Anyone else got a real bad feeling about the ISIL bombings?

Anyone else got a real bad feeling about the ISIL bombings?

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
We are discussing aspirations, not outcomes. People took to the streets to be free. The fact that they did not achieve freedom does not mean that they didn't want to. The Chartists failed at the time, but they wanted freedom.

Erudite geezer

576 posts

120 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
You funking pansies.

Humans have been slaughtering each other throughout recorded history and probably along time before that.

Today's atrocities shouldn't surprise anyone.

In a couple of millennia hence we'll still be doing the same.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Monday 29th September 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
Zod said:
I agree. There's a sort of race-based judgement inherent in this view: democracy is not right for these people or perhaps they are just not ready for it.
Or maybe they just don't want it.
Really now?

So, in answer to the question, "would you rather be governed by people who have won an election in which you had the opportunity to vote or a dictator who has attained power through force?" they would answer that they would rather the latter?

KareemK

1,110 posts

118 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Zod said:
KareemK said:
Zod said:
I agree. There's a sort of race-based judgement inherent in this view: democracy is not right for these people or perhaps they are just not ready for it.
Or maybe they just don't want it.
Really now?

So, in answer to the question, "would you rather be governed by people who have won an election in which you had the opportunity to vote or a dictator who has attained power through force?" they would answer that they would rather the latter?
You missed the point completely and kind of demonstrate the general lack of knowledge of the people by boiling it down to Dictator v Elected Officials.

Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.

As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.

That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are. Until you can get your head around that you'll always fail to understand them I'm afraid because its not really a case of Dictator v Prime Minister/President. They'll live with either as long as Islam ultimately rules.

As has been said already the Arab Spring hasn't resulted in 1 'western style' democracy being installed. In Syria even the Free Syrian Army who we are supporting are over 90% percent Sunni Muslims with an affiliated small group of Shia Alawites on-side. If you think the overthrow of Assad is going to result in another Houses of Parliament being installed in Damascus I'd suggest you think again.

Yes, they don't want corrupt dictators and will fight to expel them from office but don't think that means they'll all be rushing to embrace western democracy to instal in its place.


Edited by KareemK on Tuesday 30th September 08:58

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Zod said:
So, in answer to the question, "would you rather be governed by people who have won an election in which you had the opportunity to vote or a dictator who has attained power through force?" they would answer that they would rather the latter?
You actually seem to believe you have power as a voter in a modern Western democracy.
laugh

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
toppstuff said:
I dont agree. While IS has been given the freedom to exist it lacked when the regions oppressors were around ( the ones we rather unwisely destroyed ) the origins of the caliphate predate any Western excursions into the region.

Islamic fascism and its quest to destroy non believers is way, way older than Bush and Blair. It goes back to when Baby Jesus was a toddler.

I don't think we should really beat ourselves up about it too much. We should have left Saddam and Gaddafi well alone, but the past is another country.

IS exists to kill you and me and impose its values everywhere it can. All we can really do is kill as many of them as we can and contain them as much as possible.
I've little time for Fox News analysis. Ideologically, that may be true for some of them, but it isn't what drives them as far as the aggression toward the West goes -- it's blow back for decades of primarily oil-driven nation-building. It really is that simple. OBL even stated this publically, and given the history, who would argue?

You can't expect to covertly and overtly attempt to expand power in pursuit of natural (and eventually human) resources without encountering resistance. And you can only get others to do some of your work for you so long as they have sufficient incentive to do so. The region has become so destabilized that I would be quite shocked, if as the OP contended, this war won't consume a generation. The chickens may have finally come home to roost.



Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 29th September 15:32
Exactly. We in The West are Middle East terrorist enablers & have been for decades. Maybe some nutters don't need much of an excuse, but boy did we give them one....

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
...

Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.

As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.

That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are.

...
That is the sort of patronising view I was referring to above and extrapolates from the views of the few to the views of the many. Where democracy has been offered, for example in Afghanistan, local populations have tended to take readily to voting, even though there has been much corruption in relation to elections. The idea that all Muslims are clones seeking an Islamic state is as daft as the idea that all Muslims support violence against non Muslims.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 30th September 09:48

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
Zod said:
So, in answer to the question, "would you rather be governed by people who have won an election in which you had the opportunity to vote or a dictator who has attained power through force?" they would answer that they would rather the latter?
You actually seem to believe you have power as a voter in a modern Western democracy.
laugh
What do you think all those brave people are demonstrating for in Hong Kong? It's the vote that you disdain.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
Zod said:
KareemK said:
Zod said:
I agree. There's a sort of race-based judgement inherent in this view: democracy is not right for these people or perhaps they are just not ready for it.
Or maybe they just don't want it.
Really now?

So, in answer to the question, "would you rather be governed by people who have won an election in which you had the opportunity to vote or a dictator who has attained power through force?" they would answer that they would rather the latter?
You missed the point completely and kind of demonstrate the general lack of knowledge of the people by boiling it down to Dictator v Elected Officials.

Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.

As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.

That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are. Until you can get your head around that you'll always fail to understand them I'm afraid because its not really a case of Dictator v Prime Minister/President. They'll live with either as long as Islam ultimately rules.

As has been said already the Arab Spring hasn't resulted in 1 'western style' democracy being installed. In Syria even the Free Syrian Army who we are supporting are over 90% percent Sunni Muslims with an affiliated small group of Shia Alawites on-side. If you think the overthrow of Assad is going to result in another Houses of Parliament being installed in Damascus I'd suggest you think again.

Yes, they don't want corrupt dictators and will fight to expel them from office but don't think that means they'll all be rushing to embrace western democracy to instal in its place.


Edited by KareemK on Tuesday 30th September 08:58
No, I did not. I deliberately ignored the empty proposition that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If you really want to believe that God chooses your leader, would he choose a Saddam, a Mubarak, a Sheikh Makhtoum, a King Fahd?

Just because corrupt groups have rushed in to fill the gaps left by the Arab Spring does not mean that democracy should not be the aspiration.

Driller

8,310 posts

277 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29398882

news article said:
Syrian militant group al-Nusra Front has denounced US-led air strikes as "a war against Islam".

In an online statement, the al-Qaeda-linked group called on jihadists around the world to target Western and Arab countries involved.

But on Saturday al-Nusra spokesman Abu Firas al-Suri threatened the coalition nations.

"These states have committed a horrible act that is going to put them on the list of jihadist targets throughout the world," he said.

"This is not a war against al-Nusra, but a war against Islam."
Surprise, surprise, you can't bomb them into submission and things will just get worse.

Boydie88

3,283 posts

148 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Driller said:
Surprise, surprise, you can't bomb them into submission and things will just get worse.
It my well have to get worse to get better, but they can't carry on as they are. The modernised world needs to send a message to any would be extremists in any religion that the modern world will not tolerate it.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Boydie88 said:
Driller said:
Surprise, surprise, you can't bomb them into submission and things will just get worse.
It my well have to get worse to get better, but they can't carry on as they are. The modernised world needs to send a message to any would be extremists in any religion that the modern world will not tolerate it.
The message sent , and the one received will not be the same - lost in translation of religion, culture, stage of development.

toppstuff

13,698 posts

246 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Maybe the biggest problem is our timidity?

We allow ourselves to be overwhelmed in places like Iraq and Afghan because of our rules of engagement. Because we have a thousand Guardian reading eyes staring down all the time, things don't get done. Bad guys get away. We don't shoot back unless we are shot at.

Maybe we just take the gloves off. Throw out the media. Do unspeakable things and just snuff out the enemy. Impose order. Put a Saddam-like figure back in charge. Accept that there will collateral damage.

Would this be any more destructive, any more evil, than the constant drip-drip of semi-warfare over a protracted period of time? What is the most unpleasant option and which would be more effective in terms of securing stability and security? Could a hard line now ultimately save lives in the long run?

KareemK

1,110 posts

118 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
KareemK said:
...

Many of them would rather be ruled by the laws of Islam (ie God) than by any particular one person (dictator) or any 'democracy'.

As far as they (devout Muslims) are concerned the laws of God supercede the laws made by man in any 'democracy' in every single instance. No exceptions.

That is why they don't feel they 'need' a democracy. They have everything they need to live a 'happy' life laid out for them in the Koran and the people in place to interpret that for them where any confusion might appear.
You'll never impose a democracy on them no matter how logical your arguments are.

...
That is the sort of patronising view I was referring to above and extrapolates from the views of the few to the views of the many. Where democracy has been offered, for example in Afghanistan, local populations have tended to take readily to voting, even though there has been much corruption in relation to elections. The idea that all Muslims are clones seeking an Islamic state is as daft as the idea that all Muslims support violence against non Muslims.
For a barrister you're very uncharacteristically slipping up over words.

Who said All Muslims? I spoke of devout Muslims of which the middle east has a far higher percentage than the UK.

As for patronising, I'd beg to differ. What most Muslims in that region want (nay crave) is to not be told what they want by westerners like yourself.

Democracy maybe but on their terms and in an image of their choosing.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Yes, and see Turkey as an example of a democracy with Islamic elements, but you were saying that "they" don't want democracy at all.


Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
I like the term autocratic democracy. wink

vescaegg

25,489 posts

166 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
toppstuff said:
Maybe the biggest problem is our timidity?

We allow ourselves to be overwhelmed in places like Iraq and Afghan because of our rules of engagement. Because we have a thousand Guardian reading eyes staring down all the time, things don't get done. Bad guys get away. We don't shoot back unless we are shot at.

Maybe we just take the gloves off. Throw out the media. Do unspeakable things and just snuff out the enemy. Impose order. Put a Saddam-like figure back in charge. Accept that there will collateral damage.

Would this be any more destructive, any more evil, than the constant drip-drip of semi-warfare over a protracted period of time? What is the most unpleasant option and which would be more effective in terms of securing stability and security? Could a hard line now ultimately save lives in the long run?
We are a civilised society. Thats the difference between us and is why we never do well in situations such as this.

What gives us the right to commit unspeakable atrocities this but doesnt give ISIS the right to do it?

Why should it be our order which is imposed?

We cant do things they do without becoming the thing we are trying to stop.

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

197 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
toppstuff said:
Maybe the biggest problem is our timidity?

We allow ourselves to be overwhelmed in places like Iraq and Afghan because of our rules of engagement. Because we have a thousand Guardian reading eyes staring down all the time, things don't get done. Bad guys get away. We don't shoot back unless we are shot at.

Maybe we just take the gloves off. Throw out the media. Do unspeakable things and just snuff out the enemy. Impose order. Put a Saddam-like figure back in charge. Accept that there will collateral damage.

Would this be any more destructive, any more evil, than the constant drip-drip of semi-warfare over a protracted period of time? What is the most unpleasant option and which would be more effective in terms of securing stability and security? Could a hard line now ultimately save lives in the long run?
Pretty much my view - if they really are a danger that "can't be allowed to go on", then remove them, in the most efficient way which costs fewest lives amongst our people. Do it quickly and with overwhelming force, and don't stop until they are totally removed.
If we're not willing to do that, then we are effectively saying that actually, they can be allowed to go on, we just don't like it very much.

There's no stomach to either take them out or leave alone - so we end in this fool's middle ground. Again.

TheJimi

24,862 posts

242 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
To answer the thread title, no but I'd get a real bad feeling if IS was allowed to continue to expand unchecked.

A lot of people are saying that the rise of IS is our foreign policy & our actions in the middle east coming back to bite us. While that may be true to an extent, it's also true to say that allowing IS to continue to expand *will* create a headache even bigger than what we're experiencing now.

As aside from that, I believe we're currently witnessing a shift in Islamic fundamentalism; IS has started a ball rolling in a way that Al Qaeda never quite managed, despite it's best efforts. This is something that won't easily, if ever, go back in the box.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Tuesday 30th September 2014
quotequote all
Zod said:
What do you think all those brave people are demonstrating for in Hong Kong? It's the vote that you disdain.
laugh Not sure if serious.