Shotgun Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Also think it's insulting the intelligence of the readership to suggest they can't comprehend what terrorism means unless it is there in graphic detail. Agree. Even those with limited imagination can comprehend the horrors of terrorism without having it graphically laid out for them over breakfast. This is about stirring up anger and hatred, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 After 9/11 if the west did absolutely nothing would the attacks on London Madrid and Paris have happened? By responding with aggression and destabilising countries thousands more have died. Let's stop the hypocrisy and double standards. Stop voting for the fuckers that backed the illegal wars. At best that is naive. At worst it is apologism for the Jihadists. It's simplistic pish of the first degree to assume that this wouldn't happen if Iraq etc had not happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 At best that is naive. At worst it is apologism for the Jihadists. It's simplistic pish of the first degree to assume that this wouldn't happen if Iraq etc had not happened. I think there is an argument to be made that, without Iraq, we would see reduced terrorist attacks. France, however, would always have been a hotbed, regardless of whatever went on imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 At best that is naive. At worst it is apologism for the Jihadists. It's simplistic pish of the first degree to assume that this wouldn't happen if Iraq etc had not happened. Would Isis exist without the Iraq and Syrian war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Would Isis exist without the Iraq and Syrian war? No Isis wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-r-cfc Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Even Tony Blair is tacitly acknowledging that the ISIS were a byproduct of the Iraq war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Depending upon who you believe, 150,000 to 500,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the the US/UK invaded. Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced that the invasion had any justification whatsoever. So if we're talking naivety, then yes, it's naive to think that hasn't had a direct effect on recruitment for anti-Western groups and ultimately, the horror we saw this weekend. That isn't apologism, it's common sense. As Paul-r-cfc notes; even Blair is admitting the connection. And yet he and Bush are still walking around as free men instead of facing trial as the war-criminals that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 The Facebook warriors have spoken and it's time to nuke Islam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 It's naive to think Depending upon who you believe, 150,000 to 500,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the the US/UK invaded. Not one shred of evidence has ever been produced that the invasion had any justification whatsoever. So if we're talking naivety, then yes, it's naive to think that hasn't had a direct effect on recruitment for anti-Western groups and ultimately, the horror we saw this weekend. That isn't apologism, it's common sense. As Paul-r-cfc notes; even Blair is admitting the connection. And yet he and Bush are still walking around as free men instead of facing trial as the war-criminals that they are. We are the good guys. The news said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 One of the things you get after every terrorist attack is the constant worry about a backlash against Muslims. How many Muslims were attacked in France after the Charlie Hebdo attacks? How many were attacked after the 7/7 bombings or the attempted attack on Glasgow airport? I think there's something a little misanthropic about this reaction - 'oh the thicko masses will probably burn down the nearest corner shop'. But the thicko masses don't, in the main. There is always going to be a rise in the immediate aftermath of such an event. What we should be more worried about is governments using events like this as an excuse to justify government overreach. After 9/11 if the west did absolutely nothing would the attacks on London Madrid and Paris have happened? By responding with aggression and destabilising countries thousands more have died. Let's stop the hypocrisy and double standards. Stop voting for the fuckers that backed the illegal wars. You can't solve that till you identify who benefits from aggressive foreign policy. Voting a certain way is not going to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Who benefits from raping Iraq from its resources? Not Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Who benefits from raping Iraq from its resources? Not Iraq. Oil companies and a few local made men ie gangsters. Heard the arms industry is getting a wee turn as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 After 9/11 if the west did absolutely nothing would the attacks on London Madrid and Paris have happened? By responding with aggression and destabilising countries thousands more have died. Let's stop the hypocrisy and double standards. Stop voting for the fuckers that backed the illegal wars. Do you really think Al Quaeda would have all gone back home to their homes if the West had done nothing after they massacred 3000 people in New York? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Do you really think Al Quaeda would have all gone back home to their homes if the West had done nothing after they massacred 3000 people in New York? Naw, a few posters missing the point. Religious Fundimentalists of ever shade want the rest of us to see our mistakes and sign up for their Sky Fairy. No doubt if the Christian fundies had any numbers and the funding they'd have a go to. Hawd oan, is that no America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clemdawg Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 ISIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Do you really think Al Quaeda would have all gone back home to their homes if the West had done nothing after they massacred 3000 people in New York?Yeah, but he was talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Would Isis exist without the Iraq and Syrian war? IS has existed since the 1930s. Without our intervention this year, it would be a huge military presence. As it is, it's now a series of splinter cells based in Europe and mainly consisting of Europeans. It's simplistic in the extreme to argue that keeping Sadam Hussein in dictatorial power we wouldn't have seen this atrocity. For one thing, IS is no longer an Iraqi/Syrian operation. Secondly, there is no reason to think that the various militia across the region wouldn't have taken part in the Arab Spring anyway, irrespective of Western foreign policy. The idea that the US is to blame for all of this is masochistic second-guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Who benefits from raping Iraq from its resources? Not Iraq. Have you any idea how the mining and oil drilling operations are run in Iraq? That comment suggests that you don't. All of the oil companies there are employed at the behest of Baghdad and the KRG. They don't keep the oil. One hundred percent of the oil reserves are owned by Iraq or the KRG and the oil is sold centrally based on the demands of the constitution. The oil-rich town of Kirkuk has been contested territory for sixty odd years. It's only feasible to drill there because of the presence of Western-based oil companies. Those companies are leaving as they have staggered contracts. Nobody is raping Iraq of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 http://newsthump.com/2015/11/14/the-eradication-of-an-entire-religion-is-the-only-way-to-ensure-our-safety-claims-fucking-moron/ "Give it ten to fifth teen years and every man in the UK – sorry – New Iran will have to shit standing up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspy Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Who benefits from raping Iraq from its resources? Not Iraq. The same people raping our resources..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.