In Memoriam, Charlie Hebdo

[scotttswan]

In general, terrorism is a 100% problem created by the US. Perfect excuse to have stronger controls, patriotic acts everywhere, more repression, reasons for wars, etc

In particular, Islamic State is also a US creation. Just think, use common sense, study. The differences between the two forces (terrorists groups and the US) are abismal, military, in intelligence, in information, etc. NOTHING could have happened, arose, after 10 years of occupation of the most powerful military force in earth without their will.

Daesh are the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq, former ba'ath party and various local war lords in Iraq/Syria taking advantage of a weak sectarian Iraqi government that persecuted Sunni Muslims and a civil war in Syria.

 

[Matiasba]

Daesh are the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq, former ba'ath party and various local war lords in Iraq/Syria taking advantage of a weak sectarian Iraqi government that persecuted Sunni Muslims and a civil war in Syria.

and you think the US could not resolve the situation? bringing peace? tell me, did the US use of force impulse or calm down these people? and given the thousands deaths in their hands, didnt have they the power to give these terrorists a better destiny that threaten europe and western civiization?

There is a paradox on the stronger controls, repression and wars to these people and the growth of terrorism.

We must always keep in mind that the more powerfull actor in all these situation is the USA with their militars, intelligence, etc

 

[Matt84]

and you think the US could not resolve the situation? bringing peace? tell me, did the US use of force impulse or calm down these people? and given the thousands deaths in their hands, didnt have they the power to give these terrorists a better destiny that threaten europe and western civiization?

There is a paradox on the stronger controls, repression and wars to these people and the growth of terrorism.

We must always keep in mind that the more powerfull actor in all these situation is the USA with their militars, intelligence, etc

As this guy says Western politicians deceive their citizens saying they are not against normal muslims, only terrorists, but then they carpet bomb normal muslim cities because terrorists are absolutely scattered among civilians. So while your discourse sounds like you blame everything on the USA, you do have a point in that they don't seem to want peace as much as victory. What disturbs me in particular is that for more than a decade now the West has not achieved either peace or victory.

http://youtu.be/Hzg2WMQB3ZA

 

[scotttswan]

and you think the US could not resolve the situation? bringing peace? tell me, did the US use of force impulse or calm down these people? and given the thousands deaths in their hands, didnt have they the power to give these terrorists a better destiny that threaten europe and western civiization?

There is a paradox on the stronger controls, repression and wars to these people and the growth of terrorism.

We must always keep in mind that the more powerfull actor in all these situation is the USA with their militars, intelligence, etc

Of course they could, pretty much most countries could resolve the situation and force Daesh back to planting road bombs, suicide bombings and shit, but that would involve a lot of well trained soldiers on the ground fighting.

Iraq was stable under Saddam because he ruled with an iron fist and kept the local war lords happy. When people rebelled he attacked and killed them.
After he was gone the "coalition" forces filled that gap as well as they could, then they left leaving a shia government who were quite sectarian, filling all the government positions with Shia muslims. There's a whole lot of Saddam's Ba'ath party sunni military guys who are fighting an effective civil war in Iraq under the banner of Daesh.

How can you fix it? fucked if i know. Splitting the country into 3 might work, Kurds in the north and somehow split the sunni/shi'ite areas. Or maybe just point the government into some sort of union so they can fight together. I reckon we'll see a Kurdish state appearing soon though.

Should the coalition forces stayed to support the sectarian shia's in power? How should they support the government that came after Saddam? Iraq sold most of its oil contracts to China and Russia after the war, and the Shi'ite government has become best friends forever with Iran.

 

[scotttswan]

and all the racists come out to play.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909185/Mass-immigration-led-Muslim-ghettos-Britain-run-Sharia-Law-says-Farage-Ukip-leader-claims-authorities-turn-blind-eye-TV-interview.html

:lol:

 

[Matiasba]

What disturbs me in particular is that for more than a decade now the West has not achieved either peace or victory.

And you think this is an accident? war is an incredibly enormous bussiness, where the bigger military forces always win. Thats the creation of Israel, to have a permanent war, to have a deposit of all the excess of weapons of WWII and to control the most important area of the world.

But of course this situation is planned, if the US wanted peace and development they could have had anothe Marshall plan, they can easily make a handful of countries the best of the world like they did with devastated europe and japan. They were nothing but ruins, remember.

In sum, the US is the most important player (not the only one, ojo) and if something happens is because they want it. Like invade a country or two and stay 10 years, or support Israle bombings, or -this is arguable- provoke 9/11.

 

[ariel81]

And you think this is an accident? war is an incredibly enormous bussiness, where the bigger military forces always win. Thats the creation of Israel, to have a permanent war, to have a deposit of all the excess of weapons of WWII and to control the most important area of the world.

But of course this situation is planned, if the US wanted peace and development they could have had anothe Marshall plan, they can easily make a handful of countries the best of the world like they did with devastated europe and japan. They were nothing but ruins, remember.

In sum, the US is the most important player (not the only one, ojo) and if something happens is because they want it. Like invade a country or two and stay 10 years, or support Israle bombings, or -this is arguable- provoke 9/11.

You are just an ingorant clown,it is so patehtic as to be risible.
The only decent country in the middle east,the only democracy and the only developed country is Israel,the rest,are middle ages shitholes.
My dear ignorant,the us,placed an arm embargo on israel indepence war,in fact,the first american sale of weapons was in 1962,a bunch of sam hawks

 

[Matt84]

and all the racists come out to play.

http://www.dailymail...-interview.html

:lol:

it's hilarious. So are the non-racist religious people it seems: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910126/Muslims-stage-angry-protests-Charlie-Hebdo-s-Mohammed-cartoon-Boko-Haram-terror-leader-hails-Paris-massacre.html

 

[Matiasba]

Of course they could, pretty much most countries could resolve the situation and force Daesh back to planting road bombs, suicide bombings and shit, but that would involve a lot of well trained soldiers on the ground fighting.

Iraq was stable under Saddam because he ruled with an iron fist and kept the local war lords happy. When people rebelled he attacked and killed them.
After he was gone the "coalition" forces filled that gap as well as they could, then they left leaving a shia government who were quite sectarian, filling all the government positions with Shia muslims. There's a whole lot of Saddam's Ba'ath party sunni military guys who are fighting an effective civil war in Iraq under the banner of Daesh.

How can you fix it? fucked if i know. Splitting the country into 3 might work, Kurds in the north and somehow split the sunni/shi'ite areas. Or maybe just point the government into some sort of union so they can fight together. I reckon we'll see a Kurdish state appearing soon though.

Should the coalition forces stayed to support the sectarian shia's in power? How should they support the government that came after Saddam? Iraq sold most of its oil contracts to China and Russia after the war, and the Shi'ite government has become best friends forever with Iran.

i guess that the problem is that Iraqs (and Syrias, and the rest of the countries too) borders were imposed by western countries (England and France). That was the beginning of these fights. If the Kurds were in north Iraq before than Iraq, probably they deserve a state.

 

[Matiasba]

You are just an ingorant clown,it is so patehtic as to be risible.
The only decent country in the middle east,the only democracy and the only developed country is Israel,the rest,are middle ages shitholes.
My dear ignorant,the us,placed an arm embargo on israel indepence war,in fact,the first american sale of weapons was in 1962,a bunch of sam hawks

Israel could not have usurped that land without the help of the US (the only industrial power after WW2).
And there were lots of reasons why that zone was strategic: the control of the red sea channel, the oil of lots of countries of the zone, the closeness to USSR and China. Think that the US was far away from this part of the globe, I mean they had Europe (they still now) but they had to control this area strongly. The idea of a permanent war is always good for war mongers from US.