ISIS Declares Islamic State.

[Rue]

-1 your posts were well stated and went zip over the head of yet another arm chair expert on ISIS.

Using Big Guy's attempt to explain and justify (rationalize) ISIS he uses in my opinion a ridiculous attempt to suggest the descendants of Christian psychopaths today have no right to criticize present day ISIS psychopaths. That is the logical inference from his trying to compare the past with the present. After all, today's ISIS is no worse or different than yesterday's Christian. There then. No problem.

There are his comments for all to see. Cutting off heads..its no the big deal, the Japanese did it. Come on its war as Big Guy says. Come on, everyone does it. You know the reasoning....how bad can it be, everyone does it. Did you know something becomes no big deal because others do it too. Brilliant.

Unfortunately -1 you are trying to explain colour to a blind man or the tone of a note to a deaf man. Not goingto happen.

Trying to explain the implications of terrorist extremist to someone who lives in cushy, soft, protected la la land is not possible. To make your point you would need to pull Big Guy out of his reality and place him face to face with ISIS. What I would personally like is for every terrorist apologist on this forum to be forced to clean up the dead bodies and the aftermath of bomb spray. Unfortunately until some people are rudely awaken they will remain on this forum and in the bed-rooms living in a virtual reality...a cacoon that protects them from dealing with the chaos and cruelty of the real world. The internet provides them an instant answer to it all.

You know what really bugs me -1, the soldiers that actually have to put their lives on the line fighting ISIS so people like Big Guy can be born into a world of freedoms they completely take for granted. He clearly from his comments about Germans has no clue that people had to die to combat the fanaticisim of Nazism, Japanese nationalism and now Muslim extremism.

He's got no clue.. He's so oblivious to history and reasoning he can't understand the people of Germany during WW2 and the people of Germany today are different people. He has no clue that the "good Germans" he talks of are not "good" or "bad" just people in subsequent generations to the Nazi generation and so not directly responsible for the holocaust or the evils of Hitler and the Germans who supported him but have a choice, to remember the sins of their forefathers to assure they are never repeated, or to ignore them and evolve right back to where they once were.

He does not understand Germans, Japanese, all of us are part of a world where we can choose to live civilly and respectfully or as primal apes bashing each other in the head with clubs.

I think -1 the collapse of US world leadership has created the vacuum for ISIS and other Muslim extremism to flourish not to mention Putin's expansionist moves to recapture the old Soviet Union.

In the vacuum of leadership caused by Obama's laissez faire approach, such phenomena now grow out of control.

Unfortunately nature abhors a vacuum or imbalance and the longer Obama hides from the world stage the more weight will be placed on the next US president to compensate for Obama's failures and restore the delicate balance.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Rue -10.

[Big Guy]

...

It would almost be more understandable if they'd do horrible things because they believe in their cause. Not because some Mullah them a cheque.

...

I hope these guys get defeated then we get the heck out of there and let those folks decide what they want.

I do not understand the horror of the "horrible things" that they do. This is a war. Is decapitation any more horrible than getting your body torn apart with shrapnel and lying there as you see your insides on the outside and you bleeding out? How about getting irradiated and watching your skin peel off and melt? I agree that this "outrageous" way of killing enemies on video is a marketing tool and probably less painful than my other two examples.

And, "People from the the West could find a lot better and safer ways to make money that going into the crappiest places on earth to kill innocent civilians. They could accomplish that here by selling Heroine. " - Are you referring to those individuals from the West who go over to join those armies or those troops that we send there?

[Boges]

I do not understand the horror of the "horrible things" that they do. This is a war. Is decapitation any more horrible than getting your body torn apart with shrapnel and lying there as you see your insides on the outside and you bleeding out? How about getting irradiated and watching your skin peel off and melt? I agree that this "outrageous" way of killing enemies on video is a marketing tool and probably less painful than my other two examples.

Dying from Nuclear fall-out or shrapnel is a lot different from summary executions of civilians. Stop using the bombing of Hiroshima as a moral equivalence of what's going on here. The Japanese invaded half the world and refused to surrender when they were obviously beaten. The only way to defeat a group of people that were willing to sacrifice every single civilians in order to sustain honour is to bomb them into oblivion.

If you're going to compare what ISIS is doing to something in WW2 look up the Batan Death March or the Malmedy Massacre.

And, "People from the the West could find a lot better and safer ways to make money that going into the crappiest places on earth to kill innocent civilians. They could accomplish that here by selling Heroine. " - Are you referring to those individuals from the West who go over to join those armies or those troops that we send there?

Yes somehow Westerners are getting radicalized here and going there to fight for Islam. Which is why I'm appalled that JT went to that Montreal Mosque that would have a comparable theological slant as ISIS.

[Big Guy]

Dying from Nuclear fall-out or shrapnel is a lot different from summary executions of civilians. Stop using the bombing of Hiroshima as a moral equivalence of what's going on here. The Japanese invaded half the world and refused to surrender when they were obviously beaten. The only way to defeat a group of people that were willing to sacrifice every single civilians in order to sustain honour is to bomb them into oblivion.

If you're going to compare what ISIS is doing to something in WW2 look up the Batan Death March or the Malmedy Massacre.

Yes somehow Westerners are getting radicalized here and going there to fight for Islam. Which is why I'm appalled that JT went to that Montreal Mosque that would have a comparable theological slant as ISIS.

Moral equivalence is up to each individual.

"The only way to defeat a group of people that were willing to sacrifice every single civilians in order to sustain honour is to bomb them into oblivion. " Is that your solution for ISIS?

[Big Guy]

...

He's got no clue.. He's so oblivious to history and reasoning he can't understand

...

There are posters on this board who I feel have the wrong clues. For them, I read their passionate but at times incoherent and mistaken missives and move on. It works for me.

[Topaz]

I'm not one for going to war, but, the latest news on this group, I think NATO , should put the Ukraine in the background and send in about 200,000 troops to take out the 80,000-100,000 ISIS. So, any of you agree or disagree with NATO going in???

[Boges]

Moral equivalence is up to each individual.

"The only way to defeat a group of people that were willing to sacrifice every single civilians in order to sustain honour is to bomb them into oblivion. " Is that your solution for ISIS?

No because ISIS doesn't seem to pose an imminent threat to the West. Their goal is in their name, they want an Islamic state for Iraq and Syria.

Re-invading Iraq at this point would be bad form.

Japan, On the Other Hand started a World War.

[GostHacked]

No because ISIS doesn't seem to pose an imminent threat to the West. Their goal is in their name, they want an Islamic state for Iraq and Syria.

Re-invading Iraq at this point would be bad form.

Japan, On the Other Hand started a World War.

I thought Germany started it?

[Boges]

I thought Germany started it?

Tag team effort. Germany started it in Europe, Italy in Africa and Japan in Asian and North America.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not one for going to war, but, the latest news on this group, I think NATO , should put the Ukraine in the background and send in about 200,000 troops to take out the 80,000-100,000 ISIS. So, any of you agree or disagree with NATO going in???

No thanks....anytime NATO do-gooders want to do something like that means the U.S. will bear most of the cost in blood and treasure. Better to spend it on oil !

[GostHacked]

Tag team effort. Germany started it in Europe, Italy in Africa and Japan in Asian and North America.

Well good on you for a clarification (when tasked to do so). Japan was a contributor to the war but did not start WWI.

[Boges]

Well good on you for a clarification (when tasked to do so). Japan was a contributor to the war but did not start WWI.

Well they threw the first punch against the USA which made the war truly Global. Japan was also the aggressor in a war against China long before Germany invaded Poland.

[GostHacked]

Well they threw the first punch against the USA which made the war truly Global. Japan was also the aggressor in a war against China long before Germany invaded Poland.

So it's only global if the US gets involved?

[Boges]

So it's only global if the US gets involved?

This is massive thread drift but on December 7, 1941 Japan dragged half the world into the conflict, Not just the USA.

The point is, comparing ISIS's treatment of civilians to the USA's in the face of a war with Japan is faulty logic. Japan was bent on world domination. At this point ISIS is only interested in Syria and Iraq which are fake countries to begin with.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

This is massive thread drift but on December 7, 1942 Japan dragged half the world into the conflict, Not just the USA.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was December 7, 1941.

The point is, comparing ISIS's treatment of civilians to the USA's in the face of a war with Japan is faulty logic. Japan was bent on world domination. At this point ISIS is only interested in Syria and Iraq which are fake countries to begin with.

Agreed...see Godwin's Law.

[Big Guy]

... At this point ISIS is only interested in Syria and Iraq which are fake countries to begin with.

So then why should anybody in the West (and especially Canada) get involved?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why ? Because of "human rights" and the "Responsibility to Protect" and lots of other Canadian "values". Just ask Michael Ignatieff....he's back at Harvard writing books all about it.

[Boges]

So then why should anybody in the West (and especially Canada) get involved?

I think protecting the interests created post the Iraq War is important. But no I don't think the US should put boots in the ground to fight ISIS. Where's the Arab world to fight against such a threat.

The west didn't intervene in Rwanda or Darfur.

[Solidarity]

Why ? Because of "human rights" and the "Responsibility to Protect" and lots of other Canadian "values". Just ask Michael Ignatieff....he's back at Harvard writing books all about it.

The west doesn't conduct foreign policy based on any of these platonic ideals. They are just used in the PR campaign to justify whatever action we take.

[jbg]

You do digress. Isis should be blown off the face of the planet.

At least we agree on something. Back in the day, if word got out that "savages" somewhere had beheaded Europeans, there would be hell to pay. I don't know why that should be any different now.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not one for going to war, but, the latest news on this group, I think NATO , should put the Ukraine in the background and send in about 200,000 troops to take out the 80,000-100,000 ISIS. So, any of you agree or disagree with NATO going in???

I don't agree. For one, it is expensive. Secondly, what exactly would the end goal be? Thirdly, (and this is the most important) ISIS would benefit from NATO invading Iraq and Syria. They would claim that the crusaders are invading Muslim lands and use various parts of the Quran and other Islamic texts to justify their actions and get more recruits.

The best solution would have been to avoid the ISIS situation in the first place by not idiotically funding Islamist rebels in Syria. Unfortunately, we cannot change the past. As it stands, it is a far better option to let regional powers (Turkey, Kurds, Shia Iraqis, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) deal with it. Not only is it a cheaper option, but if ISIS is fighting against primarily muslim countries rather than primarily non-muslim western countries then it becomes much harder for them to justify their actions and use theology in order to gain more recruits.

Their goal is in their name, they want an Islamic state for Iraq and Syria.

Didn't they change their name to just 'Islamic State'.

Their goal is much more than an Islamic state for Iraq and Syria. They want to create a global Islamic Caliphate and impose Sharia on everyone.

[-1=e^ipi]

Japan was bent on world domination. At this point ISIS is only interested in Syria and Iraq which are fake countries to begin with.

Imperial Japan was never about world domination. Establishing an empire that controlled the Asia-Pacific area, sure. But not the entire world.

ISIS on the other hand, does want world domination. And not only that, they think that it has been prophetized to occur in the islamic texts and that it is their duty under god to take over the world.

[dre]

I'm not one for going to war, but, the latest news on this group, I think NATO , should put the Ukraine in the background and send in about 200,000 troops to take out the 80,000-100,000 ISIS. So, any of you agree or disagree with NATO going in???

That would be a huge mistake. This problem is in large part the RESULT of such stupidity. We would be fighting these people in towns and cities full of Sunnis, many of whom support them. It would be another ugly insugency probably lasting years and another nation building excersize.

When everything you do turns out terrible and makes things worse, sometimes you are just better of keeping your hands to yourself.

We COULD provide aid to the Iraqi government, the turks, and the kurds, and the Syrian government to make sure ISIS doesnt start taking other parts of the levant, but beyond that theres nothing we can do that would be helpful in the long term.

Edited September 3, 2014 by dre

[dre]

The best solution would have been to avoid the ISIS situation in the first place by not idiotically funding Islamist rebels in Syria.

That wouldnt have made much difference (still a good idea though). At the end of the day you still have 20 million Sunnis spread across both countries with virtually no political power or representation. This was inevitable the second Iraq was turned over to an Shia Iranian proxy.