US, I like constructive debates, you yourself said I am ignoring parts of your comments, so do you. Last but not least, at the beginning you would see that I was talking about "westerners" generally speaking, not only the US. As you said earlier you are yourself , chosing your own passages, that's ok, but do not say I am criticizing the US for fun, this is not my objective here.

One of the biggest misconceptions about radical Islamists/jihadist extremists is that they are uneducated Arabs/Afghans running around on camels shooting wildly whilst yelling "Allaahu akbar" loudly. In fact, they are educated Arabs/Afghans running around in pick-up trucks shooting wildly whilst yelling "Allaahu akbar".
They aren't dumb people who have just read the Quran and made their own unterpretation. Actually, if you read the Quran and the books of Islamic tradition, you'd find no talk of establishing a massive "Islamic State" or "Caliphate". In fact, since the time of Umar Ibn Abdulaziz of the Umayyads, the Muslims have never been united under a single country or ruler. There have always been different Muslim states with different names and rulers and objectives since that time. Muhammad never told his believers that they have to have a Caliphate. God didn't speak of a Caliphate in the Quran. These people must have got the idea from somewhere else.
Over the past thousand years there have always been people within the Muslim lands that have tried to usurp the incumbent rulers. They think they could do better. They want the fame and fortune. Some have suceeded such as Gaddafi and Saddam (though we all know how they ended. What goes around comes around, eh?). Others fail miserably and are usually put to death. Most Muslims agree that God forbade opposing the ruler publicly.
Over the years, trying to grab power from the incumbent ruler has become harder and harder. People have resorted to more extreme measures. Hence al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and al Shabab. They seek to justify their actions to themselves via religious means. This helps them recruit people they can control.
The people they usually recruit are the kinds of people who come from what the British government calls "non-violent extremists". They are the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and it's minion groups and parties across the globe. They pretend to be democratic and moderate and tolerant, when in fact they are intolerant, undemocratic and quite extremist. Democracy, to be quite frank, means nothing to me. I am a monarchist same as Charles I, Franco and the other loonies you read about in the history books. However, I understand that democracy means a lot to many people. It's the feeling of empowerment that they like. It appeals to the many. Especially when whoever you voted for wins. These extremists know this. In this regards they are quite like the communists of the mid-to-late 20th century. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end itself. A means to seize power and impose the "Islamic extremist utopia" (not unlike the Socialist utopia) they have always dreamed of in which everyone becomes the "dream Muslim" and erases all traces of heritage, culture and identity he/her inherited and everyone who doesn't agree with them has their head removed.
There are many tragic aspects of this. The first is that few countries have realised this. Britain is only just realising, but is in danger of engulfing moderate Muslims under the same banner as the radicals. The non-violent extremist know that your average moderate Muslim knows and respects certain scholars who lived in previous centuries such as the co-founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Bin Abdulwahab and others and give them a bad rep even though they have nothing to do with extremism.
Saudi Arabia itself along with the UAE only declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation last year after they bombed Cairo following the arrest of the scheming Mr Morsi.
My point is that only by getting underneath the skin of these people can we begin to define them, and only when we define them can we begin to fight them. The quicker we do that, the quicker we can prevent anymore Sotlov or Jordanian pilot episodes.
Good day.

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

No.

Yes, let's face it, it'd have to be a major f-up for them to not be able to stop this, from not letting them take knives on the aeroplane, to not shooting down or disabling the aeroplanes. America already had domestic major attacks like these - the 1993 Oklahoma bombing and the 1995 bombing - in the same place where the September 11 attacks hit, no less, and there was a plot to assassinate the pope in the Philippines that almost could have been done. There's also that there are many who talk of a "second explosion" after the airplanes had crashed in, along with over evidences at the scene that conspiracy theorists galore over, and that America had plans to commit terrorist attacks on itself before to go to war. Oh, and also that, for Americans, it is taboo to suggest that it could have been done/eased by America, which you are following, most likely (while the less smart will say worse than you are - idiot, crazy, crackpot, conspiracy theorist).

Or, The US was fed up with the Taliban's sh*t and saw no reason for them not to give Osama up. If I were the head of the Taliban, and I had to choose between handing one man over and possibly deal with his subordinates, or piss off a world superpower, I'd go with the former. And if you are talking about post-9/11, then there is no reason to hear anybody out at that time.

Well, they didn't say they would give Osama up - they said that he could come to a neutral country. Your second sentence - even more evidence that Americans wanted to get bombing. And there's no grounds to hear anybody out at that time - like for example, the attack on Gleinwitz, Poland was invading a sovereign country and the Germans needed to retaliate. Or that Libyan shot up an American ship in a no-trespassing zone, past what was officially called the Deathline. Of course, no negotiations here - shoot some Libyans, we are too angry to negotiate.

Also, you may be thinking otherwise, since I am a heretic and am actually defending the USA, but nationalism is not my forte.

Why is it then, that your politic posts are defending the American government in international relations, and about events that include America(ns)?

Unlike you Juq I read everything and try to answer every comments and sentences, you however have most of the time no solid arguments and answers, btw polite? do you know the definition of this word? You are the worst here about how "arguying politely" since most of the time you will argue for one hour about things that dont matter at all, and nobody shall contradict you because "you have to be right" everytime even if what you are saying is uttterly wrong, your demagogy is beyond limit.
The thing is most of the time you try to get people mad and prove to everybody your opinion is the true one, that does not work, find a new hobby man, seriously, instead of having pointless debate about whether how Baas is correctly spelled or whether -8 is the best temperature, could we have some interesting and good dialogues like you used to do before? Stop being angry and yeah lets "discuss politely" together.

I'm not even in your argument between Eklipse and you, but I can tell that it's just a typic case of you being a hypocrite and non polite arguer, by skimming through it. And this is your standard, logic fallacy argument that you fall back on - "No solid argument, no answers, no polite, you are worst, you argue about things that don't matter (by the way, who else was insisting on "Baas"? I dropped it, it was pointless, but you went on "Baas-baas-baas". And who was arguing about temperatures? Not just me to myself, and you were certainly not excluded.), folk can't argue with you because you always think you are right (Does anyone argue for a point when they think they are wrong?), you are utterly wrong, you are demagog, you just try to madden and confuse folk, you try to convince folk that your opinion is the true one (this is the point of a formal argument?), why so angry (look at yourself). I said I would be kinder to you if you read the logic fallacies, but you're refusing to read them, so the only arguments I can have with you are, as you said, pointless ones. Go read about the characteristics of 15-metre dragons in Ethiopia (he only wants to read classic antique works).

It's very likely that America did/facilitated the September 11 attacks on itself.

Oh God no. Don't tell me you seriously subscribe to this. The 9/11 inside job conspiracy theory is one of the most cynical,paranoid, pieces of nonsense in the world of conspiracy theories.

Throw away your nationalism

Why is it then, that your politic posts are defending the American government in international relations, and about events that include America(ns)?

You need to learn the difference between Nationalism, and Patriotism. There's nothing wrong with having a little pride in you country or being willing to defend it as long as you don't go overboard and start thinking your nation superior to the world.

In addition, it's a bit absurd to imply that defending the U.S automatically makes someone a nationalist.