Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Jun 11, 2014.
i scrolled down to the video of BHL, lol'd and closed the page, sated
No that would be atrocious and anyone who would do such a thing should be eliminated with extreme prejudice by a cruise missile or black ops team blindfolding them and putting a bullet in the back of their head before dumping them in a shallow grave. It doesn't matter what gods or beliefs they have, no one has the right to force someone to accept a belief they do not choose freely.
I don't know why you think I would somehow be happy with such actions. It's disgusting and appalling no matter who does it.
As to why people are noticing it more now... there is a difference between persecution and genocide.
lol he says with no sense of irony.
Yes, and technically tomatoes are fruits. Yes, any support of something or someone is by definition to prop it up, but in general when one uses the expression of propping up dictatorships, the negative connotation of helping a tyrant against his own people is implied. In this case, it would be helping said dictatorship deal with an external threat that is bothering ordinary people as much as itself.
Except Malaki is a tyrant oppressing his own people: sunni iraqis.
Are you saying that the corrupt government in Baghdad is as bad as the IS, and that it makes no difference as a whole who is in charge, only the color (figuratively) of the people oppressed? Because it seems like that's what you're arguing.
Nope. I'm all for coexisting with all people, when some people refuse to coexist peacefully you are unfortunately with one option. If you have a better idea please share it.
Yeah, I know all about your desire for disproportionate revenge, GenAntilles. That's why I laughed at you.
The better idea is the way we actually do things.
Disproportionate? Wow your idea of what is proportional use of force must be insane. Like do they have to kill a few billion before launching a missile a group of them is equal?
So you propose to stop ISIS without using military means... or swap out surgical missile strikes or black ops raids for more mass bombings or other messier means?
We can't do anything. Only suggesting what those with the power should do to stop it.
okay but what if they actually WERE devil worshippers? what then?
We're not doing the Genocide Olympics; sorry to disappoint you. You know full well I'm not saying that Malaki is as bad as ISIS and to ask that is a cowardly way of diverting attention from the fact that your argument is all over the place and backed by incorrect thinking.
Let them live in peace and treat them with respect and love as you would treat anyone else? Like any decent human being should do?
What if they were Communist Devil Worshipers?
Why would that matter?
My argument is all over the place? All I'm saying is that for once, you can get involved in something for the right reason: preventing a possible genocide.
Same sort of thing Boko Haram's doing in Nigeria.
If only our involvement indicated we were serious about preventing the genocide. The way you prevent this particular possible genocide is not a few pinprick strikes. The Islamic State has metastasized to about 20,000 fighters, which is about two divisions worth of troops. This is a terrorist group that is trying to carve out its own state and a safe haven for multiple terrorist organizations. At this point, the Islamic State is absorbing al-Qaeda.
These pinprick strikes are not going to do the job. If we are serious about stopping the genocide, then we need to be serious about defeating the Islamic State. It's going to take a substantial air campaign, and it will probably take boots on the ground (Special Operations forces at a minimum - but more likely the 82nd Airborne as well) as well to roll them back, at least in Iraq.
I don't think crippling the Islamic State militarily would be a problem for the US. However, I think we should be more concerned about what happens afterward---what's our ultimate objective with the intervention?
The fact that ISIS was able to take so much territory so quickly is a symptom of the dysfunctional Iraqi government and increasing sectarian tensions in the region as a whole. Until those issues are "fixed", there will be continued instability and the potential for more ISIS-like actors to rise to power.
Problem is, those aren't things that America can "fix". Or, one might argue, those aren't things that America should "fix"...
oh hey look someone made a gif of senate-posting
How do you come to this conclusion? It seems to me that they logically only want to commit genocide against certain groups. So if we can keep them from penetrating into the area where those groups are, they can't really carry out a genocide. That's a much smaller task than trying to serve up a permanent military defeat to the group that decisively obliterates them.
Apparently there's some kind of coup going down in Baghdad, with Maliki moving to consolidate power as everyone else (even Shia and Iran) call for him to leave...
Peter Mansoor on KQED's Forum radio show this morning:
"the US public will just have to get used to the idea that we need to militarily intervene in Iraq"
"no one besides nutjob leftists protest US bombings in these Arab countries"
I didn't know NPR had Mr44 on.
I make the rounds.
Which opinion is mine? The "get used to the idea we need the military in Iraq" one or the "nutjob leftist protestors?"
Man it's like there's a bat signal anytime anyone says your name. Also both opinions.
EDIT: He just said the 2003 Iraq war was a mistake. Guess he's not you after all. false alarm, folks.
EDIT 2: Now he's saying Iraq wasn't a creation after WW1. What is this guy.
I thought that Al-Nusra was at war with the Islamic state.
Always glad to help. I think that so far, that is my favorite conspiracy theory of the year. I also recent heard the "Michelle Obama is a transsexual" one, and while amusing, it's not nearly as good as this.