Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah and who gives a crap if they hung these two terrorists or not? They were already on death row, the woman in particular for being part of an attack on a Jordanian hotel which killed 60 people. Shit, in my hometown there’s a guy who’s been on death row since the late 80’s and the crimes he committed against a small unarmed child would make for a good horror film but no one has the balls to end his life and he’s still alive almost thirty years later.

These ISIS terrorists are scum and should be treated as such. They cry when we bomb their “women and children” and yet showed a video of a little kid executing some Russians. If that’s the case, well your women and children are fair game. They burned this pilot alive and, as far as executing the two terrorists, sure it was an emotional response, sure it was a gut reaction and total revenge, but that’s the kind of thing ISIS understands, so I say go for it. After all Mohammad said attack your enemy the way they attack you, and finally, someone’s had the freaking balls to do it.[/quote]

The essence of democracy and Western idealism, universal freedom, is such that all lives are to be respected on a basic, fundamental level. This shouldn’t change even if the other guy commits something horrible.[/quote]

/End Thread[/quote]

except, of course Jordan is not considered a Western country, nor is a democracy, nor is it bound by idealism, & universal freedom.

502

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah and who gives a crap if they hung these two terrorists or not? They were already on death row, the woman in particular for being part of an attack on a Jordanian hotel which killed 60 people. Shit, in my hometown there’s a guy who’s been on death row since the late 80’s and the crimes he committed against a small unarmed child would make for a good horror film but no one has the balls to end his life and he’s still alive almost thirty years later.

These ISIS terrorists are scum and should be treated as such. They cry when we bomb their “women and children” and yet showed a video of a little kid executing some Russians. If that’s the case, well your women and children are fair game. They burned this pilot alive and, as far as executing the two terrorists, sure it was an emotional response, sure it was a gut reaction and total revenge, but that’s the kind of thing ISIS understands, so I say go for it. After all Mohammad said attack your enemy the way they attack you, and finally, someone’s had the freaking balls to do it.[/quote]

The essence of democracy and Western idealism, universal freedom, is such that all lives are to be respected on a basic, fundamental level. This shouldn’t change even if the other guy commits something horrible.[/quote]

/End Thread[/quote]

except, of course Jordan is not considered a Western country, nor is a democracy, nor is it bound by idealism, & universal freedom.
[/quote]

I would call unquestioning belief in the Islamic faith and monarchy in the 21st century more idealist than universal rights which creates the most prosperous and strong nations and societies.

503

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Gkhan, you obviously disagree with the U.S. taking action against Qadaffi, but are you saying we should have actively supported him, provided him with arms, or intervened on his behalf? Or just stayed the fuck out of it?

I will say, from my perspective, there is pretty strong evidence that that fucker directly ordered C4 planted on a Pan Am flight that killed over 100 americans and that contributed to the demise of a great american airline, not to mention the German Disco he bombed. He also had direct ties to Moscow during the cold war and was at least as plugged in to Moscow as Castro was. He might have softened his tune in later years after getting crushed by sanctions and after the wall came down, but I just don’t see how we could provide arms or support to someone responsible for downing a U.S. commercial airliner with over 100 americans on it. Frankly, that’s not an act that I can forgive.

Generally, if two sides to a conflict are lead by terrorists or strongly connected to terrorists, I don’t see why we should be providing military support to either side. Qadaffi was a terrorist who committed terrorist acts–maybe the second worst terrorist act in U.S. history–directly against the U.S. and there was a reason Reagan ordered bombs dropped on that fucker’s house. [/quote]

None of that about Gaddafi matters because he made a deal with the British / US governments and kept his word. He was 100% compliant and Obama / Hillary back stabbed and murdered him.

Today, 21 Christians beheaded in Libya:

504

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Gkhan, you obviously disagree with the U.S. taking action against Qadaffi, but are you saying we should have actively supported him, provided him with arms, or intervened on his behalf? Or just stayed the fuck out of it?

I will say, from my perspective, there is pretty strong evidence that that fucker directly ordered C4 planted on a Pan Am flight that killed over 100 americans and that contributed to the demise of a great american airline, not to mention the German Disco he bombed. He also had direct ties to Moscow during the cold war and was at least as plugged in to Moscow as Castro was. He might have softened his tune in later years after getting crushed by sanctions and after the wall came down, but I just don’t see how we could provide arms or support to someone responsible for downing a U.S. commercial airliner with over 100 americans on it. Frankly, that’s not an act that I can forgive.

Generally, if two sides to a conflict are lead by terrorists or strongly connected to terrorists, I don’t see why we should be providing military support to either side. Qadaffi was a terrorist who committed terrorist acts–maybe the second worst terrorist act in U.S. history–directly against the U.S. and there was a reason Reagan ordered bombs dropped on that fucker’s house. [/quote]

None of that about Gaddafi matters because he made a deal with the British / US governments and kept his word. He was 100% compliant and Obama / Hillary back stabbed and murdered him.

Today, 21 Christians beheaded in Libya:

Having seen a lot of your posts and agreeing with most of them if not 100%, at least the broad context of what you are stating in most of them, I disagree with this one.

There were pro democracy movements that that murderous tyrant tortured and massacred, the British even allegedly handing over Libyan dissidents to the regime.
This whole dictator or jihadists thing is something I think is a false dichotomy.

Also why are those 12 Christians lives worth more than the thousands taken by the regime? Gadaffi was just as bad as ISIS, some of his crimes, including funding terrorism that killed women and children overseas, the sickening torture of thousands of his own citizens, the hoarding of hundreds of millions for him and his family, the list goes on and on and on.
People who claim it is either jihadists or dictators seem to ignore the fact the west often supports dictators who in turn crush secular and democratic opposition movements and leave jihadists as the only alternative when the regime inevitably falls.

505

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Gkhan, you obviously disagree with the U.S. taking action against Qadaffi, but are you saying we should have actively supported him, provided him with arms, or intervened on his behalf? Or just stayed the fuck out of it?

I will say, from my perspective, there is pretty strong evidence that that fucker directly ordered C4 planted on a Pan Am flight that killed over 100 americans and that contributed to the demise of a great american airline, not to mention the German Disco he bombed. He also had direct ties to Moscow during the cold war and was at least as plugged in to Moscow as Castro was. He might have softened his tune in later years after getting crushed by sanctions and after the wall came down, but I just don’t see how we could provide arms or support to someone responsible for downing a U.S. commercial airliner with over 100 americans on it. Frankly, that’s not an act that I can forgive.

Generally, if two sides to a conflict are lead by terrorists or strongly connected to terrorists, I don’t see why we should be providing military support to either side. Qadaffi was a terrorist who committed terrorist acts–maybe the second worst terrorist act in U.S. history–directly against the U.S. and there was a reason Reagan ordered bombs dropped on that fucker’s house. [/quote]

None of that about Gaddafi matters because he made a deal with the British / US governments and kept his word. He was 100% compliant and Obama / Hillary back stabbed and murdered him.

Today, 21 Christians beheaded in Libya:

Having seen a lot of your posts and agreeing with most of them if not 100%, at least the broad context of what you are stating in most of them, I disagree with this one.

There were pro democracy movements that that murderous tyrant tortured and massacred, the British even allegedly handing over Libyan dissidents to the regime.
This whole dictator or jihadists thing is something I think is a false dichotomy.

Also why are those 12 Christians lives worth more than the thousands taken by the regime? Gadaffi was just as bad as ISIS, some of his crimes, including funding terrorism that killed women and children overseas, the sickening torture of thousands of his own citizens, the hoarding of hundreds of millions for him and his family, the list goes on and on and on.
People who claim it is either jihadists or dictators seem to ignore the fact the west often supports dictators who in turn crush secular and democratic opposition movements and leave jihadists as the only alternative when the regime inevitably falls.
[/quote]

He was a staunch post-911 ally. Obama was shaking hands with him at the G8 Summit in 2009! Then a few months later that maniac Hillary is cackling away as NATO helped lynch him and his sons. It was a stupid, treacherous act and it made the place worse.

506

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Gkhan, you obviously disagree with the U.S. taking action against Qadaffi, but are you saying we should have actively supported him, provided him with arms, or intervened on his behalf? Or just stayed the fuck out of it?

I will say, from my perspective, there is pretty strong evidence that that fucker directly ordered C4 planted on a Pan Am flight that killed over 100 americans and that contributed to the demise of a great american airline, not to mention the German Disco he bombed. He also had direct ties to Moscow during the cold war and was at least as plugged in to Moscow as Castro was. He might have softened his tune in later years after getting crushed by sanctions and after the wall came down, but I just don’t see how we could provide arms or support to someone responsible for downing a U.S. commercial airliner with over 100 americans on it. Frankly, that’s not an act that I can forgive.

Generally, if two sides to a conflict are lead by terrorists or strongly connected to terrorists, I don’t see why we should be providing military support to either side. Qadaffi was a terrorist who committed terrorist acts–maybe the second worst terrorist act in U.S. history–directly against the U.S. and there was a reason Reagan ordered bombs dropped on that fucker’s house. [/quote]

None of that about Gaddafi matters because he made a deal with the British / US governments and kept his word. He was 100% compliant and Obama / Hillary back stabbed and murdered him.

Today, 21 Christians beheaded in Libya:

Having seen a lot of your posts and agreeing with most of them if not 100%, at least the broad context of what you are stating in most of them, I disagree with this one.

There were pro democracy movements that that murderous tyrant tortured and massacred, the British even allegedly handing over Libyan dissidents to the regime.
This whole dictator or jihadists thing is something I think is a false dichotomy.

Also why are those 12 Christians lives worth more than the thousands taken by the regime? Gadaffi was just as bad as ISIS, some of his crimes, including funding terrorism that killed women and children overseas, the sickening torture of thousands of his own citizens, the hoarding of hundreds of millions for him and his family, the list goes on and on and on.
People who claim it is either jihadists or dictators seem to ignore the fact the west often supports dictators who in turn crush secular and democratic opposition movements and leave jihadists as the only alternative when the regime inevitably falls.
[/quote]

He was a staunch post-911 ally. Obama was shaking hands with him at the G8 Summit in 2009! Then a few months later that maniac Hillary is cackling away as NATO helped lynch him and his sons. It was a stupid, treacherous act and it made the place worse.[/quote]

Worse how? For whom?

The regime was just as bad for the Libyans as ISIS affiliated Jihadists are.

507

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Worse how? For whom?

[/quote]

For the Libyans? Particularly the ones getting decapitated?

[quote]

The regime was just as bad for the Libyans as ISIS affiliated Jihadists are.[/quote]

If you think post-911 Gaddafi was worse than ISIS for anyone then you have much to learn.

508

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Worse how? For whom?

[/quote]

For the Libyans? Particularly the ones getting decapitated?

[quote]

The regime was just as bad for the Libyans as ISIS affiliated Jihadists are.[/quote]

If you think post-911 Gaddafi was worse than ISIS for anyone then you have much to learn.[/quote]

For the thousands being tortured in his jails or killed by his death squads he was worse than the jihadists. If you disagree you must be choosing not to see that fact.

509

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Worse how? For whom?

[/quote]

For the Libyans? Particularly the ones getting decapitated?

[quote]

The regime was just as bad for the Libyans as ISIS affiliated Jihadists are.[/quote]

If you think post-911 Gaddafi was worse than ISIS for anyone then you have much to learn.[/quote]

For the thousands being tortured in his jails or killed by his death squads he was worse than the jihadists. If you disagree you must be choosing not to see that fact.[/quote]

Look I know you’ve got some agenda. You want to defeat all the world’s tyrants in the name of liberalism or something. That’s great. But in the real world the facts are Gaddafi made a deal with the West and post-911 behaved himself and Libya became the richest state in Africa with a rising standard of living and education and a developing economy. Some treacherous, stupid liberals in the British Foreign Office and US State Dept suddenly attacked him and had him and most his family lynched. Libya is now a failed state with no real central authority and a patchwork of militias and Islamic fundamentalists(now ISIS) creating havoc. So no, no one is better off now.

510

So, SexMachine, if bin Laden had escaped capture, got sick of hiding out, let a little time pass, said he was sorry, shook the President’s hand and promised to be a good boy, should we have given him a free pass? My answer is no. Same with Qadaffi.

On the other hand, I generally agree that the U.S. should keep promises, even if making the promise was a stupid mistake. With regard to Qadaffi, even if we promised not to kill him, I still would not have provided that cocksucker with military aid or air support. I’m sorry, once you blow up a commercial airliner killing over 100 U.S. citizens, you don’t get U.S. air support, even if a lot of time passes and you shake the President’s hand. I just don’t see how we can do that.

511

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
So, SexMachine, if bin Laden had escaped capture, got sick of hiding out, let a little time pass, said he was sorry, shook the President’s hand and promised to be a good boy, should we have given him a free pass? My answer is no. Same with Qadaffi.

On the other hand, I generally agree that the U.S. should keep promises, even if making the promise was a stupid mistake. With regard to Qadaffi, even if we promised not to kill him, I still would not have provided that cocksucker with military aid or air support. I’m sorry, once you blow up a commercial airliner killing over 100 U.S. citizens, you don’t get U.S. air support, even if a lot of time passes and you shake the President’s hand. I just don’t see how we can do that. [/quote]

That’s a silly comparison. Gaddafi was not bin Laden. I’m just stating facts about what’s in the best interests of the West and the natives. I warned right here from the start what would happen when they turned on Gaddafi. Within weeks the Islamic fundamentalists had desecrated all the Australian war graves in the country for one thing:

Then the Benghazi attacks. Now ISIS and dozens of Christians being decapitated because they’re Christians. So no, I don’t give a shit what Gaddafi did back in the 90’s nor about the dirty deals he made with Blair and others, I’m only interested in stability and killing off the Islamic fundamentalists.

512

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m only interested in stability and killing off the Islamic fundamentalists.
[/quote]

I get that.

513

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
He was a staunch post-911 ally. Obama was shaking hands with him at the G8 Summit in 2009! Then a few months later that maniac Hillary is cackling away as NATO helped lynch him and his sons. It was a stupid, treacherous act and it made the place worse.[/quote]

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

Or maybe not. But if not…why? In other words, you say that nobody is better off for our having intervened, despite the fact that, objectively, violence in the country plummeted once the civil war died down with our help. Say we don’t intervene in 2011. What exactly do you think happens? What does Libya look like today? And how exactly is this better for us?

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.

514

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m only interested in stability and killing off the Islamic fundamentalists.
[/quote]

Right. And the intervention made Libya more stable. If not, by what measurement? Violence fell and, even with the rise in the last year, is ten-fold less than what it was then. It is fragmented now…it was fragmented then. It is at war now…it was more intensely at war then. What exactly makes you think that Libya would be more stable than it is today if we hadn’t intervened in 2011? What exactly makes you think that to treat Libya as we did Syria would have gotten us a better result?

515

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Worse how? For whom?

[/quote]

For the Libyans? Particularly the ones getting decapitated?

[quote]

The regime was just as bad for the Libyans as ISIS affiliated Jihadists are.[/quote]

If you think post-911 Gaddafi was worse than ISIS for anyone then you have much to learn.[/quote]

For the thousands being tortured in his jails or killed by his death squads he was worse than the jihadists. If you disagree you must be choosing not to see that fact.[/quote]

Look I know you’ve got some agenda. You want to defeat all the world’s tyrants in the name of liberalism or something. That’s great. But in the real world the facts are Gaddafi made a deal with the West and post-911 behaved himself and Libya became the richest state in Africa with a rising standard of living and education and a developing economy. Some treacherous, stupid liberals in the British Foreign Office and US State Dept suddenly attacked him and had him and most his family lynched. Libya is now a failed state with no real central authority and a patchwork of militias and Islamic fundamentalists(now ISIS) creating havoc. So no, no one is better off now.[/quote]

You claimed ISIS affiliated jihadists were worse especially for the recent christians beheaded. I merely employed your logic and stated that Gadaffi was worse for the thousands of tortured, disappeared and executed by his regime.

As for agenda, yeah everyone has one, it is impossible to not have one, I think my agenda of being pro free speech, secular democracy, pro strong military, anti dictatorship is a great agenda.
You have an agenda too, your claims that lots of Iranians supported the Shah of Iran would hint at which agenda you have.
Again I enjoy your posts I just disagree on this one mate. Nothing personal in it, if I gave that impression it was not intentional.

516

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

[quote]

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it.

517

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

[quote]

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]

A bit off topic sex a,chine but I was wondering about your description of the the term Mahdist uprising but ISIS and their affiliates follow plain Wahhabism, they are not claiming the prophesied one, they do not claim to follow the guided one as all Madhist movements and rebels have.

ISIS don’t claim prophecy, they are not following a Mahdi. So how can they be labeled as such?

518

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m only interested in stability and killing off the Islamic fundamentalists.
[/quote]

Right. And the intervention made Libya more stable. If not, by what measurement? Violence fell and, even with the rise in the last year, is ten-fold less than what it was then. It is fragmented now…it was fragmented then. It is at war now…it was more intensely at war then. What exactly makes you think that Libya would be more stable than it is today if we hadn’t intervened in 2011? What exactly makes you think that to treat Libya as we did Syria would have gotten us a better result?[/quote]

The “rise” last year is a civil war. A civil war in which ISIS now seems to be deeply involved. I’m not interested in what ifs and so on. It’s blatantly obvious this shitstorm stems from taking out Gaddafi and I said at the time that all this would happen.

519

Obama did not start the civil war, this is like when McCarthyists would blame black riots on outside agitators. The arab spring in general and Libya specifically was local civillians organising and trying to kill a dictator. Obama is not the bloody antichrist.

520

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not interested in what ifs and so on.[/quote]

Oh, so you’re not interested in discussing whether or not the intervention was better or worse than its alternatives. OK, don’t then.