Tony Blair - Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You can't tell the difference between political Islam i.e. Islamism and the religion of Islam can you?

Muslims revere a creep who was 53 when he raped his 9 year old bride as a Prophet and millions of them call for anyone who insults this paedophile to be killed.

Might want to chose your own words more carefully before lecturing others in that regard

Azwaldo55

Jonny7 wrote: »

Might want to chose your own words more carefully before lecturing others in that regard

It is true that Muhammad married a girl when she was 6 and "consummated" the marriage when she was 9.
Muslims do not deny this.
Insulting the Prophet carries the death sentence in much of the Arab world.
These are facts.
The guy was a pedo and a rapist and he also launched a war of sectarian conquest across the Middle East region.

If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala" fine by me.

You are a complete and utter moral coward. Utterly pathetic.

Why are you afraid to call a spade a spade?

Islam is the very definition of a degenerate primitive backward ignorant intolerant psychopathic belief system.
Every country in the world where Islam constricts the political system is a backwards sh*thole full of violence and illiteracy.

Those are facts.

The entire Middle East needs to be democratized and civilized by force.

Jonny7

The mask has definitely slipped

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala" fine by me.

You mean like when it's repeatedly pointed out to you that many of the 'facts' you come out with are actually factually incorrect?

Militant Islam is a problem. No denying that. If a direct military approach works, then fine by me.

Problem is that it doesn't, and what you keep on doing is simply repeat a solution that has been repeatedly tried and has been shown to fail. This has been pointed out to you here and all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and gone "lalalalalalalalala" about that undeniable fact.

Now, we could go and repeat this same approach you suggest and inevitably fail, or consider another approach; it could also be military, or political or economic or a mixture of the above. All we know is that the direct military approach has been a complete disaster.

But if you prefer to ignore all that, fine by me.

The entire Middle East needs to be democratized and civilized by force.

Oh dear... when I hear statements as cretinous as that one, they tend to lead me to suspect their author that somewhere, there's a picture of them in an attic, getting smarter.

Lockstep

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh dear... when I hear statements as cretinous as that one, they tend to lead me to suspect their author that somewhere, there's a picture of them in an attic, getting smarter.

Lay off the personal abuse.

Azwaldo55

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean like when it's repeatedly pointed out to you that many of the 'facts' you come out with are actually factually incorrect?

Militant Islam is a problem. No denying that. If a direct military approach works, then fine by me.

Problem is that it doesn't, and what you keep on doing is simply repeat a solution that has been repeatedly tried and has been shown to fail. This has been pointed out to you here and all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and gone "lalalalalalalalala" about that undeniable fact.

Now, we could go and repeat this same approach you suggest and inevitably fail, or consider another approach; it could also be military, or political or economic or a mixture of the above. All we know is that the direct military approach has been a complete disaster.

But if you prefer to ignore all that, fine by me.

Oh dear... when I hear statements as cretinous as that one, they tend to lead me to suspect their author that somewhere, there's a picture of them in an attic, getting smarter.

Iraq violence plummeted due to the surge. Look at the figures.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Notice that since American forces withdrew that the death toll has been rising month on month since 2011 and now it has exploded.
You simply can't face up to the fact that Islamic terrorism has surged since Obama pulled the troops.
Emboldened and triumphant they are in danger of taking over Iraq.
A democratic government elected by millions of Iraqis is left twisting in the wind.
Obama pulled the plug and look what happened.
Thanks to him the West is going to have to double down even harder on Islamists both at home and in the Middle East.
The job is going to be a lot harder now and much bloodier but it is going to have to be done.

Obama is saying troops will not go back in but who really believes that honestly? The U.S. President will be forced to act. Hillary was screaming at him not to pull the troops out. If she had been elected in 2008 she never would have did what he did. She postured as opposed to the Iraq War but she never really was. If she isn't elected in 2016 someone is else will do what needs to be done whether Rep or Dem.

What is the alternative? What do we have to negotiate about with these Islamist animals? They are quite open about their goal - a global Caliphate.

The Saddam regime was irrelevant. These savages did not pop up out of thin air. They were waiting to get going with or without the invasion in 2003.

Wake up!

Black Swan

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You are a complete and utter moral coward. Utterly pathetic.

Islam is the very definition of a degenerate primitive backward ignorant intolerant psychopathic belief system.

Every country in the world where Islam constricts the political system is a backwards sh*thole full of violence and illiteracy.

MOD: Ignored earlier Mod in-thread warning, discussed moderation earlier in-thread, and exhibited personal abuse in this post. 2-weeks ban.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Iraq violence plummeted due to the surge. Look at the figures.

Yet it failed to solve the security problem. It was a temporary stopgap, at great cost, that didn't achieve any real long term benefits. Sooner or later the troops were going to have to leave and we would still be where we are now.

I know this is ultimately a rhetorical question, but are you suggesting a permanent 'surge' and, if so, how is this really a 'solution'?

Boggles the mind, TBH.

Sierra Oscar

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet it failed to solve the security problem. It was a temporary stopgap, at great cost, that didn't achieve any real long term benefits. Sooner or later the troops were going to have to leave and we would still be where we are now.

Indeed. Many of the militant groups merely went underground and became inactive on the combat front as the surge progressed in the knowledge that it would have to end at some stage. At the same time groups such as ISIL were building their organization and gathering funds, ready to strike when the US troops left.

Zubeneschamali

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know this is ultimately a rhetorical question, but are you suggesting a permanent 'surge' and, if so, how is this really a 'solution'?

As noted upthread, that really was John McCain's proposed solution: leave US troops there for a million years, enough of them that they are not taking casualties.

InReality

Would splitting iraq and syria into a few new countries with - each with one religious group - be a solution ?

(With resettlement ala the Yugoslavia to keep each group together)

comongethappy

InReality wrote: »

Would splitting iraq and syria into a few new countries with - each with one religious group - be a solution ?

(With resettlement ala the Yugoslavia to keep each group together)

I remember this linked below from last year, thinking it highly unlikely at the time...... But now, who knows?

Its a very interesting graphic.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/29/sunday-review/how-5-countries-could-become-14.html?_r=0

The Syria/Iraq part of their hypothesis is starting to look pretty accurate.

InReality

Thanks was looking for a graphic just like that.
I'd just like to see the violence minimized and I think something like that graph is the way to go.

Nodin

InReality wrote: »

Would splitting iraq and syria into a few new countries with - each with one religious group - be a solution ?

(With resettlement ala the Yugoslavia to keep each group together)

If possible, or autonomous regions. However that again highlights the issues of the Kurds and others.

Lockstep

InReality wrote: »

Would splitting iraq and syria into a few new countries with - each with one religious group - be a solution ?

(With resettlement ala the Yugoslavia to keep each group together)

The main problem here is how it would impact regional relations. Presumably the Sunni statelet would become a Saudi proxy while the Shia statelet would become dominated by Iran.

Probably the best bet is for Iraq to operate as a highly federalised buffer zone.

Ping Chow Chi

If you split Iraq then the Kurds would then want to link up with their fellow kurds in Turkey and Iran, I can't see either of them two countries alowing that to happen.

Conas

The only future outcome of anything in the Middle-East is more violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The Americans want it to be that way.

Look at this ISIS that has come from Syria. All funded, and armed by the USA. In Iraq they are considered Terrorists, and an enemy. Yet in Syria they are considered rebels, and are allies of the USA in trying to overthrow Assad. Obama hasn't a clue which side he's on. What a disaster he has proven to be.

Now he wants $500 million dollars to fund the rebels aka the ISIS in Syria.

It's laughable really. Global War on Terror my ass; more like a Global War on Error. Let the Americans clean up their own mess, everyone else stay the hell out of it.

Lockstep

Conas wrote: »

The only future outcome of anything in the Middle-East is more violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The Americans want it to be that way.

Look at this ISIS that has come from Syria. All funded, and armed by the USA. In Iraq they are considered Terrorists, and an enemy. Yet in Syria they are considered rebels, and are allies of the USA in trying to overthrow Assad. Obama hasn't a clue which side he's on. What a disaster he has proven to be.

Now he wants $500 million dollars to fund the rebels aka the ISIS in Syria.

It's laughable really. Global War on Terror my ass; more like a Global War on Error. Let the Americans clean up their own mess, everyone else stay the hell out of it.

The US isn't funding ISIS. Have you any evidence of this?

cruasder777

Lockstep wrote: »

The US isn't funding ISIS. Have you any evidence of this?

Do you really think the CIA provide evidence ?

Its not far fetched they funded the Kamer Rouge as well as Bin Laden in his early days.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-u-s-funds-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/5376522

"As it turns out, the war against ISIS is not what the establishment media in the West make it out to be. On Wednesday, Maarouf told The Independent the fight against al-Qaeda was “not our problem” and admitted the mercenaries he leads with U.S., Saudi and Qatari help conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, seen as the de facto al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Maarouf told the newspaper he does not have a problem working with al-Qaeda so long as the objective is the ouster of the al-Assad government."

cruasder777

Conas wrote: »

The only future outcome of anything in the Middle-East is more violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The Americans want it to be that way.

Look at this ISIS that has come from Syria. All funded, and armed by the USA. In Iraq they are considered Terrorists, and an enemy. Yet in Syria they are considered rebels, and are allies of the USA in trying to overthrow Assad. Obama hasn't a clue which side he's on. What a disaster he has proven to be.

Now he wants $500 million dollars to fund the rebels aka the ISIS in Syria.

It's laughable really. Global War on Terror my ass; more like a Global War on Error. Let the Americans clean up their own mess, everyone else stay the hell out of it.

There is a strategic logic to that, the USAs priorities in the M.E are the security of Israel and the security of the oil the west depends on.

By funding a civil war in Syria, Hezbollah now have a new battle to fight, they are no longer attacking Israel. This is backed up by the fact the Israeli air force supported ISIS/FSA operations from the air in Syria against Hezbullah

The USA and UK have a record of funding religious extremists in the M.E as they are easier to control then Socialist Pan Arab nations, which could control oil production. Shia v Sunni is much better then united socialist Arab nations.

Nodin

cruasder777 wrote: »

Do you really think the CIA provide evidence ?

Its not far fetched they funded the Kamer Rouge as well as Bin Laden in his early days.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-u-s-funds-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/5376522

That contains much hyperbole but no evidence that the CIA is backing ISIS.

cruasder777

Nodin wrote: »

That contains much hyperbole but no evidence that the CIA is backing ISIS.

Do the Maths, if the Israelis are providing air support for ISIS, its highly likely the USA has provided support on the ground, even via a proxy nation like Saudi.

http://scgnews.com/ironic-israel-helps-isis-with-airstrikes-against-the-syrian-government

Lockstep

cruasder777 wrote: »

Do you really think the CIA provide evidence ?

Its not far fetched they funded the Kamer Rouge as well as Bin Laden in his early days.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-evidence-u-s-funds-al-qaeda-terrorists-in-syria/5376522

"As it turns out, the war against ISIS is not what the establishment media in the West make it out to be. On Wednesday, Maarouf told The Independent the fight against al-Qaeda was “not our problem” and admitted the mercenaries he leads with U.S., Saudi and Qatari help conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra, seen as the de facto al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Maarouf told the newspaper he does not have a problem working with al-Qaeda so long as the objective is the ouster of the al-Assad government."

Personally I rely on evidence before jumping to conclusions.
Also, you used globlresearch.CA as a source. Seriously? Its a conspiracy theory site with a bizarre opposition to science and borderline antisemitism

Nodin

cruasder777 wrote: »

Do the Maths,
......................................

That's not an answer, or evidence.

Conas

Lockstep wrote: »

The US isn't funding ISIS. Have you any evidence of this?

The ISIS has come in from Syria, and are the same group that are fighting to overthrow Assad. It's well documented that the Americans have funded those rebels in Syria, and are looking to fund them some more, with another half a billion dollars. But like I said the American goverment are clueless as to who's side their on. Saddam Hussein was funded and armed by the USA when it suited them. They funded and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets when it suited them.

Americans can continue to fight their own creations well the rest the whole world laughs. This whole war on Islam was the birth child of the Israelis and the Americans. There is an unwritten law, you reap what you sow.

Nodin

Conas wrote: »

The ISIS has come in from Syria, and are the same group that are fighting to overthrow Assad..........

There are a number of groups fighting against Assad. The US does not fund all of them.

Lockstep

Conas wrote: »

The ISIS has come in from Syria, and are the same group that are fighting to overthrow Assad. It's well documented that the Americans have funded those rebels in Syria, and are looking to fund them some more, with another half a billion dollars. But like I said the American goverment are clueless as to who's side their on. Saddam Hussein was funded and armed by the USA when it suited them. They funded and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets when it suited them.

Americans can continue to fight their own creations well the rest the whole world laughs. This whole war on Islam was the birth child of the Israelis and the Americans. There is an unwritten law, you reap what you sow.

Isis aren't the only rebel group. Have you any evidence the US is funding them in particular?

Conas

Lockstep wrote: »

Isis aren't the only rebel group. Have you any evidence the US is funding them in particular?

Well I don't work in the White House, or for President Obama, so I can't give you access to that kind of information. I don't think anyone on boards.ie can either. Then again I think you are just trying to be clever.

Conas

Nodin wrote: »

There are a number of groups fighting against Assad. The US does not fund all of them.

But Assad was relected in a landslide. Why are America so interested in trying to overthrow him when he's so popular with his own people? They attacked Gaddafi and had him killed, now Libya has gone to hell. They've been wrong about everything. Everything that they've done has been a total disaster. Now they'll be going it all alone in trying to fix this mess. No other country can trust the USA anymore in foreign affairs.

Nodin

Conas wrote: »

Well I don't work in the White House, or for President Obama, so I can't give you access to that kind of information.

But you already implied ISIS were being funded by the US.

"The ISIS has come in from Syria, and are the same group that are fighting to overthrow Assad. It's well documented that the Americans have funded those rebels in Syria, and are looking to fund them some more, with another half a billion dollars."

conas wrote:

But Assad was relected in a landslide.

In an election held during a war, under a dictatorship.