Living in ISIS: Scary
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Hi,
I was watching: https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1
It is YouTube video documentary that shows Islamic State and its living conditions. The documentary is brilliant.
What do you think about it?
I was watching: https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1
It is YouTube video documentary that shows Islamic State and its living conditions. The documentary is brilliant.
What do you think about it?
Religious nutbags are religious nutbags.
As far as I'm concerned we [the US] should stay out of it. There's no benefit to us going back to Iraq and fighting there. It's not worth the money, manpower, or time it would take to stabilize the region... if it even can be stabilized.
EDIT: Also.. I didn't watch the whole thing. I only watched like the first 5 minutes.
It's also worth noting that a lot of the weapons and gear they're using are ours (the stuff we left for the Iraqi defense)... so us being there in the first placeprobably almost certainly did more harm than good.
As far as I'm concerned we [the US] should stay out of it. There's no benefit to us going back to Iraq and fighting there. It's not worth the money, manpower, or time it would take to stabilize the region... if it even can be stabilized.
EDIT: Also.. I didn't watch the whole thing. I only watched like the first 5 minutes.
It's also worth noting that a lot of the weapons and gear they're using are ours (the stuff we left for the Iraqi defense)... so us being there in the first place
Last edited on
I'm conflicted. For once the people we are siding with are not bad guys (Kurds and other non-radical fundamentalists ). However, once again, the group we are fighting are a group we helped rise to power ( rebels against Assad, from Syria ). It seams like there is a pattern. We train rebels, give them weapons, teach them how to overthrow governments. Then they get out of control and try to overthrow governments we didn't want them to overthrow. It turns out they are a bunch of murderous psychopath fundamentalists( which worked to our advantage when they were fighting our enemies). Then we have to go to war with them. We even built Saddam, into the threat he became ( he got the chemicals he used against the Kurds from the US. His military was receiving funding and weapons from the US even while this was happening ). Now, after siding with and propping up a madman who was trying to exterminate the Kurds a few decades ago, our military is all of the sudden so concerned with their safety? Are out motives really humanitarian?
It's hard to tell now, if going in would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
It's hard to tell now, if going in would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
Last edited on
| It's hard to tell now, if going in would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or doing the wrong thing for the right reason. |
This doesn't even matter, in my opinion.
Let me paint a different picture for you. One of practicality and history.
The US public was lied to about Iraq. Repeatedly. About our reasons for going (which constantly changed), about how long it would take (which was grossly underestimated), and about how much of a long term commitment it would entail (which again was grossly underestimated).
It was an opportunistic war that rode on the fear of a post 9/11 America where the public was so terrified of the middle east that we would have went anywhere.
Now if you look at the bigger picture in history... and look at where the US has been successful in stopping aggressive forces and stabilizing the region... it was always accomplished by having a long-term (even arguably permanent), armed presence. The idea of pulling our troops out is simply not an option if we want to be successful. It has never worked. Ever.
Case in point, look at Germany. We still have an armed presence there. The last war there was WWII... and that was 70 years ago. And Europe is much more stable than the middle east.
To extrapolate from that... if we are going to go back to Iraq/Syria to fight the IS... we have to be prepared to go all the way. We have to commit to the long haul. None of this "train them to keep the peace themselves" crap -- that never works. We have to be there. And we have to keep the peace. It's the only way.
So the question then becomes.... are we willing to dedicate quite literally a century or longer of resources, manpower, and money into stabilizing Iraq? Are will willing to send 4, 5 or even 6 generations of kids over there to fight that battle? We we willing to invest the billions/trillions of dollars we're going to have to spend on it?
Because that's what it will take. Have no illusions about it.
I absolutely do not think it's worth it. So I don't think we should go back. If we go back, we're just going to pull out again.. and then the same fucking thing will happen and we will have spent all those lives and all that money to accomplish absolutely nothing. Just as we did with both Iraq wars.
Last edited on
I would agree with you, that we shouldn't go back to iraq/iran to kill those bstards, except that this group has acquired a particular degree of strength.
They are like hitler's germany, except they have a religion. If I were the president, I wouldn't send marines over there, I would get a couple nukes ready and eradicate those vermin from the planet. I'm sure Isreal, and nieghboring country-states would be happy that those monsters are finally gone from the world.
Those terrorists aren't going to let us have our peace. The only option is action.
They are like hitler's germany, except they have a religion. If I were the president, I wouldn't send marines over there, I would get a couple nukes ready and eradicate those vermin from the planet. I'm sure Isreal, and nieghboring country-states would be happy that those monsters are finally gone from the world.
Those terrorists aren't going to let us have our peace. The only option is action.
Last edited on
| I would get a couple nukes ready and eradicate those vermin from the planet. |
| I would agree with you, that we shouldn't go back to iraq/iran to kill those bstards, except that this group has acquired a particular degree of strength. |
Firstly, the IS is in Iraq/Syria. Not in Iran.
Secondly, you'll note that a significant portion of the strength they've acquired is from equipment we left behind. And they only came to power once we removed the standing power who was keeping them at bay (Saddam). So really, it's our meddling that brought about their uprising. We traded one asshole for another.
| They are like hitler's germany, except they have a religion. |
No they're not. They're not nearly as large, not nearly as strong, and they aren't killing nearly as many people.
Nazi Germany had camps where literally millions of innocent people were being executed. It took the combined forces of 3+ major world powers to stop them. In contrast, I have no doubt that if we put in the effort, we could sweep in and crush the IS in a few months single handed.
Not every advancing force is like Nazi Germany. In fact... no one is. Nazi Germany was fucking insane -- the world had never seen anything like them before, and hasn't seen anything like them since. And hopefully never will see anything like them again. I wish people would stop making that comparison.
| If I were the president, I wouldn't send marines over there, I would get a couple nukes ready and eradicate those vermin from the planet |
As naraku pointed out, this is not realistic. We can't just fire nukes at people -- it would be devastating to innocent civilians -- worse than anything the IS is doing now.
| I'm sure Isreal, and nieghboring country-states would be happy that those monsters are finally gone from the world. |
Israel? Certainly. Other neighbors? I'm not so sure. This is an Islamic extremist group which seems scarey to us since we're not an Islamic state. But maybe they don't seem like such bad guys to other Islamic nations.
Maybe an Islamic state would be good for the region? We have to stop thinking that what's good for America is good for everyone else. "Spreading democracy" sounds nice, but maybe they don't want our democracy.
Besides... why should we make this our fight? What's in it for us?
| Those terrorists aren't going to let us have our peace |
We are the strongest military in the world. By far. We spend more money on our military than the next 3 countries combined. We have so many resources that it spills over into our law enforcement.
On top of that, we are geographically isolated. We're halfway around the world from Syria/Iraq.
There is nothing they can do to us. If they try to attack us directly, we'd destroy them. They know it, and we know it.
That's why they're goading us to try to get us to attack them instead -- it's easy for them to fight us if we go there, but it's impossible for them to fight us if we stay out.
| The only option is action. |
So you're willing to make the 100+ year commitment? Just to stop an uprising that might very well collapse on its own?
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
From an average American's point of view:
American News Stations starting from a very recent timeframe:
1) Al-Queda is going to get you.
2) Iraq is going to get you.
3) North Korea is going to get you.
4) Russia is going to get you.
4.5) Climate change is going to get you.
5) Ebola is going to get you.
6) Corrupt cops are going to get you.
7) Isis is going to get you.
I'm sure that I left out a bunch of other scare tactics as well...but does anyone else feel that the "oh my!" reaction is just gone at this point?
I'm not saying that other parts of the world aren't suffering...but seriously: don't use American safety as the primary reason for action.
Groups like isis are very difficult to deal with without incurring massive collateral damages. I think the best way to deal with them are massive infiltrations into their ranks picking them apart from the inside out.
American News Stations starting from a very recent timeframe:
1) Al-Queda is going to get you.
2) Iraq is going to get you.
3) North Korea is going to get you.
4) Russia is going to get you.
4.5) Climate change is going to get you.
5) Ebola is going to get you.
6) Corrupt cops are going to get you.
7) Isis is going to get you.
I'm sure that I left out a bunch of other scare tactics as well...but does anyone else feel that the "oh my!" reaction is just gone at this point?
I'm not saying that other parts of the world aren't suffering...but seriously: don't use American safety as the primary reason for action.
Groups like isis are very difficult to deal with without incurring massive collateral damages. I think the best way to deal with them are massive infiltrations into their ranks picking them apart from the inside out.
While I hate the idea of nuking and killing millions of innocents, it may eventually happen. One day ISIS or Al Qaeda or Taliban or some other radical group of assholes (or all team up D:) will do something drastic, like another 9/11 like attack - or worse. Then, we (USA) will be fed up and just strike back. They kill several thousand of us, we kill 10s of thousands of them. Isn't that what happened with Japan in WW2? We lost our patience and killed 1000s of civilians?
If anybody saw Pres Obama's speech a couple days ago, we are doing all this in the air, which is good. But, we are also sending over a couple hundred guys + (i think) 22 million dollars to help train them. But, when (if) ISIS is dealt with, then some other group will rise up.
Also, I am not entirely sure, but isn't Al Qaeda going jihad in India right now, because of ISIS taking all they're publicity from them? And I haven't seen Taliban in the news for a LONG time. What's the deal with them?
EDIT: After reading my post, I realize how insane my choice of words are in the first paragraph. So, just to clarify - that was speculation.
If anybody saw Pres Obama's speech a couple days ago, we are doing all this in the air, which is good. But, we are also sending over a couple hundred guys + (i think) 22 million dollars to help train them. But, when (if) ISIS is dealt with, then some other group will rise up.
Also, I am not entirely sure, but isn't Al Qaeda going jihad in India right now, because of ISIS taking all they're publicity from them? And I haven't seen Taliban in the news for a LONG time. What's the deal with them?
EDIT: After reading my post, I realize how insane my choice of words are in the first paragraph. So, just to clarify - that was speculation.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
@AceDawg45 - Just a suspicion, but I think America's use of nuclear weapons against Japan was more of an act of desperation than impatience. Things were scary back then. Germany and friends were more technologically advanced than anyone else back then (ie. diesel technology).
| One day ISIS or Al Qaeda or Taliban or some other radical group of assholes (or all team up D:) |
These groups all want more or less the same thing: power. But want to obtain it for themselves. It's unlikely that they'd team up -- because then they're sharing power rather than having it exclusive. So it's more likely that they'd compete with each other.
This is the up-side to religious extremists. They think they are right and everyone else is wrong. That kind of black-and-white absolutism does not allow for alliances.
| will do something drastic, like another 9/11 like attack - or worse. |
Not if homeland security does their fucking job. With all the bullshit we let them get away with... if they can't stop the one thing they're supposed to stop then they're fucking worthless. </side rant>
| Then, we (USA) will be fed up and just strike back. They kill several thousand of us, we kill 10s of thousands of them. Isn't that what happened with Japan in WW2? We lost our patience and killed 1000s of civilians? |
Sort of. My understanding of the rationale for dropping nukes on Japan was to show an extreme show of force to put a quick end to a war that was already dragging out much longer than it should have been.
The goal was not really to kill, but rather to demonstrate that we had this technology now, and we were sick of fighting. We wanted Japan to just stop.
And it worked. Japan surrendered shortly afterwards.
The same strategy wouldn't work the the IS. They don't care if we kill the civilians (they're even doing it themselves), and they don't even really care if we kill them. The same kind of show of force is not going to scare them into surrendering, but rather would just enrage them and fuel their cause.
| But, when (if) ISIS is dealt with, then some other group will rise up. |
This is the problem. This is exactly why it's not worth it for us to be involved. At best we stop the IS and some other group just comes in and takes over. We're not going to like anybody that has power there -- and they're not going to like us. The only way this works out well for us is if we control who is in power there - and we make sure it's someone we want.
This is why any attack force to stop them has to be followed up with decades/centuries of armed occupation. There really is no other option. It's either stay out completely ... or settle in for the long haul. Any half-measure is not going to accomplish any long-term goal.
Wow. I was honestly expecting a lot more comments disagreeing with everything I said.
From what I've read and found on the internet, news, etc is that ISIS is technically an army. They control territory, they have strong weapons / armor, and they have a flag and uniforms. I assume if they maintain that territory, soon they will end up forming a country. And once you have a country, you have more power and are even stronger.
I learned a couple years ago about Islam, and how it was formed by some nobody called Muhammad. He goes around telling people about a dream he had where he saw God (Allah), and some believe him. That isn't enough. The word Islam means "surrender", too, btw. So, he and the followers he obtained go around forcing people to convert. The victim has options: 1, submit and convert to Islam. 2, Pay a big fee and be let go. 3, get killed.
But, there are good things to this new-found religion. Do good deeds for you community, nature, and humans. Believe and respect your God, superior, parents, etc.. Unfortunately, you have the original followers used to killing and forcing their ideology and others. They move on to become the militant groups we know today (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc). The others see the good in the religion and follow it. They move on to become regular people, such as the Muslim family in your neighborhood that are just like anybody else. They have jobs, families, go to school, etc.
But there is still a big chunk of Islam that is the people that still follow the original technique of spreading it "Be like us or die", instead of, "Why don't you come down to the mosque / synagogue / church / whatever. You may understand what I am, and may even convert!"
If anybody on this forum is Islamic and is offended by this, please know that I am not bashing your religion. I am just stating facts about how it came to how it was today. And that is how Christianity was spread, too. Anybody remember the Crusades?
From what I've read and found on the internet, news, etc is that ISIS is technically an army. They control territory, they have strong weapons / armor, and they have a flag and uniforms. I assume if they maintain that territory, soon they will end up forming a country. And once you have a country, you have more power and are even stronger.
I learned a couple years ago about Islam, and how it was formed by some nobody called Muhammad. He goes around telling people about a dream he had where he saw God (Allah), and some believe him. That isn't enough. The word Islam means "surrender", too, btw. So, he and the followers he obtained go around forcing people to convert. The victim has options: 1, submit and convert to Islam. 2, Pay a big fee and be let go. 3, get killed.
But, there are good things to this new-found religion. Do good deeds for you community, nature, and humans. Believe and respect your God, superior, parents, etc.. Unfortunately, you have the original followers used to killing and forcing their ideology and others. They move on to become the militant groups we know today (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc). The others see the good in the religion and follow it. They move on to become regular people, such as the Muslim family in your neighborhood that are just like anybody else. They have jobs, families, go to school, etc.
But there is still a big chunk of Islam that is the people that still follow the original technique of spreading it "Be like us or die", instead of, "Why don't you come down to the mosque / synagogue / church / whatever. You may understand what I am, and may even convert!"
If anybody on this forum is Islamic and is offended by this, please know that I am not bashing your religion. I am just stating facts about how it came to how it was today. And that is how Christianity was spread, too. Anybody remember the Crusades?
| From what I've read and found on the internet, news, etc is that ISIS is technically an army. They control territory, they have strong weapons / armor, and they have a flag and uniforms. I assume if they maintain that territory, soon they will end up forming a country. And once you have a country, you have more power and are even stronger. |
Yep. That all might happen. Maybe Syria and Iraq will be conquered and will no longer exist.
Though if the IS does form a proper country... if they want to survive they'll have to get diplomatic and learn to trade resources with neighboring countries. And form relationships with countries that may or may not be Muslim.
| I learned a couple years ago about Islam... |
If you trace any popular religion back far enough, then they were all started by "some guy". Islam is no more strange than any other in that respect.
Where Islam is different, is that it is much more violent. Which is partly why there is constant turmoil and war in that region.
Of course... not all Muslims are violent. I've known and worked with several Muslims. They were all extremely pleasant and nice people. So I don't mean to clump a religion in with those that follow it. The 2 are different things.
And that's the crux of it. A lot of the people in that region may not be violent. And may be forced into following Islamic teachings for fear of their own lives, and not necessarily because it's what they want.
Same might even be true for the IS troops. If you were approached by that army and "recruited" -- would you really be able to say no without getting your throat cut?
So the "kill them all" philosophy is kind of fucked. It's actually a very difficult situation.
Islam is more violent right now but historically Christianity has been just as violent. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism seem to have clean slates though. Atheism is a tough one. Stalin used violence in his pursuit of atheism, but it's arguable that atheism was a means to an end -- he was only using it because he believed religion gave people a focal point to oppose the state. So it's not really fair to say that atheism has caused violence.
@chrisname, I can NOT agree more with you. While I'd say more than half the wars in history were because of conquest or greed, a LOT of wars are because of ideological and religious differences.
My views on religion is this:
Back in 3000 BC, people had religion to explain things. War is because of Mars, love is because of Aphrodite, etc. Then, around 1st century AD, Christianity is formed, which teaches loving your others and believing in the one in only god. It explains that everything is because of this "god". Most others past that are self-help (hinduism, buddhism, etc), excluding Islam which comes around 700 AD. In 1500s, Science starts to boom that explains stuff and makes sense and doesn't include "this is because a god did that". It logically explains how it happens. And present day, Science has become so advanced and broad that we could find an explanation to most things.
We understand why and how these things are now. We don't need some guy telling us some other reason for it, because we have proof on how it happens.
Proof:
With telescopes and space capsules, we know that there ARE other solar systems, planets, galaxies, and with this knowledge, it is common sense that in one of those solar systems, life was formed just like Earth. There was a planet with water and sunlight, and life formed.
BUUUTTTT religion (Christianity says this, not sure about others) says that we are the only life and solar system in all of existence, when we have proof that there other galaxies.
If you haven't already noticed I am clearly atheist. Unlike other extreme atheists, I honestly do not care what religion you are unless you are shoving in my face like a fascist asshole. Being in the South, I am vilified by most people in my school because I don't believe in god. Come on people. Grow up already.
My views on religion is this:
Back in 3000 BC, people had religion to explain things. War is because of Mars, love is because of Aphrodite, etc. Then, around 1st century AD, Christianity is formed, which teaches loving your others and believing in the one in only god. It explains that everything is because of this "god". Most others past that are self-help (hinduism, buddhism, etc), excluding Islam which comes around 700 AD. In 1500s, Science starts to boom that explains stuff and makes sense and doesn't include "this is because a god did that". It logically explains how it happens. And present day, Science has become so advanced and broad that we could find an explanation to most things.
We understand why and how these things are now. We don't need some guy telling us some other reason for it, because we have proof on how it happens.
Proof:
With telescopes and space capsules, we know that there ARE other solar systems, planets, galaxies, and with this knowledge, it is common sense that in one of those solar systems, life was formed just like Earth. There was a planet with water and sunlight, and life formed.
BUUUTTTT religion (Christianity says this, not sure about others) says that we are the only life and solar system in all of existence, when we have proof that there other galaxies.
If you haven't already noticed I am clearly atheist. Unlike other extreme atheists, I honestly do not care what religion you are unless you are shoving in my face like a fascist asshole. Being in the South, I am vilified by most people in my school because I don't believe in god. Come on people. Grow up already.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Islam is more violent right now but historically Christianity has been just as violent. |
No... I don't mean people using Islam/religion to be violent. Anyone can use anything to be violent. That's not the point. I'm talking about the religion itself.
The teachings of the Qur'an are much more violent than the teachings of the Christian Bible. Jesus's teachings are about acceptance, forgiveness, and loving your neighbor. Muhammad's teachings are about killing those who do not follow.
EDIT: toned down language a tiny bit.
Last edited on
| The teachings of the Qur'an are much more violent than the teachings of the Christian Bible. Jesus's teachings are about acceptance, forgiveness, and loving your neighbor. Muhammad's teachings are about slaughtering anyone who does not follow. It actually instructs to do that. |
I don't know anything about the Qur'an, but in the old Testament, God, ordered and condoned a heck of a lot of violence/mass slaughter of innocent people, condoned slavery, said it was fine to sell your daughter into slavery, etc. The bible includes God ordered murder for working on Sunday, for having sex before marriage, being gay, cursing your parents, not-listening to priests, being a witch, not believing in god, following other religions, speaking blasphemy, etc. The bible is full of murder being commanded by God for all kinds of reasons.
Last edited on
@Disch, yeah, but have you ever met one of those extremist Christians? There are a couple in my school and they practically hate you if you are gay or are atheist.
I'm sure the Qu'ran is strict about certain peoples too, but the thing is, Muslims in America (the normal, non-militant ones) don't really say anything if you are against something in the Qu'ran, due to being scared because most Americans hate every Islamic person because of 9/11. If they do say something, then everyone thinks they are a terrorist plotting to destroy USA.
With Christians, they feel free to scold you for being against a Bible teaching because, not only is Christianity the most popular religion in the world, but because us Americans don't hate Christians.
IMO, the only difference between a radical Christian and ISIS is that Christians aren't killing each other. They are still being fascists who are forcing you to believe their beliefs. Some even do murder others because of heretical religion.
I'm sure the Qu'ran is strict about certain peoples too, but the thing is, Muslims in America (the normal, non-militant ones) don't really say anything if you are against something in the Qu'ran, due to being scared because most Americans hate every Islamic person because of 9/11. If they do say something, then everyone thinks they are a terrorist plotting to destroy USA.
With Christians, they feel free to scold you for being against a Bible teaching because, not only is Christianity the most popular religion in the world, but because us Americans don't hate Christians.
IMO, the only difference between a radical Christian and ISIS is that Christians aren't killing each other. They are still being fascists who are forcing you to believe their beliefs. Some even do murder others because of heretical religion.