The war on ISIS.

  • Thread starter mister dog
  • 3,128 comments
  • 132,766 views
It confuses me that at times you apparently speak out about the legality of governmental military actions yet in this case you seem decided on the facts of mercenary action. Facts aren't open to interpretation, incidentally. They're facts.
And it confuses me that you present facts as something polarizing and absolute, while facts can be presented under a biased context like much of the US media an RT.

I'm speaking out against the nonsensical notion that an individual should be punished for attacking terrorist or criminals in defense of others. The legal framework used by countries is vastly different when it comes to these situations, but these actions occurred due to the ineffectiveness of the international forces in attacking ISIS and defending potential vulnerable civilian population.

Is the nonsense created by the lack of an actual effective international front in Iraq, Syria and Turkey has led to this situation, the notion of "Law Abiding Citizen" comes to mind when American try to justify gun rights, yet this happens and they are the first to condemn such an action without seeing the hypocrisy that such action underlies.
 
Who defines that? You could be pro-ISIS with that comment.
And you could be pro US if you support the "killing" of Osama Bin Laden, same concept applies (a set of individuals doing an extra-judicial execution outside local or ruling jurisdiction).

Again, you are using the same "facts cannot be biased" argument while polarizing.
No, I did not say that. And you know perfectly well that I did not say that.
Then what were you trying to say?
 
Then what were you trying to say?
Really? It's all there in my post - we can't go changing the rules of engagement or putting aside our morality because it's popular or convenient or easier to do so. If we do, we only undermine the very fabric of our society, and while it might defeat ISIL, we will be no better than them.
 
Really? It's all there in my post - we can't go changing the rules of engagement or putting aside our morality because it's popular or convenient or easier to do so. If we do, we only undermine the very fabric of our society, and while it might defeat ISIL, we will be no better than them.
Now that brings up the question of: Is it better to defeat ISIS, or worry about the fabric of our society?

I say worry about ISIS right now. What Donald Trump and others want to do is not against our Constitution, they are not American citizens, thus the Constitution does not apply to them.
 
Well, clearly we got bored of compromising ourselves when it came to Japan.
I wasn't aware that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were the same thing. Who else knows about this earth-shattering revelation?

No, wait, I get it. You were trying to poke holes in my argument and said something stupid. Probably for the better, since for a moment there I was worried that people might have to start taking the History Channel seriously.
 
Well, clearly we got bored of not compromising ourselves when it came to Japan.

Never mind that, what about the fire and carpet bombings of several German cities before then, along with the majority of Japanese cities? Cities full of innocent people, culture, knowledge... In one notable example a British bombing raid resulted in the destruction of a museum in Munich, which housed the first discovered specimen of Spinosaurus, among other things.

The Allies bombed wherever they liked just as the Germans did earlier in the war. "All is fair in love and war," they say. Unfortunately, bombing of innocents is still a reality, even with the "precision" explosives that have appeared since then.
 
And all of the actions against Germany were in keeping with the treaties dictating the rules of war. Here, we have a suggestion that a civilian who went overseas where they had no authority to act should not be charged for any crimes that they committed while abroad simply because charging him would be unpopular.
 
And all of the actions against Germany were in keeping with the treaties dictating the rules of war.

Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllcrap.

There are plenty of known war crimes committed by the Allies. By partisans. By resistance groups.

Edit.

If it turns out that he was asked to help by any known acknowledged fighting force in the current situation he is a free man. That is what is making this whole situation a load of oversensitive bs.
 
Last edited:
Does siding with Stalin's regime count as the world "compromising itself"? It's kind of inevitable that if one's to discuss war crimes committed by the Allies, the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army will get mentioned.
 
DK
Does siding with Stalin's regime count as the world "compromising itself"? It's kind of inevitable that if one's to discuss war crimes committed by the Allies, the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army will get mentioned.

Executions without trial of concentration camp guards/Nazis/SS.
Willful starvation of Nazi POWs.
Indiscriminate bombing of non combatants.
Torture and abuse of captured enemies.

Etc. Etc.

And this is not the Red Army I'm talking about.
 
Executions without trial of concentration camp guards/Nazis/SS.
Willful starvation of Nazi POWs.
Indiscriminate bombing of non combatants.
Torture and abuse of captured enemies.

Etc. Etc.

And this is not the Red Army I'm talking about.

You can add the rounding up of certain ethnic groups and placing them in prison camps to that list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment
 
For you funny (in your opinion) forum members, but also for the serious ones who want to understand the ideology, watch the Channel 4 story about "The Jihadis Next Door".

Few things -

A. In the present context there is no Freedom of Speech in the UK - the guy is right.

B. Do not jump on conclusions (min.21.25) when the UK Jihadi is asking a muslim bystander - " If you love Afghanistan, why did you come to my country?" to which the bystander answers with an apparently smart question - "If you love your country, why did you converted to my dean? I was born a muslim, why did you converted?"
The bystander doesn't make any sense. Islam, for the UK converted Jihadi, is not about loving his country, but for his believes. When it comes to religion, extreme or not, borders don't matter any more.

C. min.31.50 - the guy says something very interesting, if you pay close enough attention - " Death to Pakistan! What did Pakistan do for Muslims? What did Pakistan do for Muslims?"
Knowing how dangerous Pakistan is, I think that question is a very legitimate question for the world of Islam.

Enjoy!

 
Counter-terrorist operation in Nalchik, KBR (North Caucasus, Russia), January, 15, 2016.

Why are we fighting them in Syria? To avoid fighting them in our own homes.
 
For you funny (in your opinion) forum members, but also for the serious ones who want to understand the ideology, watch the Channel 4 story about "The Jihadis Next Door".

Few things -

A. In the present context there is no Freedom of Speech in the UK - the guy is right.

B. Do not jump on conclusions (min.21.25) when the UK Jihadi is asking a muslim bystander - " If you love Afghanistan, why did you come to my country?" to which the bystander answers with an apparently smart question - "If you love your country, why did you converted to my dean? I was born a muslim, why did you converted?"
The bystander doesn't make any sense. Islam, for the UK converted Jihadi, is not about loving his country, but for his believes. When it comes to religion, extreme or not, borders don't matter any more.

C. min.31.50 - the guy says something very interesting, if you pay close enough attention - " Death to Pakistan! What did Pakistan do for Muslims? What did Pakistan do for Muslims?"
Knowing how dangerous Pakistan is, I think that question is a very legitimate question for the world of Islam.

Enjoy!


Way to burst through the door with your "hilarious" user name. I think you meant to find the Channel 4 Facebook comments page?
 

Latest Posts

Back