Iraq - where is the rest of the Muslim world now?

I f**king hate the Burkha too and I'm a Muslim.

That's a perfect example actually

The Quran says 'woman should dress modestly covering themselves except for their husband' something along them lines yeah and then woman dress up like f**king ninjas. Pathetic.

 

I know sod all ... but I do know that the US would never lift a finger for purely humanitarian reasons ... NEVER!

 

I'm guessing the reported 250mm Muslim extremists end game is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide 'caliphate' founded on Shari'a law

 

Do you mean 250 million extremists? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

Many reports I've read put the number at 20%. What number do you think?

 

Wait, you seriously believe 20% of all Muslims are extremists?

I'd suggest wherever you've read that either has an agenda, or doesn't know the definition of an extremist.

 

I wonder what percentage 'dislike' British and U.S. politics? ... more than 20% I'd imagine.

 

20% of 1.6 billion is 320 million. HAHAHAHAHAH TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY EXTREMISTS IN THE WORLD. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY.

 

The context of extremist in this topic is one who wants a Global muslim state, not a person that would fly a plane into the twin towers

http://youtu.be/oY5X1_eGCJY

 

Exactly, moneys at the root of it all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_WASHTUB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group


Well, we can remove the idea of sympathy for a start.

 

The US has a fantastic reputation in South America. But they're christian mostly here, so make of that what you will

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_rS4otrv3w

Oh yeah an extremist is one who wants the whole world to be ruled under Islam. What sane person has said that?

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

Good read. Every religion has an ugly side. Religion itself is ugly.

 

Not a mistake. An immoral error. Yet another disastrous attempt to nuance the region that cost real lives.

 

Take it from someone who lives there: the US doesn't give a crap about the people living in the Middle East. It's about US interests first and foremost, and that means oil. The US is currently highly dependent on foreign oil, and they will do anything they can to make sure that dependence is met.

I think you underestimate how much of a right wing country the US is. The Republican party has been veering to the right for decades and only just to the left of pre-ascendance Hitler now.

 

Well maybe.

But the only way to avoid making a mistake is avoid doing anything at all, to not care, to not lift a finger, to just hope it will sort itself out, by leaving it to others - let them take the blame from anyone that wants to apportion blame rather than tackle the issues.

Not far different from how I see the neighbouring Muslim nations behaving now.

 

I asked for evidence, not false flag operations.

That still doesn't strike me as evidence.

Heres a question. Suppose the US is only involved for oil money. Is ending a genocide not valuable as a means to an end? Because for me, if America is only interested in oil, ending a genocide is a good thing regardless of intentions. E

nding genocide as a means to an end is a good thing. What end do you think is so immoral and impermissible that we oughtn't allow the end to a genocide? Especially in this case. Is America wanting oil money more immoral than a genocide?

 

Glad to hear you'll be actively involved. When's your flight to Baghdad?

 

If you want evidence, start watching American news and current affairs programs religiously. Come and live over here and engage the average voter in conversation.

You'll never find a statement from the US Government specifically stating "we only care about Middle East oil", though, so if that's what you're hoping to find you'll never see it.

 

I'm interested in how you know the inner workings of government, rather than simply believing it. It was spouted as a statement of fact, not an opinion.

What are your thoughts on the rest of my post?

 

I don't think anybody here has any real idea what may be reported or not reported in the Middle East to be honest, or if there is as much of an emphasis on 24/7 news.

I would imagine other countries' press are not so quick to produce headlines with 'SHOCKING PICTURES OF ISIS BEHEADING' either, or so I would hope.

I have literally no idea what the press in the Middle East is like, I don't read Arabic and as far as I know our news channels to not provide us with regular translations of all the headlines in every paper in every country in the Middle East. Therefore I would not expect to know what Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon or anybody else is reporting about ISIS.

I think the OP is somewhat unfair. There is not a 'World United Christian Communication Broadcasting Company (WUCCBC)' any more so than a Muslim one. Just because all those countries are majority Muslim doesn't mean that they would produce some sort of unified English language soundbite on behalf of all the Muslims in the world.

I'm sure than there is widespread condemnation in all the rags in the Middle East. Rarely do normal people applaud genocide.

 

I sometimes watch Fox news. Amazing stuff. Their hatred for the Obama administration knows no bounds!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

 

Just after your flight to Gaza to sort out their problems.

 

It is a fact, you simply have to look at historical behavior. If you have a mate who says he likes all types of women and yet exclusively chases curvy blondes and shows zero interest in anything else, it's pretty obvious what his type actually is. You're probably too young to adaquately remember the start of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, but Dubya couldn't wait to find an excuse to head into Iraq, even though it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Why? Oil. His family are elbows deep in it. The US has had precisely two reasons for getting involved in major world conflicts in the last century: anti-communism sentiment, and oil.[/quote]

It's a philosophical point. I don't really have a horse in that particular race, but I think most people would agree that anything that causes genocide to be stopped is ultimately a good thing. I won't make the mistake of calling it altruism on the part of the US, though.

Of course, thus far all the US has a managed to do with its World Police behavior is set up future conflicts. I think it's more than fair to say that the current situation with the IS is far worse than the situation in Iraq under Saddam. There is a case that US and the UK bear their fair share of responsibility for what's happening over there.

 

To be fair PotGuy, you are saying that you "dont know what the Middle Eastern press are reporting", yet then you say "I'm sure there is widespread condemnation in all the rags in the Middle East".

How did you manage that, then?

 

Oh right, both World Wars had nothing to do with Germany then (precisely).

 

It's a philosophical point. I don't really have a horse in that particular race, but I think most people would agree that anything that causes genocide to be stopped is ultimately a good thing. I won't make the mistake of calling it altruism on the part of the US, though.

Of course, thus far all the US has a managed to do with its World Police behavior is set up future conflicts. I think it's more than fair to say that the current situation with the IS is far worse than the situation in Iraq under Saddam. There is a case that US and the UK bear their fair share of responsibility for what's happening over there.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you and I differ on what we call fact and opinion. I think I have higher standards of proof to accept something as a fact rather than a probably cause.

I'm confused as to why people seem to criticise America's actions then. Fair enough if you criticise their intentions, but to criticise actions which prevent awful things happening aren't very becoming. I don't mean you by the way.

 

Point of clarification, I wasn't including the world conflicts but the smaller scales ones limited to the US and [opponent]. Think along the lines Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.

My fault for not being clear with my point, apologies.

 

Did that 20 years ago, this time I'll let someone else have the glory

 

It's a fact that the is a distinct correlation between US foreign war efforts and oil rich countries, and the correlation is far too high for it to be a coincidence.

You can disagree with what their intentions are, since controlling the oil supply is certainly never explicitly stated in official releases by the executive branch (although it does get mentioned in the House/Senate discussions on many occasions), but the correlation is there for anyone to see and has been noted on many occasions.

Like I said, start watching American political and news outlets (FOX is a good example, if you can stomach it).

On a completely different note, I struggle to reconcile my wish to see the victims of genocidal regimes receive protection with my feeling that playing World Police only serves to destable the area long term.

Iraq is a great example of this. Saddam was an awful man and did was undoubtedly guilty of crimes against humanity. Yet now that we have removed him, are the people of the area better off? After an estimated 120,000+ civilian deaths directly related to the war, and after arguably clearing a path for the eventual emergence of IS(IS), can we really claim that removing Saddam was a good thing? My feeling is that history will judge our involvement in Iraq a mistake, much as I hope to be wrong.

 

No worries, I've corrected it for you.

I'm concerned that it may have weakened your point, slightly.

 

Aside from a clear difference between a pan-world conflict and a small war, the US was practically forced into both of those conflicts (Lusitania/Pearl Harbour). In neither war did it join solely of its own volition, and most if not all historians agree it quite probably would had sat out of both if it could have (which isn't to say that individual American politicians didn't want to help out; obviously many did). They had an explicit stated policy of neutrality in both conflicts until events forced their hand.

It's not quite the same situation as smaller scale elective wars. I would classify the US as a defender in both World Wars, not the aggressor.

 

I don't see your point.

The whole point of my post was that unless you have read every newspaper in the Middle East then you are in no position to comment. My point was that you do not know either and it is quite an assumption to suggest that just because their reaction has not been reported in our press that there is no reaction.

My other point was that being a Muslim isn't a club you subscribe to and that Muslim majority countries do not club together to speak on behalf of all Muslims. Individuals are individuals, countries are countries. I honestly have no idea what you expect from the 'Muslim world', but short of clerical organisations saying it is anti-Islamic, which they have, I don't know what you are expecting.

And checking the Al Jazeera website doesn't count as knowledge of Middle Eastern views :]]

 

[QUOTE/]Perhaps you and I differ on what we call fact and opinion. I think I have higher standards of proof to accept something as a fact rather than a probably cause.

I'm confused as to why people seem to criticise America's actions then. Fair enough if you criticise their intentions, but to criticise actions which prevent awful things happening aren't very becoming. I don't mean you by the way.[/QUOTE]

it's one thing to say genocide is bad. it's another to say that there is absolutely no chance that american interventionism will be anything other than 100% beneficial in the short and long term for this particular genocide/civil war, surely? or at least the experience of latin america, the middle east and asia would suggest this.