nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

People who were against stopping Islamic State?

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

super_furry

Who were these people?

Espousing a point of view on how to approach foreign policy is hardly grounds for someone to be arrested, unless they were giving material support to ISIS.

Atoms for Peace

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

TerrorFirmer

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

The PM didn't even mention them in his victory speech. It's unreal.

Richard Hillman

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

The Kurds got stabbed in the back by the West again, the're back to being terrorists again once the threat from ISIS has receded mostly due to their efforts.

Who cares? They are communists

Richard Hillman

super_furry wrote: »

Who were these people?

Espousing a point of view on how to approach foreign policy is hardly grounds for someone to be arrested, unless they were giving material support to ISIS.

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

super_furry

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

Again, who were these people?

And again, being against military intervention in a foreign country is not an arrestable offence.

Zebra3

Still waiting for Bush and Blair to be rounded up for war crimes trial.

Maybe we should arrest all those who spoke out in favour of their criminal actions.

Richard Hillman

super_furry wrote: »

Again, who were these people?

And again, being against military intervention in a foreign country is not an arrestable offence.

The SNP seemed to be against it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

[Deleted User]

Richard Hillman wrote: »

And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

It's the internet, there will be hordes of people willing to support a variety of causes that they would never publicly support in RL with the RL associations.

Alf Veedersane

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

They wanted a stronger case for it.

There's a difference.

super_furry

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

Brilliant, so we're finally getting somewhere. So you want the Scottish National Party rounded up and sent to jail because they voted against sending the UK Airforce to Syria to bomb people.

Now is that all members of the Scottish National Party you want locked up or just those who voted against military intervention from the UK in Syria?

And meanwhile, you're happy to see the Kurds, the people who were actually fighting against ISIS in Syria, to be attacked again because "They are communists".

[Deleted User]

Did you start a facebook page OP?

[Deleted User]

ISIS will become irrelevant soon, probably. Hamas will likely become the new threat after all the **** with Trump and Jerusalem. Not to mention the air strikes in which children were allegedly injured.

That's how you breed terrorism.

Ralf and Florian

This clown opposed a motion to condemn ISIS because to do so was "islamaphobic". Thankfully she's been since replaced.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/introducing-the-new-nus-president-who-wouldnt-condemn-isis/

FTA69

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

NATO my hole. The people who did the heavy lifting against ISIS were Assad's Syrian Army (backed by Hezbollah) and the YPJ - people designated a terrorist organisation in Europe and America. In fact while the Kurds were fighting ISIS in Rojava, NATO member Turkey began bombing the sh*t out of them as well as actively collaborating with ISIS.

If you honestly think ISIS's defeat is some poster advertisement for western intervention you're off your nut. The only reason they came about in the first place is because America destroyed Iraq and turned it into a lawless sh*thole.

A Little Pony

Deleted User wrote: »

ISIS will become irrelevant soon, probably. Hamas will likely become the new threat after all the **** with Trump and Jerusalem. Not to mention the air strikes in which children were allegedly injured.

That's how you breed terrorism.

Fantastic tactics to win Westerners over, that will really help the cause they espouse.

bnt

FTA69 wrote: »

If you honestly think ISIS's defeat is some poster advertisement for western intervention you're off your nut. The only reason they came about in the first place is because America destroyed Iraq and turned it into a lawless sh*thole.

The theory was that removing dictators would free up "the people" to democratically elect the governments they wanted. I think the confusion among some Western pundits is related to this: the West got it wrong, so does that mean ISIS was some kind of democratic grass-roots movement that represented "the people"? It's a false dichotomy: West bad, anything else good?

Any time I hear about conflict involving Muslim countries, my first question about the belligerents is: Sunni or Shi'a? I keep getting told that I'm being too simplistic when I do that, but it seems to work every time. ISIS = Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia. Opposition to ISIS = Shi'a, Syria and Iran (through Hezbollah). The Iran/Iraq war: Shi'a/Sunni. Yemen today is a Sunni/Shi'a proxy war (Saudi Arabia vs Iran). Palestine: the Hamas/Hezbollah rivalry explains a lot. And so on, and every time the West intervenes, they are taking one side against the other. Usually the Sunni side, because Saudi Arabia.

FTA69

bnt wrote: »

The theory was that removing dictators would free up "the people" to democratically elect the governments they wanted. I think the confusion among some Western pundits is related to this: the West got it wrong, so does that mean ISIS was some kind of democratic grass-roots movement that represented "the people"? It's a false dichotomy: West bad, anything else good?

Any time I hear about conflict involving Muslim countries, my first question about the belligerents is: Sunni or Shi'a? I keep getting told that I'm being too simplistic when I do that, but it seems to work every time. ISIS = Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia. Opposition to ISIS = Shi'a, Syria and Iran (through Hezbollah). The Iran/Iraq war: Shi'a/Sunni. Yemen today is a Sunni/Shi'a proxy war (Saudi Arabia vs Iran). Palestine: the Hamas/Hezbollah rivalry explains a lot. And so on, and every time the West intervenes, they are taking one side against the other. Usually the Sunni side, because Saudi Arabia.

I don't believe in the dichotomy you're talking about, that's not my position anyway. However one part of your contention is way off and that's the notion that dictators were removed in order to facilitate 'freedom of the people.' Saddam wasn't removed for that purpose, rather as a result of America trying to project its influence into a strategic and oil-rich state. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and the country fractured beyond repair in order to facilitate the imperial designs of an American establishment. A similar argument can be made about Libya.

The Americans, Brits and French couldn't give two squirts of p*ss about the ordinary Libyan or Iraqi, they're far more concerned with what's under them. In short none of these countries have a right to invade or bomb anywhere else to begin with and the likes of Iraq would be a lot better off if they hadn't in the first place.

bobbysands81

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

From our point of view

.

Just wondering who you mean when you say this?

Hande hoche!

ISIS still have some territory in Syria. Imagine it will be 2018 before they are defeated there.

RustyNut

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The material support was undermining the campaign to stop ISIS. There were many people who were against intervention in Iraq and Syria. They were part of the ISIS machine.

Nothing like a little extremism of a sunday morning.

server down

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

Isis grew in Syria because of the nato led no fly zone. Getting rid of Assad would have continued their ascendancy.

Collie D

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

Yeah, nobody likes adherents to an ideology that would arrest you or accuse you of collaboration or conspiracy for having a different opinion.

pitifulgod

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The SNP seemed to be against it

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-snps-54-mps-to-vote-against-bombing-isis-a6756326.html

And you know full well there were plenty of people on board's who were arguing against stopping them. Why?

How's your life of Mccarthyism going?

bnt

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't believe in the dichotomy you're talking about, that's not my position anyway. However one part of your contention is way off and that's the notion that dictators were removed in order to facilitate 'freedom of the people.' Saddam wasn't removed for that purpose, rather as a result of America trying to project its influence into a strategic and oil-rich state.

There's a reason why I put "the people" in quotes and talked about "the theory". That was how it was sold via the media, and I think some Americans in particular wanted to believe that they were doing it for democracy. George W Bush talked about "a strong will for democracy" in Iraq in 2006, when asked if Iraq was on the verge of civil war.

But as we've seen, "the people" of the region did not actually get their countries back. Even the notion of "country" is a Western imposition: it's fundamentally tribal and religious warfare, not patriotic. ISIS was trying to establish a caliphate, not a country in the sense we understand.

user2011

server down wrote: »

Isis grew in Syria because of the nato led no fly zone. Getting rid of Assad would have continued their ascendancy.

There wasn't a no fly in Syria. Could be thinking of Libya?

Greentopia

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Who cares? They are communists

Kurdish Democratic Confederalism -i.e Libertarian Socialism, and state communism are not the same. :rolleyes:

arayess

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/939647578651746306

So ISIS have been defeated in Iraq. There is still a bit to go in Syria but Iraq has been saved. From our point of view, there were people, probable conspirators, that were campaigning for the NATO nations to not interfere with ISIS taking over the Middle East.

Should they be treated as facilitators and arrested? Or were they just contrarians that should be ignored?

The main supporters of IS were the americans ,saudis and israell. The Syrian army are finding Israeli and US army weapons in IS bases they have captured.
Why is that now?

Some blowhard condemning airstrikes has F all to do with IS or any of their initial successes.
The support from the Saudi / Qatari / Zionist alliance did it all. All backed in the shadows by the US.

700,000 dead is the estimate of the Syrian war - all because of a gas pipe and the desire to give Iran a bloody nose. And the US goal of "regime change" in the region to suit their own ends.

Putin and Assad are the real heroes who stopped IS.
Hezbollah too.
Hezbollah get bad press in the west but who risked their necks on the battlefield against IS , who saved 1000s of middle eastern Christians from IS? The "evil" Hezbollah...that's who.

Ralf and Florian

arayess wrote: »

The main supporters of IS were the americans ,saudis and israell. The Syrian army are finding Israeli and US army weapons in IS bases they have captured.
Why is that now?

Some blowhard condemning airstrikes has F all to do with IS or any of their initial successes.
The support from the Saudi / Qatari / Zionist alliance did it all. All backed in the shadows by the US.

700,000 dead is the estimate of the Syrian war - all because of a gas pipe and the desire to give Iran a bloody nose. And the US goal of "regime change" in the region to suit their own ends.

Putin and Assad are the real heroes who stopped IS.
Hezbollah too.
Hezbollah get bad press in the west but who risked their necks on the battlefield against IS , who saved 1000s of middle eastern Christians from IS? The "evil" Hezbollah...that's who.

server down

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Do you don’t think that Saudi Arabia funds Islamic radicalism and ISIS and other radicals?

Interesting. And well put.