Jump to content

Explosion in Paris


G-MAN

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's the Iraqi government but at the moment they are occupied by a caliphate. Don't be so simplistic and accepting of ISIS.

So as a citizen of Mosul, how long would the caliphate have to stay in total power of you as a citizen before you could legitimately refer to it as the state? Or would you need UN approval?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should tweet Richard Osman from pointless to ask him. He's on the ball with these kind of things.

Imagine a Falkirk Pointless Special

"countries beginning with a vowel"

Mr Bairn "ISIS"

I've used up my quota of greenies today. I'll send you a manly hug instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, these nations are acting legitimately to assist an ally

Irans support for Hezb'allah is legitimate?

Russias decision to bomb anyone opposed to Assad is legitimate?

Carte blanch for neoconservativism there.

is clearly going to hinder efforts to defeat ISIS

.

Isis are a group of Sunni extreamists in a Sunni majority country. So supporting a Shia minority regime is he best way to rally support against them is it?

Surely a functioning government and army in the host nation is only going to be beneficial to operations.

Said no one other than hardline Nazis in May 1945

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as a citizen of Mosul, how long would the caliphate have to stay in total power of you as a citizen before you could legitimately refer to it as the state? Or would you need UN approval?

In 2015 I don't think we should ever recognise an organisation that murders it's way into power as a state. Especially as it's hell bend on resurrecting an ideal that first appeared and failed over 1000 years ago. You are aware that it is currently slaughtering it's 'citizens' on a daily basis?

If you are happy to doff your cap to these murderers and legitimise them so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISIS aren't like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was a terrorist group. ISIS, as the name suggests, are an Islamic State

I have to own up to coming back from the pub and jumping head first into this debate, which in hindsight was unwise. Mr Bairn is indeed an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a touch of sympathy with Mr Bairn, although he's explained his point stupidly (and i can't decide if that's intentional).

In the fact that ISIS are actively controlling huge swathes of land where previous states existed they are surely distinguishable from the ira or al qaeda. Those organisations were your more traditional terrorist organisations.

Would people accept that this is a different threat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, these nations are acting legitimately to assist an ally and are proving to be an effective force against what hopefully everyone can agree is the biggest threat. Refusing to cooperate with them on the basis of unrelated political differences is clearly going to hinder efforts to defeat ISIS.

Not sure what your issue is with the next bit. Surely a functioning government and army in the host nation is only going to be beneficial to operations.

The idea that a Shia minority regime, especially one as brutal and sectarian as the Assad regime, is the solution in a Sunni majority country is ridiculous. No Sunni, even those opposed to ISIS, would accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a touch of sympathy with Mr Bairn, although he's explained his point stupidly (and i can't decide if that's intentional).

In the fact that ISIS are actively controlling huge swathes of land where previous states existed they are surely distinguishable from the ira or al qaeda. Those organisations were your more traditional terrorist organisations.

Would people accept that this is a different threat?

Currently controlling land doesn't make them a state. It may make them a different type of terrorist organisation (although many other terrorist organisation have controlled and continue to control territory), but it doesn't make them anything like a state. It also doesn't mean that "previous" states no longer exist. They do.

Absolute state of Mr Bairn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a Shia minority regime, especially one as brutal and sectarian as the Assad regime, is the solution in a Sunni majority country is ridiculous. No Sunni, even those opposed to ISIS, would accept it.

They lived with it for the last 50 years. The last independent opinion poll had the Assad regime's popularity at around 50%. Do you think a Sunni regime with Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurd minorities would do better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They lived with it for the last 50 years.

Like the Irish lived with London rule for a couple of centuries or Scotland did for that matter.

Do you think a Sunni regime with Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurd minorities would do better?

It that not for the Syrian people to decide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...