The Middle East

[Ethe14]

So I've been thinking lately of all the conflict that has happened in the last 20 years in the Middle East and a thought has occurred to me. I believe all the western nations should all get out of the Middle East and let them (the countries in there) just bomb and war themselves off to extinction. It seems like they are incapable of peace. Unless we have a 9/11 2.0 then we should simply not interfere and let them figure it out. Does anyone else agree?

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Maybe, it is for the best, but honestly, it would involve the unfortunate demise of many unfortunate civilians so, maybe not.

[CosmicNoodle]

Your right. America should stop "peacekeeping" (stealing oil) and go the fuck home.

[Ethe14]

Your right. America should stop "peacekeeping" (stealing oil) and go the fuck home.

America and all other western nations should stop peacekeeping in the Middle East. I don't have a problem if they peacekeep elsewhere.

[CosmicNoodle]

America and all other western nations should stop peacekeeping in the Middle East. I don't have a problem if they peacekeep elsewhere.

It was part joke and part serious, I do believe that peacekeeping in the middle east is simply perpetuating the situation. Left to there own devices thousands of civs would be killed, but, is there a point where we have to say "enough is enough"? Is that an ethicaly acceptable thing to do? Is there a point where we have to just stop being a nanny top them? And would the civ deaths prompt the conflict to end, I mean, suddenly the country you fight for is being destroyed now that no one is protecting it, do you still fight? Or do you reconsider a more intelligent solution that shooting at people and blowing shit up.

[Babiole]

So I've been thinking lately of all the conflict that has happened in the last 20 years in the Middle East and a thought has occurred to me. I believe all the western nations should all get out of the Middle East and let them (the countries in there) just bomb and war themselves off to extinction. It seems like they are incapable of peace. Unless we have a 9/11 2.0 then we should simply not interfere and let them figure it out. Does anyone else agree?

I find that statement to be extremely racist.

[Ethe14]

I find that statement to be extremely racist.

It's not racist, because of all their wars I'm just saying that we should just pull out all operations and let them figure out their issues.

[Exocet]

Stop peacekeeping ?
Lol.
Seriously,when the middle east will run out of oil,the U.S.A will stop "peacekeeping" don't worry. :D

[Plane And Simple]

I find that statement to be extremely racist.

May I ask why?

[thatcountrykid]

i think there is two choices in the middle east. pull out completely or go full blown, no tolerance, warfare against al qued,the taliban, and other similar groups of the muslim brotherhood.

[Gamma Male]

i think there is two choices in the middle east. pull out completely or go full blown, no tolerance, warfare against al qued,the taliban, and other similar groups of the muslim brotherhood.

The Muslim brotherhood is not associated with the Taliban.

[thatcountrykid]

The Muslim brotherhood is not associated with the Taliban.

it is with alqueda

[Gamma Male]

it is with alqueda

Now it isn't. Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the two groups are connected though.

[Lovelife090994]

Now it isn't. Feel free to provide some sort of evidence that the two groups are connected though.

They're groups of terrorism, that's evidence enough. Why do you think the Muslim Brotherhood was pushed out of Egypt?

[Left Now]

The best Middle East is a Middle East without foreigners,seriously!I mean just look what happened since the time US got involved in internal affairs of Afghanistan:

~After Soviets evacuated Afghanistan,US,instead of trying to stay out of Afghans' internal problems at least,began to help insurgent groups against Ahmad Shah Massoud and Burhanuddin Rabbani's Northern Alliance through Pakistan to weaken Massoud's position,only because he would never approve any kind of foreign intervention in Afghanistan.

~Ahmad Shah Massoud got assassinated by Taliban and just two days after his assassination,9/11 disaster happened.

~Taliban took control of Afghanistan and so on...

They'd better leave this place and let Middle Easterners take care of their own business!That's the best choice that can be made by them!Unless they are looking for more troubles and more blood on their hands,to satisfy their own desires for power and OIL!

[Chuck_M8]

No. We have allies, notably Israel, and Iraq, who both at this very moment are at war, with no aid by our armed forces. The Isis terrorist group is gaining power rapidly. Unlike previous groups, they are organized, very strategic and have rapidly growing numbers. They will attack the U.S.A. The fact of the matter is that now we have hardly the presence that we should have in the Middle East. Defending our allies is of the utmost importance because they are the best chance the Middle East has of restoring some sort of order.

Also, as a side note, I find all of the nonsense about oil ridiculous. If America wanted to take oil they would be able to without a problem. If there ever was a incident motivated about oil it would make sense because America and the oil industries over there have a business relationship. If the industries were to get overthrown by terrorists, or what have you, why not help a mutual partner. Countries that decided not to do business with America have been left alone and not invaded...

[Gamma Male]

Has anyone ever wondered why terrorist groups are always targeting countries like the US and England, but there are virtually no terrorist groups targeting, say, Denmark? Could it maybe be because they're sick of us constantly fucking around with them and blowing up civilian farmers with drones that have surprisingly shitty accuracy considering that they cost tens of millions of dollars? Or maybe it's because we, in the year 2014, continue to operate a modern day concentration camp targeted specifically towards Muslims and Arabs. And yes, Guantanamo Bay IS a concentration camp, not a prison. Seriously. If these terrorists just hate Christianity why don't they target nations that are more Christian than us? Or if they're just "jealous"(a ridiculous claim) why don't they target richer nations that are better off than us? No. They target us because they're sick of our shit. They're sick of being fucked with. They're sick of being pissed on by the overbloated, imperialist army of robots that is the US armed forces.

There are two outcomes to the situation. We continue invading and blowing up third world countries and "liberating" their natural resources to the global market, until the entire world is living in one, giant, decaying, interconnected mall and we all evolve into a subspecies of mall people, where we feed daily out of the greasy asshole of Ronald McDonald and the Burger King, all the while just sitting in front of our ever larger glowing boxes, our brains rotting away as we stare at washed up celebrities in orchestrated fights on "reality" television, telling us that we should just keep sitting there, buying their shitty third world produced plastic shoes, content wasting our lives being good, productive Americans! Caffeine Monday through Friday to keep us working, and alcohol Friday through Sunday to keep us too stupid to realize that we're all slaves. But we've gotta be good slaves! We gotta be productive, and drink coke, and watch TV, and go shopping, all the while patting ourselves on the back for living in the land of the free! Free to serve 20 years in prison for smoking weed! Free to only buy food that was made by poisoning South American children and destroying the environment! Free to be safe from bad, immoral ideas because government organizations like the FCC are making sure we only have access to wholesome, healthy programming! Free to vote for which politicians are going to bend us over and fuck us with 13 inch dildos. Do you want the Democrats to bend you over and fuck you with a 13 inch dildo, or do you want the Republicans to bend you over and fuck you with a 13 inch dildo? We're free to choose! Free until the day we "advance" to the point where we get so "advanced" we revert back into apes, slinging shit at one another and devolving into the primordial scum from which we originally came.

Or option 2, we pull out of the middle east, leave other countries the fuck alone, and every fucking one lives happily ever fucking after.

[Left Now]

Or option 2, we pull out of the middle east, leave other countries the fuck alone, and every fucking one lives happily ever fucking after.

This,and nothing else.

No. We have allies, notably Israel, and Iraq

Politically,Iraq cannot be US's ally meanwhile it is an ally of Iran.Also you don't have to forget that this mess in Iraq has roots in the invasion of Iraq by United States.

Meanwhile,ISIL is supported by Saudi Arabia,the number one friend and ally of US in Persian Gulf.If US really wants to help ISIL disaster to be over,they'd better stop their supports for that Arab Kingdom.

[Cpt_Cutter]

The Isis terrorist group is gaining power rapidly.

They're really not, they're being pushed back in the north and as soon as the Iranians get mad with them and the Jordinians pull their thumbs out of their you-know-where's they'll be devastated.

Unlike previous groups, they are organized, very strategic and have rapidly growing numbers.

The same can be said for the Taliban 10 years ago, or Al-Qaeda.


They will attack the U.S.A.

I'm going to blow you and every other MURICA' fan out there.
Ready?
9/11 will never happen again. I mean ,of-course, a major terrorist attack with that level of damage. America used to be similar to a turtle, yes it has very heavy Armour, but it wasn't using it. Post 9/11 it pulled it's head into its shell and doesn't seem to ever intend on coming out. The security measures put in place after 9/11 are stringent to the insane. We're talking about a nation that now makes everyone take off their shoes because of one man who tried to set his on fire.


If America wanted to take oil they would be able to without a problem.

It kind-of did.

It wasn't taking oil in Iraq anyway, it was stopping the potential decrease in flow caused by the capture of the wells from Saddam.

[Ethe14]

Has anyone ever wondered why terrorist groups are always targeting countries like the US and England, but there are virtually no terrorist groups targeting, say, Denmark? Could it maybe be because they're sick of us constantly fucking around with them and blowing up civilian farmers with drones that have surprisingly shitty accuracy considering that they cost tens of millions of dollars? Or maybe it's because we, in the year 2014, continue to operate a modern day concentration camp targeted specifically towards Muslims and Arabs. And yes, Guantanamo Bay IS a concentration camp, not a prison. Seriously. If these terrorists just hate Christianity why don't they target nations that are more Christian than us? Or if they're just "jealous"(a ridiculous claim) why don't they target richer nations that are better off than us? No. They target us because they're sick of our shit. They're sick of being fucked with. They're sick of being pissed on by the overbloated, imperialist army of robots that is the US armed forces.

There are two outcomes to the situation. We continue invading and blowing up third world countries and "liberating" their natural resources to the global market, until the entire world is living in one, giant, decaying, interconnected mall and we all evolve into a subspecies of mall people, where we feed daily out of the greasy asshole of Ronald McDonald and the Burger King, all the while just sitting in front of our ever larger glowing boxes, our brains rotting away as we stare at washed up celebrities in orchestrated fights on "reality" television, telling us that we should just keep sitting there, buying their shitty third world produced plastic shoes, content wasting our lives being good, productive Americans! Caffeine Monday through Friday to keep us working, and alcohol Friday through Sunday to keep us too stupid to realize that we're all slaves. But we've gotta be good slaves! We gotta be productive, and drink coke, and watch TV, and go shopping, all the while patting ourselves on the back for living in the land of the free! Free to serve 20 years in prison for smoking weed! Free to only buy food that was made by poisoning South American children and destroying the environment! Free to be safe from bad, immoral ideas because government organizations like the FCC are making sure we only have access to wholesome, healthy programming! Free to vote for which politicians are going to bend us over and fuck us with 13 inch dildos. Do you want the Democrats to bend you over and fuck you with a 13 inch dildo, or do you want the Republicans to bend you over and fuck you with a 13 inch dildo? We're free to choose! Free until the day we "advance" to the point where we get so "advanced" we revert back into apes, slinging shit at one another and devolving into the primordial scum from which we originally came.

Or option 2, we pull out of the middle east, leave other countries the fuck alone, and every fucking one lives happily ever fucking after.


With all do respect option 1 isn't going to happen. Even if that were to happen (which it's not) it won't be caused by not pulling out of the Middle East. I do agree with you on the fact that we should pull out but that's about it. Option 1 is just extreme bullshit.

No. We have allies, notably Israel, and Iraq, who both at this very moment are at war

Bullshit, Israel and Iraq are not our allies. Israel is a country that does more spying on us than any other country in the world. Iraq is certainly not our ally, while they may be pretending to be they really aren't.

[Chuck_M8]

They're really not, they're being pushed back in the north and as soon as the Iranians get mad with them and the Jordinians pull their thumbs out of their you-know-where's they'll be devastated.



The same can be said for the Taliban 10 years ago, or Al-Qaeda.




I'm going to blow you and every other MURICA' fan out there.
Ready?
9/11 will never happen again. I mean ,of-course, a major terrorist attack with that level of damage. America used to be similar to a turtle, yes it has very heavy Armour, but it wasn't using it. Post 9/11 it pulled it's head into its shell and doesn't seem to ever intend on coming out. The security measures put in place after 9/11 are stringent to the insane. We're talking about a nation that now makes everyone take off their shoes because of one man who tried to set his on fire.




It kind-of did.

It wasn't taking oil in Iraq anyway, it was stopping the potential decrease in flow caused by the capture of the wells from Saddam.

I don't know how to multi-qoute to you, so i'll just respond lol.

Despite only having foot soldiers who are fighting against tanks and other weaponry they were dominating. The group, right now, anyway, is far out numbered yet still winning. The problem is they are rapidly growing and have extreme funding, an estimated 2 billion u.s. dollars. They are going out of control. You could not really say the same thing for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Maybe at the time, but not now. In comparison ISIS is far more organized and strategic than they were and have the potential to be far worse then them.

9/11 WILL happen again. Last year the Boston bombing happened and that got passed American security. Now that is no where near as bad as 9/11, though it could have been worse. Imagine if they had been connected to an actual terrorist group and were given a far more devastating bomb, thousands could be dead depending on the bomb. The security systems are also relatively weak. Maybe not in airports, but in other ways. For example the border in the south is extremely open. Terrorist could easily use it to get across illegally and smuggle weapons of sorts up. They could already be here as sleeper cells.

Americans are in for a rude awakening when it happens. Other nations, specifically those in the middle east, see our administrations foreign actions, or lack of, as a weakness and will be far more inclined to attack now than ever.

With all do respect option 1 isn't going to happen. Even if that were to happen (which it's not) it won't be caused by not pulling out of the Middle East. I do agree with you on the fact that we should pull out but that's about it. Option 1 is just extreme bullshit.



Bullshit, Israel and Iraq are not our allies. Israel is a country that does more spying on us than any other country in the world. Iraq is certainly not our ally, while they may be pretending to be they really aren't.

Israel is most definitely our ally. Iraq is also in good standing with us now. Every nation spys on one another, that is how it works. Even the U.K. and the U.S. spy on each other, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are our allies.

Plese use the 'edit' button instead of double posting. ~Typhlosion

[Harry Smith]

Lol I go away for a week and all the neocons seem to emerge from under neath the bridge.

The Middle East has every reason to be very angry at the US and the UK. We've been playing with them for the last 50 years

[Chuck_M8]

Lol I go away for a week and all the neocons seem to emerge from under neath the bridge.

The Middle East has every reason to be very angry at the US and the UK. We've been playing with them for the last 50 years

I agree. They have every right to be angry with us. I don't think every single decision America makes is the right one. I support the initial search for WMDs, but clearly the intel was wrong and there was no reason to remain there for so long. I support the retaliation after 9/11, but there was no reason for the troops to remain there that long.

Now I do support it because things have changed. We should be protecting our allies and sending them the aid that they need, whether it be in troops or recourses. Hopefully if we do that, this time we will do it properly and leave when we should.

I dont want what I am saying to be confused with troops in other areas of the middle east. They all should be removed apart from the ones stationed at embassies. I am talking about what is going on right this moment in Israel as the reason why we should be in the Middle East.

[Harry Smith]

I agree. They have every right to be angry with us. I don't think every single decision America makes is the right one. I support the initial search for WMDs, but clearly the intel was wrong and there was no reason to remain there for so long. I support the retaliation after 9/11, but there was no reason for the troops to remain there that long.

Now I do support it because things have changed. We should be protecting our allies and sending them the aid that they need, whether it be in troops or recourses. Hopefully if we do that, this time we will do it properly and leave when we should.

I dont want what I am saying to be confused with troops in other areas of the middle east. They all should be removed apart from the ones stationed at embassies. I am talking about what is going on right this moment in Israel as the reason why we should be in the Middle East.

What? So you can 'protect' your allies, I seem to recall that at one stage Gaddafi and Hussein were considered allies of the US. In fact the US told Saddam the best way to gas the Iranians. The US needs to look at what they value in a country

[thatcountrykid]

I don't know how to multi-qoute to you, so i'll just respond lol.

Despite only having foot soldiers who are fighting against tanks and other weaponry they were dominating. The group, right now, anyway, is far out numbered yet still winning. The problem is they are rapidly growing and have extreme funding, an estimated 2 billion u.s. dollars. They are going out of control. You could not really say the same thing for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Maybe at the time, but not now. In comparison ISIS is far more organized and strategic than they were and have the potential to be far worse then them.

9/11 WILL happen again. Last year the Boston bombing happened and that got passed American security. Now that is no where near as bad as 9/11, though it could have been worse. Imagine if they had been connected to an actual terrorist group and were given a far more devastating bomb, thousands could be dead depending on the bomb. The security systems are also relatively weak. Maybe not in airports, but in other ways. For example the border in the south is extremely open. Terrorist could easily use it to get across illegally and smuggle weapons of sorts up. They could already be here as sleeper cells.

Americans are in for a rude awakening when it happens. Other nations, specifically those in the middle east, see our administrations foreign actions, or lack of, as a weakness and will be far more inclined to attack now than ever.

the boston bombin was domestic terrorism. there was no real security they had to get through

[Chuck_M8]

What? So you can 'protect' your allies, I seem to recall that at one stage Gaddafi and Hussein were considered allies of the US. In fact the US told Saddam the best way to gas the Iranians. The US needs to look at what they value in a country

I never said anything about protecting Gaddafi or Hussein. Like I said, I don't support every decision America makes. That was a bad decision made under false pretenses, but Israel is not.

Right now Israel is one of the most important factors in the Middle East restoring order and peace. Since 1985, America has provided nearly 1 billion dollars annually to Israel and 3 billion dollars annually for military. Israel has been the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to present.

Israel is a very important ally and is worth defending because their goals are to try and stop bloodshed that has been going on for so long. Israel is trying to prevent the innocent killing of civilians, but war is bloody. It is also hard to fight a war when the enemies main target is always the civilians.

The goal of fighting terror and ending the violence in the Middle East should be reason enough to help and send aid. America had the "let's not do anything if it does not concern us" attitude at the start of WWII. It took us getting bombed to realize that we needed to act. By that time things were so out of control that the only way to end it required a massive amount of killing.

Now, I am not saying that the actions happening in WWII Europe are comparable to whats going on now in anyway. But they easily could be. If the wrong people come into power over there and create WMD, they'll launch them without second thought. The radicals and extremist don't care about consequences. They believe that eliminating everyone who does not believe what they do to be providence.

the boston bombin was domestic terrorism. there was no real security they had to get through

Yeah I know haha, that is why I said imagine if they were connected to an actual terrorist organization.. But it's terrorism nonetheless.

Also, my point exactly. Security was not an issue at all for them to get around. There are always police officers out there, but preventing a planned attack like that is extremely difficult. People don't realize how easily things like this can happen. It will happen again. The results from an actual terrorist organization doing it could be devastating.

Merged. ~Typhlosion.

[thatcountrykid]

Yeah I know haha, that is why I said imagine if they were connected to an actual terrorist organization.. But it's terrorism nonetheless.

Also, my point exactly. Security was not an issue at all for them to get around. There are always police officers out there, but preventing a planned attack like that is extremely difficult. People don't realize how easily things like this can happen. It will happen again. The results from an actual terrorist organization doing it could be devastating.

Yeah I of course it will happen again. There will always be war and acts of violence. That's how progress is made. Violence of action.

[Harry Smith]

Yeah I of course it will happen again. There will always be war and acts of violence. That's how progress is made. Violence of action.

No-war is only happens when diplomacy fails

Yeah I know haha, that is why I said imagine if they were connected to an actual terrorist organization.. But it's terrorism nonetheless.

Also, my point exactly. Security was not an issue at all for them to get around. There are always police officers out there, but preventing a planned attack like that is extremely difficult. People don't realize how easily things like this can happen. It will happen again. The results from an actual terrorist organization doing it could be devastating.

Eh people love to think that Boston was 9/11 come again but it really wasn't.

.

Israel is a very important ally and is worth defending because their goals are to try and stop bloodshed that has been going on for so long. Israel is trying to prevent the innocent killing of civilians,



. If the wrong people come into power over there and create WMD, they'll launch them without second thought. The radicals and extremist don't care about consequences. They believe that eliminating everyone who does not believe what they do to be providence.

That's false. You have no right to mention WMD's when Israel maintains WMD's without signing any treaties. The Israeli government were a couple of days away from launching them in 1973-did you know that?

Pakistan is a radical country with nuclear weapons-have they used them yet?

The US in the 1960's was full of radicals who wanted to use nuclear weapons did they?

And no Israel do not represent peace in the region. They've been attacking nations since 1956

[Babs]

America just needs to stay out of the Middle East.
Like Gamma Male said, they don't hate us for being Christian, nor are they jealous. There are richer, and more Christian countries out there. They hate Americans because we can't stay the fuck out of the middle east. I understand retaliating after 9/11 but killing civilians in the Middle East is not okay. In my opinion, THAT is why we're targeted by the Middle East. America also has a lot of Islamic bigotry going on, so basically I think Americans need to not act like Islamic countries are full of horrible Christian-hating terrorists.

[Vlerchan]

Despite only having foot soldiers who are fighting against tanks and other weaponry they were dominating.
You forgot to mention how they are dominating what is a very demoralised Iraqi armed forces.

Syrian Loyalists have been able to push them back over the last few years.

Maybe at the time, but not now.
I'd consider this the most important sentence of the paragraph: groups rise and fall and the Islamic state is just another group.

Last year the Boston bombing happened and that got passed American security
I'm going to repeat what you said yourself: "Now that is no where near as bad as 9/11", and I don't believe you when you claim that something to the scale of 9/11 is possible with the US on the state of alert it currently is. It's also notable that the Boston bombings stemmed from what was an internal threat - which is a whole different beast to what you are claiming is an inevitability.

Other nations, specifically those in the middle east, see our administrations foreign actions, or lack of, as a weakness and will be far more inclined to attack now than ever.
It feels like I'm back in 2001 again.

Why, in your opinion, do these nations want to attack the US in the first place?

---

I support the retaliation after 9/11, but there was no reason for the troops to remain there that long.
I have no idea why you thought Iraq deserved retaliation in relation to 9/11.

---

Right now Israel is one of the most important factors in the Middle East restoring order and peace.
What?

Israel is a very important ally and is worth defending because their goals are to try and stop bloodshed that has been going on for so long.
The last time I checked there was only one 'Israel' in existence.

I'm still having a hard time believing that we are talking about the same one here though.

It is also hard to fight a war when the enemies main target is always the civilians.
The Palestinians have killed roughly 28 Israeli soldiers for every Israeli civilian (56 - 2).

The Israelis have killed roughly for every Palestinian soldier 4 civilians (450 - 1350). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine)

By that time things were so out of control that the only way to end it required a massive amount of killing.
It was always going to require a massive amount of killing.

It's also noteworthy that the difference this time is that a massive amount of killing has taken place and the problem has gotten worse.

But they easily could be.
Please explain how the 'War On Terror' is in anyway comparable to WWII besides the fact that people are killing each other. Thank you.

[Gamma Male]

With all do respect option 1 isn't going to happen. Even if that were to happen (which it's not) it won't be caused by not pulling out of the Middle East. I do agree with you on the fact that we should pull out but that's about it. Option 1 is just extreme bullshit.

That was more of a rant about the constant Californication® of third world countries and how the American population values banality and consumerism and mediocre "entertainment" so much that hardly anyone actually cares about real issues anymore, and how all of the once pure third world countries are slowing devolving into corporate whores and having McDonald's and Pepsi billboards and minimalls shoved down their throats so now they too can experience the pleasures of seeing bitchy celebrities fight each other on 82 inch screens and greasy shit that's gonna make them die 10 years before their time. It did start out about the Middle East but sorta devolved into me screaming about how much I hate what America is becoming. Sorry.

[Ethe14]

I never said anything about protecting Gaddafi or Hussein. Like I said, I don't support every decision America makes. That was a bad decision made under false pretenses, but Israel is not.

Right now Israel is one of the most important factors in the Middle East restoring order and peace. Since 1985, America has provided nearly 1 billion dollars annually to Israel and 3 billion dollars annually for military. Israel has been the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to present.

That's exactly the problem we are giving them huge amounts of funding to do what? Just hack our system and steal our technology. One day Israel is going to turn around and well be at gun point.


That was more of a rant about the constant Californication® of third world countries and how the American population values banality and consumerism and mediocre "entertainment" so much that hardly anyone actually cares about real issues anymore, and how all of the once pure third world countries are slowing devolving into corporate whores and having McDonald's and Pepsi billboards and minimalls shoved down their throats so now they too can experience the pleasures of seeing bitchy celebrities fight each other on 82 inch screens and greasy shit that's gonna make them die 10 years before their time. It did start out about the Middle East but sorta devolved into me screaming about how much I hate what America is becoming. Sorry.

What makes you think that's what America is becoming. I certainly don't see it.

[Chuck_M8]

You forgot to mention how they are dominating what is a very demoralised Iraqi armed forces.

Syrian Loyalists have been able to push them back over the last few years.


I'd consider this the most important sentence of the paragraph: groups rise and fall and the Islamic state is just another group.


I'm going to repeat what you said yourself: "Now that is no where near as bad as 9/11", and I don't believe you when you claim that something to the scale of 9/11 is possible with the US on the state of alert it currently is. It's also notable that the Boston bombings stemmed from what was an internal threat - which is a whole different beast to what you are claiming is an inevitability.


It feels like I'm back in 2001 again.

Why, in your opinion, do these nations want to attack the US in the first place?

---


I have no idea why you thought Iraq deserved retaliation in relation to 9/11.

---


What?


The last time I checked there was only one 'Israel' in existence.

I'm still having a hard time believing that we are talking about the same one here though.


The Palestinians have killed roughly 28 Israeli soldiers for every Israeli civilian (56 - 2).

The Israelis have killed roughly for every Palestinian soldier 4 civilians (450 - 1350). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine)


It was always going to require a massive amount of killing.

It's also noteworthy that the difference this time is that a massive amount of killing has taken place and the problem has gotten worse.


Please explain how the 'War On Terror' is in anyway comparable to WWII besides the fact that people are killing each other. Thank you.

Alright well I guess i'll start with the terrorist part. I don't think you recognize how uncontrolled the border is. Terrorists would have an easy access point through there and could even smuggle bombs across. There could already be some across acting as sleeper cells and waiting for the 'go ahead'. I know that the Boston bombing is an internal fair, but it is terrorism nonetheless. I don't think it is an entirely different beast. Terrorism is terrorism. My point was simply that it can't be defended against and the nation is extremely vulnerable to it. Internal or external. There are still many different ways the US can be attacked and I am not saying that the border is the only way, but it is one of the easiest ways for a terrorist to attack from within.

Why do these nations attack and hate us? Part of the reason is the US support for Israel, which is a jewish state in the middle of Arab states. Israel was created by the United Nations after World War II. For obvious reasons the arab states were against this and since then there has been conflict. Many of the countries in the Middle East believe we threaten their way of life, too. They subjugate their people to awful things. Obviously our military has been in there and that aggravates them. Further, we are a wealthy nation, have far more power than them and a predominantly Christian nation. In fact, I believe we have more christians than any other nation at 78% of Americans claiming to be Christian. (Take into account we have a lot more people than other countries.)

No. If America got involved right away the entire war would have changed. The UK begged for us to get involved and we did not. When we joined the effort the battlefield was dramatically changed because we could build weapons, planes and vehicles quicker and better than any other nation. Had we joined sooner the conquest of Germany would have been ended before it expanded as it did, killing soldiers of defending nations as well as torturing and killing innocent civilians. Sure many people would have died, but the casualty count would have been lower. At least in Europe.

The reason I compared those is because they pose imminent threats to the entire world. Had Germany been successful, the entire face of the world would have been changed. In WWII so many innocent people were killed. If the wrong people take control, the ones who don't care about consequences, and launch WMDs, the entire face of the planet would change, much like it could have if Germany would have won. Many more innocent people would die in such an event too because there would be nuclear retaliation on heavily populated areas. It would be Armageddon if Russia and China joined in.

Israel has been attacked constantly too and has tried to remain a peaceful nation. However, when you keep getting attacked and attacked, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I am not saying that Israel has been perfect since they formed. No nation has throughout the course of history. All I am saying is right now the principles and beliefs Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to install are extremely beneficial. If Israel can become a power and sustain their parliamentary democracy it may hold other nations in the area at bay.

[thatcountrykid]

No-war is only happens when diplomacy fails



Eh people love to think that Boston was 9/11 come again but it really wasn't.



That's false. You have no right to mention WMD's when Israel maintains WMD's without signing any treaties. The Israeli government were a couple of days away from launching them in 1973-did you know that?

Pakistan is a radical country with nuclear weapons-have they used them yet?

The US in the 1960's was full of radicals who wanted to use nuclear weapons did they?

And no Israel do not represent peace in the region. They've been attacking nations since 1956

Diplomacy fails alot

[Chuck_M8]

No-war is only happens when diplomacy fails



Eh people love to think that Boston was 9/11 come again but it really wasn't.



That's false. You have no right to mention WMD's when Israel maintains WMD's without signing any treaties. The Israeli government were a couple of days away from launching them in 1973-did you know that?

Pakistan is a radical country with nuclear weapons-have they used them yet?

The US in the 1960's was full of radicals who wanted to use nuclear weapons did they?

And no Israel do not represent peace in the region. They've been attacking nations since 1956

Boston was not 9/11 2.0... It was an entirely different incident. Terrorism nonetheless.

No. I did not know that Israel did that. However, I do know that President Nixon met with the Israeli Prime Minister to discuss about Israel's nuclear ambiguity. Thereafter, during the Yom Kippur war Israel wanted to publicly demonstrate its nuclear capability to discourage an Arab attack. They believed the fear of Israeli nuclear weapons may have discouraged Arab military strategy during the war from being as aggressive as it could have been. There intent was never to use them, merely to show them off. The most extreme scenario would have been they would have publicly tested one. They never intended to use one.

Though they originally developed their nukes in defense from the USSR, Pakistan has constantly been on the verge of using them, or at least their government says the are. Pakistan refuses to adopt a "no-use-first" policy, claiming that they will attack India with nuclear weapons even if India did not use such weapons first. Pakistan's nuclear position and power has had significant influence on India's decision/ability to retaliate and defend itself, as shown in 2001 and 2008 crises, when non-state actors carried out deadly attacks on Indian soil, only to be met with a relatively subdued response from India. They have both tried to make bilateral agreements between each other that if both have nuclear capabilities, neither will use them. However, even with all this being said, Pakistan would not launch a nuclear attack on India because of it's subsequent aftermath, which I won't get into.

So no, neither Israel or Pakistan have used Nukes. Your point? My point simply was that if Israel, or Pakistan now that they have been introduced, were to be overthrown and lost control of their WMD to extremists who don't care about consequences, bad things could happen.

Also, there may have been American radicals who wanted to launch nukes, but it was a cold war for a reason, and the radicals were very few. Neither side wanted a nuclear war because they new the resulting devastation.

[Harry Smith]

. The most extreme scenario would have been they would have publicly tested one. They never intended to use one.


Israel intended to use nuclear weapons, your line appears to be-it's bad for our enemies to have nukes but it's fine for our allies. That makes you a hypocrite

According to historian Avner Cohen, Israel first articulated an official policy on the use of nuclear weapons in 1966, which revolved around four "red lines" that could lead to a nuclear response:[186]

A successful military penetration into populated areas within Israel's post-1949 (pre-1967) borders.
The destruction of the Israeli Air Force.

, Golda Meir and her closest aides decided to put eight nuclear armed F-4s at Tel Nof Airbase on 24 hour alert and as many nuclear missile launchers at Sedot Mikha Airbase operational as possible. Seymour Hersh adds that the initial target list that night "included the Egyptian and Syrian military headquarters near Cairo and Damascus"

[Vlerchan]

I don't think it is an entirely different beast.
It is: 'external' makes electronic communication a necessity and the US tracks all electronic communications.

It would be much easier to pick up on.

Terrorism is terrorism.
Incredibly simplistic here. It's awful policy to conclude that because a small-scale attack by an internal threat could occur then a large-scale attack by an external threat in the future is inevitable. I would say that the latter involves much more planning, much more movement, and much more electronic communication.

Why do these nations attack and hate us?
It's not 'nations' or 'countries' that attack the US. It's been terrorists groups that have attacked the US.

Part of the reason is the US support for Israel, which is a jewish state in the middle of Arab states.
From evidence I've seen I would agree that US support for Israel plays a part.

Many of the countries in the Middle East believe we threaten their way of life, too.
Expand please.

Obviously our military has been in there and that aggravates them.
I'd place this as the primary cause for aggression against the US - and the UK.

Here's what one Islamist who carried out major terrorist attacks in the UK had to say:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

Further, we are a wealthy nation, have far more power than them and a predominantly Christian nation.
I've seen no evidence supporting the claim that Islamists care about how 'rich' or 'Christian' the US is.

When we joined the effort the battlefield was dramatically changed because we could build weapons, planes and vehicles quicker and better than any other nation.
The US were supplying the UK with plans and vehicles before the US got involved in the war.

---

It should also be noted that the war had already turned around by the time the US had taken an active role in Europe.

I'm not going to expand beyond that because I don't want to get too off-topic here.

The reason I compared those is because they pose imminent threats to the entire world.
Please explain how IS pose a threat to the entire world.

I don't believe that they'll be able to construct WMD. Evidence I've seen claims that they can't even maintain their artillery and other weapons they've stolen.

If the wrong people take control, the ones who don't care about consequences, and launch WMDs, the entire face of the planet would change, much like it could have if Germany would have won.
You're making it sound like IS is led by Dr. Evil or something. People don't just decimate the planet because they can.

---

It's also quite laughable that China or Russia would side with IS. Russia has spent the last 5 years funding Syrian Loyalists against IS.

All I am saying is right now the principles and beliefs Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to install are extremely beneficial.
If you are an Israeli living in Israel.

I personally don't feel that hard-Zionism is beneficial.

If Israel can become a power and sustain their parliamentary democracy it may hold other nations in the area at bay.
Israel already is a regional power.

Israel being a democracy has nothing to do with it.

---

That makes you a hypocrite
neocon*

[Chuck_M8]

Israel intended to use nuclear weapons, your line appears to be-it's bad for our enemies to have nukes but it's fine for our allies. That makes you a hypocrite

I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you can't argue what is written as history with theories... Your history is false. The knowledge you are basing that Israel almost used Nukes are opinions/theories. Yeah, Israel has not been corporative, and yeah they did that in 1966. Recall, I wrote about Nixon meeting in 1969 to discuss their Nuclear ambiguity. As far as the 1973 launching nukes, it's like the 9/11 was the government theory, there is no scholarly or sustainable evidence or proof.

Events show that Israel never intended to launch their missiles. Even if they wanted to they knew the US would never support such a decision and would have retaliated. The US would have defended Israel too, and they knew that. Israel did not even need the US' help.

The war started with a sneak attack by the Egyptians. They were attacked on, literally, the holiest and most sacred day in Judaism and were just flexing their muscles to the with their Nukes. Further, I entertained the idea slightly, but really, there is little to no scholarly evidence that they actually did try and show off their Nukes other than theorists and the alarmingly in-definitive and conflicting claims from the Egyptians that they did.

If you recall, after early setbacks, the Israelis trapped the Egyptian third army. Egypt needed a cease fire brokered by the US and/or the USSR to get their troops out before they were wiped-out by the Israelis. Israel didn't need to use a nuclear threat... They were winning at the time and throughout most of the war. True they seemed to be losing in the early stages of the war, but they recovered.


How does it make me a hypocrite? Firstly, I clearly stated that Pakistan has nukes and never said it was -not- okay for them to have them. Pakistan is not our ally.

Russia has nukes. China has nukes. Neither of them would launch them-- they are not insane. Russia and China would be dumb to not have Nukes with us and so many other nations having Nukes. China and Russia are by no means are allies.

If a terrorist organization has nukes, they would launch them, or at least their rationality would be distorted, unlike the nations that have nukes. There is a difference. A very very big difference. I am not saying any country should have Nukes, but many have them for standstills and not actual use.

[Chuck_M8]

It is: 'external' makes electronic communication a necessity and the US tracks all electronic communications.

It would be much easier to pick up on.


Incredibly simplistic here. It's awful policy to conclude that because a small-scale attack by an internal threat could occur then a large-scale attack by an external threat in the future is inevitable. I would say that the latter involves much more planning, much more movement, and much more electronic communication.


It's not 'nations' or 'countries' that attack the US. It's been terrorists groups that have attacked the US.


From evidence I've seen I would agree that US support for Israel plays a part.


Expand please.


I'd place this as the primary cause for aggression against the US - and the UK.

Here's what one Islamist who carried out major terrorist attacks in the UK had to say:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.


I've seen no evidence supporting the claim that Islamists care about how 'rich' or 'Christian' the US is.


The US were supplying the UK with plans and vehicles before the US got involved in the war.

---

It should also be noted that the war had already turned around by the time the US had taken an active role in Europe.

I'm not going to expand beyond that because I don't want to get too off-topic here.


Please explain how IS pose a threat to the entire world.

I don't believe that they'll be able to construct WMD. Evidence I've seen claims that they can't even maintain their artillery and other weapons they've stolen.


You're making it sound like IS is led by Dr. Evil or something. People don't just decimate the planet because they can.

---

It's also quite laughable that China or Russia would side with IS. Russia has spent the last 5 years funding Syrian Loyalists against IS.


If you are an Israeli living in Israel.

I personally don't feel that hard-Zionism is beneficial.


Israel already is a regional power.

Israel being a democracy has nothing to do with it.

---


neocon*


I am not budging on the terrorist issue. The security is not nearly as good as you think it is. You don't need to plan a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. It can be done outside of U.S. soil. I am using the Boston bombing not as a comparison to the probability of another a terrorist attack, but how easily it can be done. It was done by, I believe three kids, correct? No outside help. Just imagine if you had rogue terrorist, or sleeper agents, or whatever be it who know what they are doing. All they need is one guy to strap a bomb to his chest and go into a crowded area and kill many people. All they need is one guy to release a chemical agent and infect thousands of people.

Yeah, America was creating Tanks and weapons in WWII and like you I don't want to get into an argument; however, American facilities and industries were not transformed to solely being used for the war effort until we joined the war. Thereafter production sky rocketed. Not to mention If America joined in sooner there would have been more troops (Americans) in Europe sooner.

The terrorist organizations have illustrated, repeatedly, with many announcements, that they hate Christianity and other false religions. I never said they dislike America solely because of wealth and power, only that that adds on to the issue. I said that they believe we will destroy their way of life because we try to make sure that their people (mainly women, but all civilians depending on where we are talking about) are not treated so inhumane. That we'll try and install Democracy of some type or lift their people out of suppression. That is politically why they don't like us, then the people are fed lies (and some truth) through the media. It is much like the failed Communism attempts of suppression and deception, not that all Communistic societies have failed and been bad, I am talking about the obvious ones that went wrong. I believe that we as one of the most powerful nations to ever exist are useless and pointless if we sit around while in other places people are brutalized.

Now you have the one quote where he say that and I would agree that that could very well be the motive for some terrorist groups. However, that is not the motive for all of them. Religion is the biggest reason and it has been that way throughout the course of history in the Middle East. They hate foreign religions. It's why Arab coalition and others have started so many wars against Israel. Religion is the biggest reason for the start of turmoil in the Middle East and it's continuation. When you add in all the other factors, it escalates. So I agree that the presence we have had in the Middle East is definitely major and very big, if not the biggest part as why they dislike us, but their hatred does not end their. It expands beyond that and would remain even if we left completely.

I never said China and Russia would join in on their side, only that if Nukes are falling, they'd likely get involved. I could agree that maybe they'd stand by and just watch, but they also might not. That was all I am saying.

Also, not Dr. Evil, per-se. But it is quite clear, and previous organization have made it known that they would use Nukes. Many of these terrorist actually do want to blow up the planet-- that it is god's providence. That is why they are so reckless, they believe it is what their god wants them to do. I am not saying every terrorist group are religious extremists, but many are and would gladly start launching nukes. I never said they would make their own, but they if they conquered Israel they have the recourse and funding to access nukes. Maybe they won't even put that big of a dent in Israel, but the very notion that they could is another reason to defend them. Theoretically they have the recourses to create their own, but I wont be so ignorant to deny the reality that they would have far to much opposition to create them. They would have to be beyond secretive.

It is funny how when arguing with Liberals, they are the first ones to thrash around insults and name calling, especially when they claim to be so accepting. I am not directing this towards you only, but all out of the other responses I have gotten are very condescending and one guy even swore. Is the point of argument not to find a point of agreement? It is a lot harder to find said point when people get angry and thrash one another. Maybe I did it too, but that really is not my intent.

First of all, I am a Libertarian, meaning that fiscally I am conservative, whereas socially I am liberal.

So let me clarify my personal stance on the Middle East: I believe there were better choices then the ones we made regarding the Middle East. For example, getting rid of Hussein was worth while-- but I would have preferred doing it without invading Iraq. After 9/11 I would have retaliated in some way, but my first option would be to switch and try to become a petroleum independent nation. We have the recourses and we would dry up terrorists funding. In regards to Afghanistan, you simply can't tame a nation that does not have central government.

Maybe we can agree on some of that. I don't agree that the decisions the US made in the middle east were the correct ones, but they were made for the right reasons. If that makes sense.

I am not defending all of the actions in the Middle East. I am saying that we should help our ally because I think that if they fall, there will be no regional power that balances the middle east. Not to mention the Israelis would be slaughtered.

[Cpt_Cutter]

If you are an Israeli living in Israel.

I personally don't feel that hard-Zionism is beneficial.

Wow, the head of a country is pushing a political agenda that's beneficial to those in his country? Who would ever have guessed.

[Vlerchan]

You don't need to plan a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Communications Intelligence (COMINT)

Blanket coverage of all electronic communications in the US and the world to ensure national security.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech12.htm

The National Security Agency has developed a powerful tool for recording and analysing where its intelligence comes from, raising questions about its repeated assurances to Congress that it cannot keep track of all the surveillance it performs on American communications.

The Guardian has acquired top-secret documents about the NSA datamining tool, called Boundless Informant, that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

The focus of the internal NSA tool is on counting and categorizing the records of communications, known as metadata, rather than the content of an email or instant message.

[...]

Iran was the country where the largest amount of intelligence was gathered, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by 13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth with 6.3bn.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

I'm telling you that the NSA will catch electronic communications regardless of whos soil they're being conducted on.

It's apparently been the reason behind over 50 terrorist attacks being foiled.

(Reuters) - General Keith Alexander, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, said on Tuesday that the NSA's data gathering programs had prevented potential terrorist attacks more than 50 times since September 11, 2001.

"In recent years these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent ... potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11," he said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/us-usa-security-alexander-idUSBRE95H0QJ20130618

---

I'm also more trying to argue not that the US are never going to be struck by terrorism again - though I don't believe it will happen in our lifetimes - but rather that the US are doing their utmost best to combat terrorism in the US. You seem to believe that bombing Iraq or whatever and adding fuel to the Islamist fires (again) is going to help the situation further and that's where our main disagreement lies.

The terrorist organizations have illustrated, repeatedly, with many announcements, that they hate Christianity and other false religions.
But then proceed to only attack the nations with Christian majorities of which have attacked the Arab world.

I again don't believe that a Christian majority in the US has anything to do with it being selected for 9/11.

I said that they believe we will destroy their way of life because we try to make sure that their people (mainly women, but all civilians depending on where we are talking about) are not treated so inhumane.
Em.. no.

The US installed an Islamist in Iraq. The US installed another Islamist in Afghanistan. The US installed a tyranical Shah in Iran. It supports monarchists and salafist in a number of different countries too.

It's never had an interest in improving the human rights records of the region.

That we'll try and install Democracy of some type or lift their people out of suppression.
The US has deliberately avoided installing any accountable democratic regime for fear it would fall to people they don't like.

It's common sense foreign policy.

Religion is the biggest reason and it has been that way throughout the course of history in the Middle East.
I agree that religion is the biggest issue here. The individual who I quoted agrees too.

These people are Islamist which is a form of nationalism which centers their national identity about their faith.

I still have a hard time believing that they would attack the US - or wherever - on a largely religious-only basis.

I never said China and Russia would join in on their side, only that if Nukes are falling, they'd likely get involved.
Right. Sorry. I misread.

Many of these terrorist actually do want to blow up the planet-- that it is god's providence.
No. Islamists have always been quite clear that they want to form a world-wide Islamic Caliphate ruled under Sharia law.

They have no interest in bringing an end to the world.

I never said they would make their own, but they if they conquered Israel they have the recourse and funding to access nukes.
There's no chance of Israel falling to Islamist terrorism.

---

If you want my own insight on the whole issue I don't believe that the Islamic State are going to last by 2020: literally every power in the middle east is gunning for them.

Theoretically they have the recourses to create their own, but I wont be so ignorant to deny the reality that they would have far to much opposition to create them.
If they don't have the expertise to maintain artillery units then I highly doubt they're going to have the expertise to construct nuclear weaponry.

It is funny how when arguing with Liberals.
I'm not a Liberal.

I am not directing this towards you only, but all out of the other responses I have gotten are very condescending and one guy even swore.
This is the way I always debate. I mean nothing by it. I apologise if you're offended but I'll point out that I'm not in the business of taking arguments seriously. I'm having a laugh the whole time.

Like it says on my myer-briggs personality page:

The ENTP personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. Unlike their more determined Judging (J) counterparts, ENTPs don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. No one loves the process of mental sparring more than ENTPs, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points.

http://www.16personalities.com/entp-personality

So, yeah, don't take what I'm saying to heart; I'm just having a laugh at the end of the day.

Maybe I did it too, but that really is not my intent.
You've been fine c:

First of all, I am a Libertarian, meaning that fiscally I am conservative, whereas socially I am liberal.
I'd label you a neo-libertarian but that's just me personally.

Neo-libertarians follow a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and neoconservative thought that embraces incrementalism domestically, and a generally objectivist/interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of freedom.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neo-Libertarian

For example, getting rid of Hussein was worth while-- but I would have preferred doing it without invading Iraq.
Hussein's overthrow has carried with it nothing but misery.

After 9/11 I would have retaliated in some way ...
I hope you realise that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Like: nothing.

... but my first option would be to switch and try to become a petroleum independent nation.
Infeasible at the time. I would say it's still infeasible now and that shale oil reserves are significantly overestimated.

We have the recourses and we would dry up terrorists funding.
But what you did was turn more Arab people to the Islamists side through your indiscriminate bombing of their lands etc.

It has become worse from US intervention.

In regards to Afghanistan, you simply can't tame a nation that does not have central government.
I guess you shouldn't have overthrown their progressive socialist one then.

I do find this ironic though: haven't Libertarian traditionally wanted a weak central government and strong decentralised government? I ascribe to left-libertarian though a bit and that's what I want.

I am saying that we should help our ally because I think that if they fall, there will be no regional power that balances the middle east.
Iraq is going to fall. That's inevitable.

Israel are also a major regional power there.

---

Wow, the head of a country is pushing a political agenda that's beneficial to those in his country? Who would ever have guessed.
Yes. let's pretend that only the Jewish majority live in Israel. That's productive.

[Left Now]

The terrorist organizations have illustrated, repeatedly, with many announcements, that they hate Christianity and other false religions. I never said they dislike America solely because of wealth and power, only that that adds on to the issue. I said that they believe we will destroy their way of life because we try to make sure that their people (mainly women, but all civilians depending on where we are talking about) are not treated so inhumane. That we'll try and install Democracy of some type or lift their people out of suppression.

Double Standard:

Last time I remember US and West intervened in my country,they overthrew a completely Democratic government and then helped a tyrant monarch to get the power which he was losing back;So I can never believe that even one of the superpowers in this world is a defender of Democracy and Freedom.

Also,let's not forget how Northern Alliance was treated by west when they were fighting against Taliban before it came to power in Afghanistan.Technically,Taliban was the first Takfiri terrorist group which was made in the world,and it was directly supported and funded by Saudi Arabia,no.1 ally of US in Persian Gulf,and Pakistan.

Only if US could put its arrogance aside and help Ahmad Shah Massoud and Islamic State of Afghanistan before Taliban being able to take the power in Afghanistan,then no 9/11 incident would happen.US just brought it to itself by making more troubles for him.

Iraq is going to fall. That's inevitable.

I don't think so.Iraq is politically tensioned,but its army recently is doing well in pushing Daesh forces to the north of Iraq and western borders of Iran.Now they only need to try to threaten western borders of Iran with Iraq,and then they can easily be smashed.

[Vlerchan]

I don't think so.Iraq is politically tensioned,but its army recently is doing well in pushing Daesh forces to the north of Iraq and western borders of Iran.Now they only need to try to threaten western borders of Iran with Iraq,and then they can easily be smashed.
I believe more that the underlying political tensions are going to be its death. It's not going to last as a single multi-ethnic state - especially not after this. What will happen (I believe) is after this is over that it will split three ways: a Kurdish sector, an (Iranian puppet) Shia sector, and a (post-ISIL Western puppet) Sunni sector forming. It's bound to happen - which is why lots of investors are already beginning to consider resources prices post-split. (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-independent-viewpoint?oid=249229&sn=Detail) - and I believe that a divided Iraq would be the best outcome for everyone in the region.

I agree that Islamic State are not going to last. It's just a matter of time before the Iranians et. al. crush them.

[Left Now]

I believe more that the underlying political tensions are going to be its death. It's not going to last as a single multi-ethnic state - especially not after this. What will happen (I believe) is after this is over that it will split three ways: a Kurdish sector, an (Iranian puppet) Shia sector, and a (post-ISIL Western puppet) Sunni sector forming. It's bound to happen - which is why lots of investors are already beginning to consider resources prices post-split. (http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-independent-viewpoint?oid=249229&sn=Detail) - and I believe that a divided Iraq would be the best outcome for everyone in the region.

I agree that Islamic State are not going to last. It's just a matter of time before the Iranians et. al. crush them.

Actually in this part,with all respects which I have for you as a very intelligent member of this forum seriously,I seem to disagree with you.A divided Iraq can be good for no nation in region,except Saudi Arabia.

As soon as Daesh is dealt with,Iraqis can politically calm their country,so I don't think political tensions mean that the end of Iraq is near.Most Sunnis in Iraq are still supportive of their country to be united and not divided because they know if Saudis and Wahabis gain influence in Iraq due to its being divided,then nobody can stop them anymore.Daesh is the only ban in the way of Iraq to solve its political problems.

And Kurds,although they may say that they want to be completely independent from Iraq,but they know that it will be really difficult for them to make such a choice like this,and so they just want to be more independent from Iraq Central Government,but not completely independent.

If Iraq divides,then terrorist groups like Al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda will have better chances to establish more footholds for themselves in region,so it can never be good for anyone in Iraq,Iran(Specially),Turkey,Syria and Lebanon and technically most of the Middle East.

PS:Would you please not call it Islamic State once again?They are just Daesh.

[Vlerchan]

A divided Iraq can be good for no nation in region,except Saudi Arabia.
I would presume that the West would take effective control of the Sunni zone and any SA influence in the sector would be limited. I'm also considering the lurking Saudi Arabian succession crisis (http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Saudi-s-succession-battle-adds-to-Mideast-turmoil) which I have a feeling is going to effectively paralyse them in terms of their geopolitical manoeuvring if not dealt with quickly (and I don't believe it's going to be dealt with quickly).

I would also consider less hostility and political turmoil in the region to lead for better outcomes to everyone. It's the turmoil that erupted in Iraq post-Hussein that has made it such a good breeding grounds for Jihadists, etc., and ending the turmoil there - which I don't believe is going to happen in the context of a unified Iraq - should benefit all powers in the area.

---

Here's also another (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/why-the-saudis-are-panicking-10179?page=show) interesting article about Saudi Arabia heading the to future.

As soon as Daesh is dealt with,Iraqis can politically calm their country,so I don't think political tensions mean that the end of Iraq is near.
I'm not sure it's going to be possible to relieve the political tensions in Iraq. There's still massive sectarian divisions in the country, and installing a leader that both sides are happy with is not going to be easy. When I said above that a divided Iraq was the best outcome, I did not say that because I felt that it would be better that a hypothetical unified and peaceful Iraq, but rather that of the outcomes I see happening (broken but peaceful, unified and not peaceful) I consider it the better outcome.

Daesh is the only ban in the way of Iraq to solve its political problems.
I believe that the political problems will exist as long as Iraqis continued to build their national identities around the labels 'Sunni' and 'Shia', which doesn't seem like it is going to end any time soon. There were major problems before this uprising, Sunni's claiming that they were being mistreated by the government, etc., and they're not just going to disappear with Daesh.

And Kurds,although they may say that they want to be completely independent from Iraq,but they know that it will be really difficult for them to make such a choice like this,and so they just want to be more independent from Iraq Central Government,but not completely independent.
Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, appears to have moved the country closer to partition after asking MPs to form a committee to organise an independence referendum.

An MP from the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP) who was present at the closed session said Barzani did not offer a timetable, but it follows the Kurdistan president telling the BBC this week that a referendum was "a question of months" away.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/03/iraq-kurdish-president-barzani-proposes-independence-referendum

If Iraq divides,then terrorist groups like Al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda will have better chances to establish more footholds for themselves in region
I believe that 3 strong central governments, each with the backing of its people, will have a better chance of combating terrorism and the formation of terrorism than 1 weak and dis-unified central government, without the backing of the people. It was the political turmoil that erupted post-Hussein that allowed Daesh to form and gain a foothold in Iraq.

PS:Would you please not call it Islamic State once again?They are just Daesh.
Sure.

In the West we refer to them as they label themselves - Islamic State - but I presume you've got some hang-ups over whether they are really representative of the Islamic people.

[Left Now]

I would presume that the West would take effective control of the Sunni zone and any SA influence in the sector would be limited. I'm also considering the lurking Saudi Arabian succession crisis (http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Saudi-s-succession-battle-adds-to-Mideast-turmoil) which I have a feeling is going to effectively paralyse them in terms of their geopolitical manoeuvring if not dealt with quickly (and I don't believe it's going to be dealt with quickly).

I would also consider less hostility and political turmoil in the region to lead for better outcomes to everyone. It's the turmoil that erupted in Iraq post-Hussein that has made it such a good breeding grounds for Jihadists, etc., and ending the turmoil there - which I don't believe is going to happen in the context of a unified Iraq - should benefit all powers in the area.

---

Here's also another (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/why-the-saudis-are-panicking-10179?page=show) interesting article about Saudi Arabia heading the to future.

Right.



I'm not sure it's going to be possible to relieve the political tensions in Iraq. There's still massive sectarian divisions in the country, and installing a leader that both sides are happy with is not going to be easy. When I said above that a divided Iraq was the best outcome, I did not say that because I felt that it would be better that a hypothetical unified and peaceful Iraq, but rather that of the outcomes I see happening (broken but peaceful, unified and not peaceful) I consider it the better outcome.


I believe that the political problems will exist as long as Iraqis continued to build their national identities around the labels 'Sunni' and 'Shia', which doesn't seem like it is going to end any time soon. There were major problems before this uprising, Sunni's claiming that they were being mistreated by the government, etc., and they're not just going to disappear with Daesh

That's right,but still many Sunni tribes and influential political figures in Iraq believe that division is not a good solution.Before these conflicts,they had some troubles about how Shia government of Nuri Maliki was treating them and they sometimes had serious problems with officials of Iraq,but they never wanted Iraq to be divided into three other States.

This crisis happened when Daesh appeared in Iraq and because Nuri Maliki's government was not politically and military prepared for such an action like this from them,they began to lose their territories and political structure of Iraq began to collapse and because some of the military and governmental officials began to turn away from Maliki's government,the situation got worse.However,after a while Iraqi Army succeeded to form up militia groups from both Shia and Sunni population and push Daesh back and stop them temporarily.Also,after their parliament election,still hopes for calming political tensions in Iraq remain alive.

I'm sure that Iraq can remain united if only some reforms happen in its government.Of course after dealing with Daesh.



Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, appears to have moved the country closer to partition after asking MPs to form a committee to organise an independence referendum.

An MP from the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP) who was present at the closed session said Barzani did not offer a timetable, but it follows the Kurdistan president telling the BBC this week that a referendum was "a question of months" away.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/03/iraq-kurdish-president-barzani-proposes-independence-referendum

That would be a really hard decision for them.Because their complete independence would threaten Kurdistan parts of Iran and Turkey too specially in these times of quarrel and chaos.



Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, appears to have moved the country closer to partition after asking MPs to form a committee to organise an independence referendum.

An MP from the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP) who was present at the closed session said Barzani did not offer a timetable, but it follows the Kurdistan president telling the BBC this week that a referendum was "a question of months" away.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/03/iraq-kurdish-president-barzani-proposes-independence-referendum


I believe that 3 strong central governments, each with the backing of its people, will have a better chance of combating terrorism and the formation of terrorism than 1 weak and dis-unified central government, without the backing of the people. It was the political turmoil that erupted post-Hussein that allowed Daesh to form and gain a foothold in Iraq.

In fact,at first it was only an insurgent group which was supported by Al-Qaeda branch of Iraq.It was after Syrian Civil War when they started to grow stronger and stronger and more organized.Also,a part of the presence of current Daesh in Iraq has roots in some of main officials of Iraq who some kinda betrayed Maliki by providing suitable chances for them to begin their invasion.




Sure.

In the West we refer to them as they label themselves - Islamic State - but I presume you've got some hang-ups over whether they are really representative of the Islamic people.

Thanks.

[Chuck_M8]

Communications Intelligence (COMINT)

Blanket coverage of all electronic communications in the US and the world to ensure national security.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scalar_tech/esp_scalartech12.htm

The National Security Agency has developed a powerful tool for recording and analysing where its intelligence comes from, raising questions about its repeated assurances to Congress that it cannot keep track of all the surveillance it performs on American communications.

The Guardian has acquired top-secret documents about the NSA datamining tool, called Boundless Informant, that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

The focus of the internal NSA tool is on counting and categorizing the records of communications, known as metadata, rather than the content of an email or instant message.

[...]

Iran was the country where the largest amount of intelligence was gathered, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by 13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth with 6.3bn.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

I'm telling you that the NSA will catch electronic communications regardless of whos soil they're being conducted on.

It's apparently been the reason behind over 50 terrorist attacks being foiled.

(Reuters) - General Keith Alexander, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, said on Tuesday that the NSA's data gathering programs had prevented potential terrorist attacks more than 50 times since September 11, 2001.

"In recent years these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent ... potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11," he said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/18/us-usa-security-alexander-idUSBRE95H0QJ20130618

---

I'm also more trying to argue not that the US are never going to be struck by terrorism again - though I don't believe it will happen in our lifetimes - but rather that the US are doing their utmost best to combat terrorism in the US. You seem to believe that bombing Iraq or whatever and adding fuel to the Islamist fires (again) is going to help the situation further and that's where our main disagreement lies.


But then proceed to only attack the nations with Christian majorities of which have attacked the Arab world.

I again don't believe that a Christian majority in the US has anything to do with it being selected for 9/11.


Em.. no.

The US installed an Islamist in Iraq. The US installed another Islamist in Afghanistan. The US installed a tyranical Shah in Iran. It supports monarchists and salafist in a number of different countries too.

It's never had an interest in improving the human rights records of the region.


The US has deliberately avoided installing any accountable democratic regime for fear it would fall to people they don't like.

It's common sense foreign policy.


I agree that religion is the biggest issue here. The individual who I quoted agrees too.

These people are Islamist which is a form of nationalism which centers their national identity about their faith.

I still have a hard time believing that they would attack the US - or wherever - on a largely religious-only basis.


Right. Sorry. I misread.


No. Islamists have always been quite clear that they want to form a world-wide Islamic Caliphate ruled under Sharia law.

They have no interest in bringing an end to the world.


There's no chance of Israel falling to Islamist terrorism.

---

If you want my own insight on the whole issue I don't believe that the Islamic State are going to last by 2020: literally every power in the middle east is gunning for them.


If they don't have the expertise to maintain artillery units then I highly doubt they're going to have the expertise to construct nuclear weaponry.


I'm not a Liberal.


This is the way I always debate. I mean nothing by it. I apologise if you're offended but I'll point out that I'm not in the business of taking arguments seriously. I'm having a laugh the whole time.

Like it says on my myer-briggs personality page:

The ENTP personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. Unlike their more determined Judging (J) counterparts, ENTPs don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. No one loves the process of mental sparring more than ENTPs, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points.

http://www.16personalities.com/entp-personality

So, yeah, don't take what I'm saying to heart; I'm just having a laugh at the end of the day.


You've been fine c:


I'd label you a neo-libertarian but that's just me personally.

Neo-libertarians follow a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and neoconservative thought that embraces incrementalism domestically, and a generally objectivist/interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of freedom.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neo-Libertarian


Hussein's overthrow has carried with it nothing but misery.


I hope you realise that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Like: nothing.


Infeasible at the time. I would say it's still infeasible now and that shale oil reserves are significantly overestimated.


But what you did was turn more Arab people to the Islamists side through your indiscriminate bombing of their lands etc.

It has become worse from US intervention.


I guess you shouldn't have overthrown their progressive socialist one then.

I do find this ironic though: haven't Libertarian traditionally wanted a weak central government and strong decentralised government? I ascribe to left-libertarian though a bit and that's what I want.


Iraq is going to fall. That's inevitable.

Israel are also a major regional power there.

---


Yes. let's pretend that only the Jewish majority live in Israel. That's productive.

Well, now there is just so many things I don't even know what to respond to. I will say that you have thoroughly changed some of my positions on the issue. I would also agree that I could be labeled a neo-libretarain. Also, yes, Libertarians want a weaker central government, but not no central government whatsoever. Or at-least I and the other Libertarians I know think that way.

However, I will say that it would make sense that the only nations that have been attacked, with Christian majorities, were the ones who attacked them in some way. That would be common logic. Some on attacks you -- and on top of it they are a religion you don't like. I agree. But that does not change the fact that religious tension would still exist irregardless of whether or not the US, and other nations, ever got involved. Not saying that 9/11 would have still happened, but extremists would still have disliked us, especially with our support of Israel. There have been times when our presence was absolutely necessary though.. for example, I argued earlier with someone else about the Yom Kippur war. Had US not entered and helped brokered peace with the Egyptians and Israel, the Egyptian Third Army would have been massacred.

I do disagree with the terrorism thing though. I think terrorist organizations, for reasons that you and I both seem to now agree on, are very unpleased with America now more than ever. Yeah, the NSA is constantly doing there thing, but still. If we were to be attacked, I believe that now would be the most likely time for it to happen. Also, my point was that it does not need to be electronically communicated. People could gather together, set up a meeting time to meet again and just talk about what they are doing. They could send one guy to America through the border, which is poorly guarded, give him a date to attack and then all he has to do is carry it out. Maybe I gave the false impression, or maybe I even wrote that I think another event to the scale of 9/11 would happen. Most likely it would not. However, even a small bomb in a very crowded place can do a lot of damage. In a worse case scenario something similar could happen to 9/11.

As far as the WMD, with money they can always hire scientists and other people who are intelligent enough. Remember, that is how the Pakistan got their nukes, foreign hired/ educated scientists. Now I am not saying terrorist organizations will hire scientists and literally build nukes, but say that they somehow did overthrow Israel, they could easily fund scientists to figure out how to work them. Now it's unlikely that Israel would get overthrown, but they are our ally nonetheless and the notion that those nukes could fall into the wrong hands is worth defending. In my opinion.

I think that the reason they installed Islamist was because it was under pretense they were better than their predecessors and the people would not be as opposed to it. Maybe it is true that America never cared about the social status and rights of suppressed civilians in the Middle East, but I'd like to think they did. Because that is why I would think something is worth fighting for.

On a final note, I never said switching to a petroleum based nation would be easy. It would have to be a national project and a Kennedy-esque movement. Though, we do have the recourse to do so, but it would not be easy. I also said that I would have preferred not to invade Iraq and I meant in general. Even though they had nothing to do with 9/11, it was still the people of the Middle East who were responsible. If we cut ties with those who are not our allies by not buying any oil from them, they'd lose a considerable amount of funding and their governments would be more inclined to control and stop some of their extremists and terrorist organizations in their midsts. Maybe it wouldn't work and they'd attack us/ dislike us anyways still, but I think it beats the alternative. It would have saved a lot of bloodshed.

I also reread what you said. I thought our disagreement was in Israel and defending them. I said that I think that is the ONLY place we should be right now. The only other place our soldiers should be is in our embassies. Leave everything else alone. Before I was simply defending the rationale of why America made such decisions in the past, not that I think they are the best possible decisions that could have been made. I think the best decisions are always ones that avoid bloodshed. I know that defending Israel may cause bloodshed, but it beats their nukes getting in the wrong hands and being used.

[Vlerchan]

That's right,but still many Sunni tribes and influential political figures in Iraq believe that division is not a good solution.
Would you mind providing a source to support this claim?

I'm not all that knowledgeable about domestic Iraqi politics so I have no idea if it's true.

This crisis happened when Daesh appeared in Iraq and because Nuri Maliki's government was not politically and military prepared for such an action like this from them,they began to lose their territories and political structure of Iraq began to collapse and because some of the military and governmental officials began to turn away from Maliki's government,the situation got worse.
That's my understanding too.

However,after a while Iraqi Army succeeded to form up militia groups from both Shia and Sunni population and push Daesh back and stop them temporarily.
I'd also appreciate a source supporting your claims of multi-ethnic militias. Thanks.

Because their complete independence would threaten Kurdistan parts of Iran and Turkey too specially in these times of quarrel and chaos.
I would presume you wouldn't be a fan of Iranian Kurds gaining independence?

In fact,at first it was only an insurgent group which was supported by Al-Qaeda branch of Iraq.It was after Syrian Civil War when they started to grow stronger and stronger and more organized.
This is also my understanding.

Also,a part of the presence of current Daesh in Iraq has roots in some of main officials of Iraq who some kinda betrayed Maliki by providing suitable chances for them to begin their invasion.
I'd lastly appreciate a source supporting this claim too. Thanks.

---

Well, now there is just so many things I don't even know what to respond to.
In the future it might be helpful to form you post through the use of (manual) line-by-line quoting. It's done like this (without "eg: "):
[eg: quote=UserInQuestion]What they said.[/quote]
I find it far better - in terms of efficiency and thought organisation - than just writing up textwalls.

I will say that you have thoroughly changed some of my positions on the issue.
I also didn't know the full extent of the US's border control issues until you mentioned it.

Also, yes, Libertarians want a weaker central government, but not no central government whatsoever. Or at-least I and the other Libertarians I know think that way.
Korashk - he's a poster here: one of the more intelligent and engaging ones if you ask me - is a libertarian or anarcho-capatalist and he doesn't support any form of government structure. I know several other libertarians who are the same - though they don't post here.

There have been times when our presence was absolutely necessary though.. for example, I argued earlier with someone else about the Yom Kippur war. Had US not entered and helped brokered peace with the Egyptians and Israel, the Egyptian Third Army would have been massacred.
I agree here.

Though saving the lives of Muslims is not something that other Muslims would have an issue with.

---

I don't believe all intervention is bad.

I do disagree with the terrorism thing though. I think terrorist organizations, for reasons that you and I both seem to now agree on, are very unpleased with America now more than ever. Yeah, the NSA is constantly doing there thing, but still. If we were to be attacked, I believe that now would be the most likely time for it to happen. Also, my point was that it does not need to be electronically communicated. People could gather together, set up a meeting time to meet again and just talk about what they are doing. They could send one guy to America through the border, which is poorly guarded, give him a date to attack and then all he has to do is carry it out. Maybe I gave the false impression, or maybe I even wrote that I think another event to the scale of 9/11 would happen. Most likely it would not. However, even a small bomb in a very crowded place can do a lot of damage. In a worse case scenario something similar could happen to 9/11.
I agree it's a possibility. I don't agree it's a likelihood.

Your 'one man coming over to kill us all after intense discussion in some Iraqi terrorist hub' example would be insanely difficult to pull off and so I believe incredibly unlikely to happen. You are correct it's a possibility though.

I think that the reason they installed Islamist was because it was under pretense they were better than their predecessors and the people would not be as opposed to it. Maybe it is true that America never cared about the social status and rights of suppressed civilians in the Middle East, but I'd like to think they did. Because that is why I would think something is worth fighting for.
I have a very hard time believing that America cares about these people, honestly.

I find this (https://monthlyreview.org/2008/09/01/humanitarian-imperialism-the-new-doctrine-of-imperial-right/) is a good essay on the subject.

Even though they had nothing to do with 9/11, it was still the people of the Middle East who were responsible.
I don't believe your logic follows here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy

---

It should also be noted that Hussein wasn't harbouring terrorists.

I also reread what you said. I thought our disagreement was in Israel and defending them. I said that I think that is the ONLY place we should be right now.
I disagree.

Israel can protect themselves without US backing. If they've shown anything in the most recent conflict in Gaza it's that.

Before I was simply defending the rationale of why America made such decisions in the past, not that I think they are the best possible decisions that could have been made.
Right. I didn't pick up on that.

I know that defending Israel may cause bloodshed, but it beats their nukes getting in the wrong hands and being used.
I can't see that happening, honestly.

But if Israel ever looked like it was going to collapse I would support some sort of intervention.

[Left Now]

Would you mind providing a source to support this claim?

I'm not all that knowledgeable about domestic Iraqi politics so I have no idea if it's true.



Well,maybe you can just check Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha : He has always been one of the greatest criticizers of Maliki's Shia dominated government,but he has never supported the division of Iraq into smaller states,as he is supporting the government in recent conflicts,meanwhile asking US to help.

I think once I saw an article about him supporting Iraqi government against Takfiris:

Anti-al-Qaeda Sunni Group Backs Iraq’s Shiite Government (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-14/head-of-sunni-anbar-awakening-council-pledges-support-to-maliki.html)

(You know most of my sources are in Arabic and Farsi,but I think I can get some better English sources for you later)

I'd also appreciate a source supporting your claims of multi-ethnic militias. Thanks.

Sure.In regular forms,Sunni and Shia civilians are getting recruited as militias to fight against Daesh in Iraq

Source : Al-Alam (http://en.alalam.ir/news/1603353)



And also the tribesmen of numbers of Sunni tribes are siding with Iraqi army too

Source : Gulf Times (http://www.gulf-times.com/region/216/details/363797/with-violence-growing,-iraq-again-turns-to--sunni-tribes)


I would presume you wouldn't be a fan of Iranian Kurds gaining independence?

I support them if they want independence,but right now in 2014,it seems that they prefer to be a part of Iran than to be an independent state themselves.I'm just worried that the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan may cause groups like PPK and MEK to gain influence in Kurdistan area and then try to harm Iran.


I'd lastly appreciate a source supporting this claim too. Thanks.

Sorry,unfortunately I don't have any reliable source to support this claim with it except what I heard from Iraqis whom I met in Tehran,but some main officials actually did betray Maliki's government by helping Daesh.Not sure if they were high ranked officials or just some regular officials.

[Harry Smith]

lol the idea that US care about democracy etc is absurd. People always fall back on the 'we had good intentions line'' for the middle east when it's clear that US does not. The US have been playing the Middle East like a harpe

[Danny_boi 16]

I think the way western powers have handed the the middle east has been inadequate. However, I don't condone war and any type of unnecessary and useless death. I think that western powers, the United States especially, shall remain under UN orders and sovereign permission to act as a peace keeping force. And that's what my government has been doing since 2011. Furthermore, I think it is necessary for the Arab League to step up its role in the maintenance of peace. They have, collectively, agreed that terrorism is a cancer growing on the region, by people who bastardize the words of Allah. But it is now that they must use action.