If Saddam was still in power, would things be more stable in the Middle East/less terrorism?

[SmilingBhudda]

It will be interesting to see if Hillary really does taken down Assad. The replacements looking pretty damn frightening. Is there a non-terrorist group even fighting for a piece of the pie any more?

This crapfest is the fruit of GW. We are making it worse by preventing any party from actually winning the war. We are taking down one of the strongest parties and Hillary is threatening to take down the other. We are supporting parties that are actively hostile to Turkey and fomenting civil war in that country. WE ARE FUNDING ENEMIES OF OUR SUPPOSED ALLY TURKEY RIGHT NOW, enemies that could destabilize Turkey and send it down the same road as Syria.

Turkey is not your ally. They only act like one. Best way to solve a Gordian knot is with a sword. Wielded by the Russians. Obama and Hillary messing in Syria is the reason Assad didn't take back power a long time ago.

 

[bshole]

And that's why I think the best option for a middle-eastern country is a dictator, backed by the West (or Russia, or China if you prefer), so I guess we at least agree on that. Because you can't have democracy in an islamic country, it's simply haram. And drugs are haram too, but the caliphate you promote won't solve that, as shown by the failure of Hamas to adress the issue.

And I think the best option for a Middle East country is for America to completely and utterly detach. What in the hell do you hope to achieve by more American meddling? Are you worried that terrorism against Americans might recede? We absolutely have to keep terrorizing them so they never forget that we are truly their worst enemy? I don't agree with ANY further American engagement and I disagree quite strongly. If they want theocracy, let them have it. If they want ISIS, that's what they should get. It is not our business.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

And I think the best option for a Middle East country is for America to completely and utterly detach. What in the hell do you hope to achieve by more American meddling? Are you worried that terrorism against Americans might recede? We absolutely have to keep terrorizing them so they never forget that we are truly their worst enemy? I don't agree with ANY further American engagement and I disagree quite strongly. If they want theocracy, let them have it. If they want ISIS, that's what they should get. It is not our business.

If we give them theocracy (which most muslims don't actually want, as proven by the mass protest in Egypt to force Sisi to take over, something western media don't show us) they will still blame the West, because a theocracy means tons of dead people, many of them children. Something the West has a 'moral obligation' to prevent.

And then the UN, EU, left-wing folks and muslims already living in the West will want to bring lots of refugees into our countries, turning them into a theocracy too. So if we do give them a theocracy we need to close our borders and probably have the EU done away with, or at least drop the Schengen and Refugee treaties, and then live in a police state to prevent angry muslims from blowing themselves up.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we give them theocracy (which most muslims don't actually want, as proven by the mass protest in Egypt to force Sisi to take over, something western media don't show us) they will still blame the West, because a theocracy means tons of dead people, many of them children. Something the West has a 'moral obligation' to prevent.

And then the UN, EU, left-wing folks and muslims already living in the West will want to bring lots of refugees into our countries, turning them into a theocracy too. So if we do give them a theocracy we need to close our borders and probably have the EU done away with, or at least drop the Schengen and Refugee treaties, and then live in a police state to prevent angry muslims from blowing themselves up.

So, most muslims don't want theocracy so western muslims & evil libruhls will bring more muslims to the West to establish theocracy?

There's no logic to that.

 

[JSt0rm]

we have killed shit tons of children in the middle east. The idea that we can bomb them until they decide not to kill children is stupid.

 

[agent00f]

Ok, ok, white people bad. So what is your solution? White people dead?

This sort of reply illustrates how these people think of the world, as some kind of struggle between us (good guys) vs them (evil). It's the abrahamic tradition, shared by the lowest common denominator of believers who do as they're told, in this particular case the ISIS types vs their western nationalist/supremacist counterparts.

I'm simply explaining the situation in terms of your own purported moral standards. This is a thread about the other guys being bad, so it's worth pointing out your own behavior to compare & contrast against the supposedly worse people ever. I don't need to apply outside values to that behavior, since plenty of your own & friends per the thread above are readily available to judge what said behavior warrants.

What you say about oil makes not much sense though. We are actually a people that is very easy to deal with when it comes to trading. You might make a slightly smaller profit but we are very dependable. I'll stick to the common cold war imperialism for now, which is not a bad thing as such, because communism doesn't always work out too well. The problem with East-Timor is that it was colonized by catholic Portugese, then taken by islamic Indonesians, raped and pillaged, and then made into an independent christian state by the UN, which is very haram.

And I see what you mean now, genetic similarity between Dutch and Belgian people, Dutch people guilty for Congo too, and India, Vietnam, Americas, WW1 and 2, nazism, communism, cold war, war on drugs, war on terror, global warming, and especially the situation in the M-E which has nothing to do at all with their primitive warrior-religion. And apartheid ofcourse, an actual Dutch word. Good thing slavery was invented by brown people, or I might have just killed myself. That, or you really don't know the difference between the Netherlands and Belgium.

It doesn't make to dummies because not much every does outside of us-good-them-bad supremicist rhetoric. US motivation in that case was unveiled in internal memos from the white house.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

So, most muslims don't want theocracy so western muslims & evil libruhls will bring more muslims to the West to establish theocracy?

There's no logic to that.

The logic is right in front of you, it's called the Islamic State, where millions live under the rule of a few, using terror and intimidation to remain in power. Radical muslims in Europe (or anywhere for that matter) are not going to wait untill they have a 2/3 majority so they can change the constitution. Or like in Egypt, where there are a ton of poor and illiterate people who are told by the SA financed imam to vote Morsi. But thank god another 50% of Egypt is still smart enough to demand Sisi to take over. And then western media cry about democracy being obstructed, even amnesty international would rather see all Egyptians live under sharia, which is great for human rights.

 

[SmilingBhudda]

This sort of reply illustrates how these people think of the world, as some kind of struggle between us (good guys) vs them (evil). It's the abrahamic tradition, shared by the lowest common denominator of believers who do as they're told, in this particular case the ISIS types vs their western nationalist/supremacist counterparts.

I'm simply explaining the situation in terms of your own purported moral standards. This is a thread about the other guys being bad, so it's worth pointing out your own behavior to compare & contrast against the supposedly worse people ever. I don't need to apply outside values to that behavior, since plenty of your own & friends per the thread above are readily available to judge what said behavior warrants.



It doesn't make to dummies because not much every does outside of us-good-them-bad supremicist rhetoric. US motivation in that case was unveiled in internal memos from the white house.

Islam is evil, no doubt about that. And that reply shows your reasoning in the most basic way possible. You simply blame Europe and the US, and especially white people for all the problems in the world, and then you use a lot of fancy but meaningless words to obscure it and try to look like a smart person. The same way you put all the blame for the situation in Iraq on Bush. But if your team Obama/Hillary fucks up the Middle-East ten times worse we don't hear a thing about if from you.

And show me those memos. Nothing about oil on Wikipedia or any other source I could find. This is interesting though: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/oltm003whoa01_01/oltm003whoa01_01_0005.php

 

[Vic]

The logic is right in front of you, it's called the Islamic State, where millions live under the rule of a few, using terror and intimidation to remain in power. Radical muslims in Europe (or anywhere for that matter) are not going to wait untill they have a 2/3 majority so they can change the constitution. Or like in Egypt, where there are a ton of poor and illiterate people who are told by the SA financed imam to vote Morsi. But thank god another 50% of Egypt is still smart enough to demand Sisi to take over. And then western media cry about democracy being obstructed, even amnesty international would rather see all Egyptians live under sharia, which is great for human rights.

What solutions do you have for this issue that would make you any different than the people you're demonizing?

 

[agent00f]

Islam is evil, no doubt about that. And that reply shows your reasoning in the most basic way possible. You simply blame Europe and the US, and especially white people for all the problems in the world, and then you use a lot of fancy but meaningless words to obscure it and try to look like a smart person. The same way you put all the blame for the situation in Iraq on Bush. But if your team Obama/Hillary fucks up the Middle-East ten times worse we don't hear a thing about if from you.

And show me those memos. Nothing about oil on Wikipedia or any other source I could find. This is interesting though: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/oltm003whoa01_01/oltm003whoa01_01_0005.php

It's no surprise you can't find anything anywhere, even after I tried to teach you how to use google numerous times, even the wiki page on the exact event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor
--------
"On the day before the invasion, US President Gerald R. Ford and Kissinger met with Indonesian president Suharto. The United States had suffered a devastating setback in Vietnam, leaving Indonesia as the most important ally in the region. The US national interest "had to be on the side of Indonesia," Ford concluded.[71] According to declassified documents released by the National Security Archive (NSA) in December 2001, they gave a green light for the invasion. In response to Suharto saying, "We want your understanding if it was deemed necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in East Timor]," Ford replied, "We will understand and not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have." Kissinger agreed,"

"The UN's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated in the "Responsibility" chapter of its final report that US "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor between 1975 and 1999. The report (p. 92) also stated that "U.S. supplied weaponry was crucial to Indonesia's capacity to intensify military operations from 1977 in its massive campaigns to destroy the Resistance in which aircraft supplied by the United States played a crucial role."[77][78]"

---------
Let's just say there's little hope someone like that can even begin to understand my post above.

 

[Jhhnn]

The logic is right in front of you, it's called the Islamic State, where millions live under the rule of a few, using terror and intimidation to remain in power. Radical muslims in Europe (or anywhere for that matter) are not going to wait untill they have a 2/3 majority so they can change the constitution. Or like in Egypt, where there are a ton of poor and illiterate people who are told by the SA financed imam to vote Morsi. But thank god another 50% of Egypt is still smart enough to demand Sisi to take over. And then western media cry about democracy being obstructed, even amnesty international would rather see all Egyptians live under sharia, which is great for human rights.

Gawd.The Islamic State exists because we destroyed the rule of law in that region & created a power vacuum they could fill. The notion that such circumstances exist in Western Democracies is absurd, a fear mongering conspiracy theory of the bullshit variety.