ISIS - Are we doing enough? (3 Viewers)

[bangladesh]

130k civilians in a decade long war. that's around 13k a year, which INCLUDES numbers killed by insurgents not just coalition troops you mong. In the past 130k would die within a month of a 'real' war.

You're too thick srsly, the whole point I was making was about the fact that civilians die and that causes more outrage and hate leading to a vicious cycle. Also 13k a year is a very large number. I dont care about the past but thats 130k people that would have been alive right now.

 

[isildurrrr1]

You're too thick srsly, the whole point I was making was about the fact that civilians die and that causes more outrage and hate leading to a vicious cycle. Also 13k a year is a very large number. I dont care about the past but thats 130k people that would have been alive right now.

Yeah and the 13k are caused by whom exactly? Definitely isn't US troops shooting up civilians for shits and giggles. Mostly local insurgents killing their own people.

If we stood by and did nothing a lot more would be slaughtered, exactly the situation were seeing with ISIS. If the western world stood by, you'd see a genocide against the kurds, yazidis and shiites.

The casualties of the Syrian civil war is already 150k and displacing MILLIONS of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

This is exactly what happens when you don't intervene in sectarian violence. People seemed to fucking forget Assad gassed his own people and the were clamouring western governments for intervention during 2011-2012. Or would you have everyone standby because omg civilian casualties will happen welcome to fucking war, it ain't pretty and it's worst than hell. Remember the last time the west decided to go 'meh' on a conflict? Yeah Rwandan genocide happened.

If the western governments wanted to really glass Raqqa, they can easily do it. That city can be flattened in a day if it was deemed necessary.

 

[bangladesh]

Yeah and the 13k are caused by whom exactly? Definitely isn't US troops shooting up civilians for shits and giggles. Mostly local insurgents killing their own people.

If we stood by and did nothing a lot more would be slaughtered, exactly the situation were seeing with ISIS. If the western world stood by, you'd see a genocide against the kurds, yazidis and shiites.

The casualties of the Syrian civil war is already 150k and displacing MILLIONS of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

This is exactly what happens when you don't intervene in sectarian violence. People seemed to fucking forget Assad gassed his own people and the were clamouring western governments for intervention during 2011-2012. Or would you have everyone standby because omg civilian casualties will happen welcome to fucking war, it ain't pretty and it's worst than hell. Remember the last time the west decided to go 'meh' on a conflict? Yeah Rwandan genocide happened.

If the western governments wanted to really glass Raqqa, they can easily do it. That city can be flattened in a day if it was deemed necessary.

lol you just don't get it. gg

 

[turntaker]

It's actually well documented that Turkey is helping rebels in Syria, even going to the extent of helping rebel groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda affiliates and ISIS... In return, they have been able to obtain enormous profits from oil revenues and contain a hostile Kurdish population... In fact, Turkish border patrols and intelligence, allowed the mastermind of the recent Paris attacks to cross the border of Turkey and Syria on multiple occasions, but yet, they see a Russian front line bomber as a bigger threat, the question is why? Because Turkey has everything to gain from instability in Syria and Iraq... Those things I mentioned are just the tip of the ice berg... Turkey does not belong in NATO...

true

 

[isildurrrr1]

lol you just don't get it. gg

yeah we should stand by and let people get slaughtered innit.

good one.

 

[Kolmias]

yeah we should stand by and let people get slaughtered innit.

good one.

It isn't our place to intervene. It does not mutually benefit our interests.

 

[isildurrrr1]

It isn't our place to intervene. It does not mutually benefit our interests.

Yes it is. Ever fucking heard of responsibility to protect?

 

[nerdasdasd]

Yes it is. Ever fucking heard of responsibility to protect?

Protect who? Lol

We end up killing more civilians than terrorists (referring to the Middle East)

 

[sinophile]

kill muslims: muslims joins ISIS, ISIS wins
dont kill muslims: ISIS continues to commit terrorist acts. ISIS wins

checkmate westheists

 

[isildurrrr1]

protect who? Lol

we end up killing more civilians than terrorists (referring to the middle east)

bahahaahhaahhaahaha

 

[nerdasdasd]

bahahaahhaahhaahaha

What's so funny ?

The amount of people killed in air strikes isn't even broadcasted but if you have so many air strikes... Of course thousands of families / civilians / kids will get killed

Also the people dying of hunger and famine as well

 

[Kolmias]

Yes it is. Ever fucking heard of responsibility to protect?

Responsibility to protect whom? As they are foreign citizens, we have no obligation to 'protect them'.

 

[dan964]

You're too thick srsly, the whole point I was making was about the fact that civilians die and that causes more outrage and hate leading to a vicious cycle. Also 13k a year is a very large number. I dont care about the past but thats 130k people that would have been alive right now.

Irrelevant; no point trying to justify the actions of religious (or for that fact any) extremists by implying that intevention is worse; it isn't. The reason I made that jump; it because it seems to be a common argument; attributing the acts of ISIS to "Islamophobia"; there is no "Hindu-phobia" or "Christianophobia"; last time I checked (but there is anti-semitism though). Yes; hatred is not a solution; but neither is no action/non-intervention. But "Islamophobia" is hardly a cause for ISIS actions; last time I checked it was because (well at least according to liberals/apologetists) of them misinterpreting Islamic texts. It does add fuel to the fire; but so does applying labels like "Islamophobic" as increase the tension.

The West fights for its way of life; for global peace and for global security. ISIS is a threat to that; it wouldn't matter whether ISIS was a group of Hindu/Jewish or Christian radicals; which it isn't; it would still be an issue to world peace etc.

Responsibility to protect whom? As they are foreign citizens, we have no obligation to 'protect them'.

What's so funny ?

The amount of people killed in air strikes isn't even broadcasted but if you have so many air strikes... Of course thousands of families / civilians / kids will get killed

Also the people dying of hunger and famine as well

No it is not a laughing matter at all; but I don't think that justifies a "no-intervention matter". If we actually view terrorism as wrong; and extremism as wrong; and want to fight for those who are being oppressed, or for the minority; then we would take a stand; and not some childish stand that is ineffective; but a stand that involves action.

n.b. War happens because it is the country's best interests; for issues of national security; global peace and security etc. The whole reason World War 1 started for instance, was because Germany invaded neutral Belgium; which jeopardised peace and security.
Imagine what happens; if the Allies did not intervene.

There is also obligations maybe not to specific people groups; but for world peace etc. etc.

kill muslims: muslims joins ISIS, ISIS wins
dont kill muslims: ISIS continues to commit terrorist acts. ISIS wins

checkmate westheists

wrong;
The best option is not kill Muslims, unless of course if there is some justifiable reason*. (*for your average Muslim; they're isn't a reason FYI).
But instead wage war on ISIS and terrorism. Mind you, it would be extremely inaccurate or naive to suggest that Islam does not play an influence for these Islamists.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Responsibility to protect whom? As they are foreign citizens, we have no obligation to 'protect them'.

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS Report.pdf

learn 2 international relations noob.

 

[Kolmias]

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS Report.pdf

learn 2 international relations noob.

Are serious? Do you think all these little international organizations with all their petty agendas actually wield any actual power over sovereign nationstates?

No, they don't as they lack the power to back up their statements.

Any organization can make any claims, declarations, rulings or statements they like but, without the power to back it up, they are powerless.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Are serious? Do you think all these little international organizations with all their petty agendas actually wield any actual power over sovereign nationstates?

No, they don't as they lack the power to back up their statements.

Any organization can make any claims, declarations, rulings or statements they like but, without the power to back it up, they are powerless.

srsly. learn 2 international relations noob.

Countries have moved from a humanitarian intervention aspect to responsibility to protect. Libya airstrikes is an example of this. It's an agreement amongst sovereign states to do much more than to stand idly and let genocide occur.

 

[Kolmias]

srsly. learn 2 international relations noob.

Countries have moved from a humanitarian intervention aspect to responsibility to protect. Libya airstrikes is an example of this. It's an agreement amongst sovereign states to do much more than to stand idly and let genocide occur.

I probably know more about international relations then you.

Why should we waste resources and manpower protecting foreign citizens in an operation which provides no economic or political advantage to Australia? It is a pointless endeavor.

 

[wannaspoon]

No it's pretty much that simple. Daesh can only hold sunni areas in Iraq that essentially 'invite' them in. AQI got it's ass handed to them couple of years back and got booted out of a lot of places when they went 'fuck your sharia law'

You should really watch this...

although, it does not go into the details of foreign fighters, geopolitics outside the major parties, historical issues, etc...

Although you make valid points, there is a lot more complexity to this than simply saying Daesh rose because of a couple of pissed off Sunnis...

 

[isildurrrr1]

I probably know more about international relations then you.

Why should we waste resources and manpower protecting foreign citizens in an operation which provides no economic or political advantage to Australia? It is a pointless endeavor.

says the fucking year 10 kiddie. come back to me when you actually got a fucking degree in the field.

hurr durr 'i know more about ir than you' but never heard of R2P. top kek.

there are MAJOR MAJOR economic and political advantages of getting involved against ISIS. Why the fuck do you think every major power is getting their dick wet in the region?

 

[RenegadeMx]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-syria-idUSKBN0UB0BA20151229

so much for bahamas saying its another afghanistan lel