ISIS (Page 3) R E B E C C A: because they're not arsed....all they care about is that the western media doesnt talk about it in a bad way . R E B E C C A: isis "special forces", (or is it just special needs) training video if they don't understand that looks so shit its hilarious then they're not even good at propaganda....which is what they are meant to be good at   davidk14: . Rebecca...What I saw were raw recruits training. I might have waited a few more months before making the video though for propaganda however, perhaps the video was prepared for a specific audience. . R E B E C C A: well that crossed my mind but ive seen one very similar on the news too, but it does beg the question who are they trying to reach with this davidk14: . We've seen the Hamas training films of kids and teens learning to murder. ISIS is a little behind in their version of 'Paliwood' productions out of the Gaza strip. Maybe Hamas gives lessons?  . davidk14: . Gee...I thought ISIS was an offshoot of Al Quida because Al Quida was not radical enough...fundamentalist extreme Islam speaking of course. You are suggesting that the West created, trained, control and command and directing these murderers supporting their barbaric slaughtering of Christians, Jews and anyone else. Sorry. You are sincerely mistaken. . .  SWlNE: ISIS is not affiliated with al Qaeda. They are different entities. There's no online evidence, as yet, which states that ISIS didn't start with the Western governments or that it started with the Western governments. However, there is a possibility. When you look at the habit of the West to secretly support and arm 'rebels' to overthrow governments or conduct other acts in the West's favour. An example is with al-Qaeda's beginnings. One's man's rebel is another man's terrorist. They don't foresee the problems this pose in the future and now everyone has to clean up their mess. (Edited by SWlNE) SWlNE: On a side note, there are other armed groups (some supported by the West) in Syria, not only ISIS. I've read there are hundreds of these armed rebel groups with different ideologies. Now explain to me how it is beneficial to help arm a group of persons to fight a government vs opening dialogue between the two? Why support these armed groups because you have only one goal in common: Overthrow the Syrian Government and nothing else? -shouldn't the actions done with their weapons reflect on its supporters and those who arm them also? If ISIS was supported by the West's in its beginnings and 'got out of hand', it will be the West fault because they'll not be dumb enough to not know that these groups have their own ideologies. That 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' nonsense has to stop somewhere, and responsibility needs to be taken instead of pretending to be naive. (Edited by SWlNE) I K R: The american government allows its own people to bear arms....if an individual decides to shoot another that individual is held to account for their own actions....Why should a lesser standard be applied to people from the middle east are they too stupid to be held to account?? You can argue that america and other countries are irresponsible.....but to blame them, you must apply the same standards then to the shootings in america. SWlNE: Thanks for providing us with the comedy, Conchita_Twerks. Now back to the real issue and serious matters... consummate_bimbo: I'm just amazed how little or nothing you hear from the 3rd wave feminists about all of this, anyone here sees the hypocrisy. Btw search bare naked islam dot com. I K R: thank you  People seem to think Muslims are some kind of protected species who are too delicate to have their beliefs ctiticized.....note how no actual muslims ever defend their religion....just muppets like FOG..He defends other peoples beleifs before his own.....like what a mug. muhammed tells muslims not to defend their bat shit crazy religion...because if they try to theyll loose every time. I K R: oh n thanks for the dedication on your page Filth.....i like it ....though i dunno why dat moron was laughing....she cant defend her own religion, nevermind laugh at anyone elses SWlNE: People from the US, what are your views on your government sending troops to fight along/ train 'rebel' groups in Syria? (Note these groups are the ones who were armed by your government as well) I am also curious on how much do you know on the ideologies of these groups? davidk14: . It's all for show. It's not to win. More lives will be lost (American) for no reasonable outcome. If US Forces are on the ground with a supply line, we need to have a legal Declaration of War. . SWlNE: Just for clarification, you will agree to it if there was a 'legal Declaration of War'? To me, whether there is a formal declaration or not the US (and company) is already involved in military opposition towards the government of this other country (warfare). Be it by arming groups within said country or air-raid, the military involvement is already there. No question on that. (Edited by SWlNE) davidk14: . There is no question that there is American supplies, training and American boots on the ground. I really, really, really thought we had learned our lessons from Korea, Viet Nam, the first Iraq war, the Afgan War, the second Iraq war. I really did. We seriously did not go in to win. Our mission was not to win. Our mission was to 'assist' friendly governments to fight. I have been saying for awhile that if it is so dang important to put boots on the ground with a supply line, then it is important enough to go all in. If we are putting boots on the ground to fight ISIS, then do a Declaration of War and move forward to a unconditional surrender by the enemy. No peace talks. Go in and kick ass. Now if it is not that important.... oh well I guess it was not that important. .. I K R: Hear hear David.. .enough is enough.. .there's not one Muslim government worthy of supporting just stick a flag in the ground n tell them what's what. Tell them to behave or do without any more aid....its beyond the pale trying to reason and negotiate with hysterical fruit cakes SWlNE: Davidk, a declaration of war is towards a nation. ISIS is not a nation. The rebels that your government support were supported initially to fight against the Syrian government (nation). If you are making a declaration of war on Syria then that is a different story. It doesn't matter if there is a 'declaration' or not, having one does not automatically cleanse the situation/action. Well your country did use Agent Orange in the Vietnam war, pretty sure that in each military involvement there is that 'hope to win' but of course it met failure. And history shows how supportive the US has been to dictators and other friends. That's fine. The point here is similar but now it is groups that can be labelled terrorist groups. It is strange to me that you can't seem to question the action of your government. You seem more concern on it being a 'declaration', instead of watching the action and what it entails. Your government isn't going in to 'support/assist friendly governments', it is supporting groups that you don't have any background knowledge on. Do you support that action to back these groups or not? That's the question, whether it will be made formally and grand with all the political paperwork or not. The action itself, do you support it? (Edited by SWlNE) SWlNE: It will be easier for you to go as Frankenstein's monster, Conchita_Twerks, no make-up necessary, cheap and quick (like your sex-life). | Politics Chat Room 70 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
