2 explosions in Manchester Arena - CONFIRMED Fatalities.

[Runenwächter]

Why isn't George W. Bush in jail?
Why isn't Tony Blair in jail?

Sue them and you will find out. The courts will probably answer that question for you.

The "regret" means jack shit, when we're talking about millions of people dead and whole countries destroyed and brought back into medieval times.

Medieval times you say. You mean those countries blossomed without western technology, trade and influence, whose population overcame their medieval mindset and transformed through an era of enlightenment into modern societies and then sadly got either invaded and bombed back in time or coup'ed by the US?
Which countries are on that list according to you?
Because the closer I look, the less I find.

And no west can't turn the ME into rubble. Because it will mean bringing actual troops on the ground and fighting against guerilla and partisan war.
You can ask US about how did it go for them in Vietnam, or the USSR how did it feel in Afghanistan. Or Russia for that matter about how well did it go in Chechnya.

It will mean thousands and thousands of casualties. Which the West just can't afford to have.

This has got to be a joke. Not only did the US loose thousands and thousands of soldiers in their wars in the middle east, Europe and the US have population size and growth that would allow for MILLIONS to be lost without puting the existence of their nations at risk.
Again, you refuse to see the difference in between aiming to make an enemy surrender or to whipe them out. Worse, not even differentiate between hostiles and non hostiles, enemy and civilian.
I dont have to risk soldiers going into cities getting ambushed if I dont care about the city. I just firebomb this city until the very air is hot enough to melt flesh from bone, leaving no place to hide and no one alive. No survivors means no potential future enemy.
Or, if I'm a certified madman and really dont give a single fuck, I just bask the area in the warm glow of nuclear hellfire.

So no it is not about intentions. The amount of people (children included) that were killed by direct actions of the West is much more than those killed in terrorist attacks in the West. The amount of people that were killed as a result of the actions of the West is millions of people.

Possibly. But that is only if you compare terrorist attacks in the west to western military action in the middle eastern region. Which is a pretty arbitraty comparison with little significance.
As for the second indirect deaths, that is too undefined and too vague. I'm not really willing to concern myself with how many people have been killed by me not buying fair trade coffee beans.

There would've been no ISIS if not for the West intervening in ME.
There would've been no Osama bin Laden if not for hte West intervening in Afghanistan.

Thats a bold theory. But the taliban predated the russian invasion of Afghanistan and they were fundamentalist islamists on the warpath and quite focused on guerilla warfare long before the cia got involved. Osama was a political activist turned terrorist at the time who protested the involvment of the us in the region. Do you expect that - in an alternate time line - he wouldnt have done the same of the russians had stationed forces in the region and expanded their influence in the region? No.
Would saudi arabia not have spread their wahabist version of islam with the power of their vast natural resources in that alternate timeline? Also no.

The terrorist attacks and the refugee crisis are the fruit that have grown from the seeds, planted by the West's strategy towards the ME, and the West's actions in the ME.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Because a) those fleeing civil war do not qualify as refugees under the law, they are internaly displaced citizens and b) people attemt to reach europe mostly for economic reasons. Thousands of migrants from africa try to come over the mediteranian on a daily basis, mostly they try to escape poverty and starvation caused by mismanagement and incompetence. There is nothing I owe these people.

[StayTuned]

Again, this is ridiculous short-termism. The Islamic world existed prior to the establishment of the post-WW2 order was established and it was emphatically not a set of nations that were disinclined to wage war against infidels.

Contrary to the beliefs of anti-Western ideologues, Arabs actually do have free will and agency rather than only responding to what whites do to them.

70 years is only short term if you really want to consider all 1300+ years of Islamic development as the source of our problems.

I think Mossadegh was the kick off to all of this. If the ME had more moderate and/or secular leaders, radical Islamism would not thrive as it does today. The West however made sure that this didn't happen.

[Freighter]

70 years is only short term if you really want to consider all 1300+ years of Islamic development as the source of our problems.

It seems to me like you don't really understand religious extremism or that people actually are influenced by religion, Islam when looked at from an extremists point of view is all about conquest. There must be no infidels.

ISIS isn't something new, it's just another variant of what has existed before.

[StayTuned]

It seems to me like you don't really understand religious extremism or that people actually are influenced by religion, Islam when looked at from an extremists point of view is all about conquest. There must be no infidels.

ISIS isn't something new, it's just another variant of what has existed before.

Yea, I understand it perfectly fine. The fact that religious extremism always existed and always will exist doesn't change recent history though. The West could have done something to get rid of this cancer, instead we decided to acquire power and money with oil and weaponry.

The USA especially threw water at burning oil.

[Freighter]

Yea, I understand it perfectly fine. The fact that religious extremism always existed and always will exist doesn't change recent history though. The West could have done something to get rid of this cancer, instead we decided to acquire power and money with oil and weaponry.

The USA especially threw water at burning oil.

Recent history has little to do with islamic extremism.

[Mafic]

Yea, I understand it perfectly fine. The fact that religious extremism always existed and always will exist doesn't change recent history though. The West could have done something to get rid of this cancer, instead we decided to acquire power and money with oil and weaponry.

The USA threw water at burning oil.

This is not true.

The trajectory of that region would have not changed without US involvement. As I mentioned earlier in this thread...lets presume Iran was still a Democracy...Iran would still would have it ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia. Palestinians would still not have a homeland and be in conflict with Israel. Pakistan and India would still be foes. Animists in Thailand fighting extremist salifists. Ethopian army having to go in and clean up Somalia periodically, etc.

[StayTuned]

Recent history has little to do with islamic extremism.

Yea it all roots in 2000 years old history and we can't do shit about it, I guess.

Where's the nuke button, lemme end it quick.

[Deleted]

And no west can't turn the ME into rubble.

Even without Nukes, the west certainly have the firepower to wipe out the 'Arab race'.

because it will mean bringing actual troops on the ground and fighting against guerilla and partisan war.
You can ask US about how did it go for them in Vietnam, or the USSR how did it feel in Afghanistan.

In all those conflicts, even with the USSR, the 'western' forces had ROE's limiting their ability to fight.

Or Russia for that matter about how well did it go in Chechnya.

Chechnya is still a part of Russia.
And while Putin was somewhat unrestrained in his fury - he was still restrained.

[StayTuned]

This is not true.

The trajectory of that region would have not changed without US involvement. As I mentioned earlier in this thread...lets presume Iran was still a Democracy...Iran would still would have it ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia. Palestinians would still not have a homeland and be in conflict with Israel. Pakistan and India would still be foes. Animists in Thailand fighting extremist salifists. Ethopian army having to go in and clean up Somalia periodically, etc.

How can you say this? Do you have so magical 8 ball to tell the reality of an alternative universe, or something?

I didn't even say that we would be with certainty in a better place if the events from about the 50s didn't happen, I just said this was the kick-off. How history went down from that point can be read.

Nobody knows how things would have turned out, but with the actions taken as they were, we certainly didn't improve the situation in the ME. It basically can't get any worse to be honest.

[Freighter]

How can you say this? Do you have so magical 8 ball to tell the reality of an alternative universe, or something?

I didn't even say that we would be with certainty in a better place, I just said this was the kick-off. How history went down from that point can be read.

Nobody knows how things would have turned out, but with the actions taken as they were, we certainly didn't improve the situation in the ME. It basically can't get any worse to be honest.

The middle east isn't the only place with islamic extremism though. Islamic extremism exists in other parts of the world too, so trying to pin the cause of it it to what happened in the middle east in recent history is pointless, it goes beyond that.

[StayTuned]

The middle east isn't the only place with islamic extremism though. Islamic extremism exists in other parts of the world too, so trying to attribute it to what happened in the middle east in recent history is pointless, it goes beyond that.

It's not the Philippines Islamist blowing up our people, though.

Like, seriously. If you think that this was unavoidable simply because Islam is Islam, the only solution is 100% termination of all people who feel sympathy towards them. If you just miss one person, that person will grow up to be the next radical, looking for revenge.

The problem is the spiral of hate and power games.

[Freighter]

Like, seriously. If you think that this was unavoidable simply because Islam is Islam, the only solution is 100% termination of all people who feel sympathy towards them. If you just miss one person, that person will grow up to be the next radical, looking for revenge.

The problem is in islam, indeed. When interpreted by the extremely religious/extremists. Because it lends legitimacy to them, if you strictly go by the ideas espoused it leads to factions like ISIS and other ones, then those that has existed in the past

[cyberglum]

Recent history has little to do with islamic extremism.

It has a lot to do with islamic extremists blowing themselves up as martyrs 'tho.

[Freighter]

It has a lot to do with islamic extremists blowing themselves up as martyrs 'tho.

Not really. In the past you could have seen islamic incursions instead as means of conquest, not really feasible today as they're no longer what they were in the past. They would never win such a war now.

Suicide bombing isn't the only method.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the Philippines Islamist blowing up our people, though.

In thailand it's malay muslims. Here in singapore we dealt with bangladeshi muslims who were planning terror attacks last year.

[PassingBy]

Even without Nukes, the west certainly have the firepower to wipe out the 'Arab race'.

In all those conflicts, even with the USSR, the 'western' forces had ROE's limiting their ability to fight.


Chechnya is still a part of Russia.
And while Putin was somewhat unrestrained in his fury - he was still restrained.

The picture is from the 1st Chechen war, Putin has nothing to do with it.
It was Mr. Yeltsin, who was the best friend of the West btw.
I've been there after the second war as a part of a humanitarian aid organization, and it was awful.

In the end Russia faced two options:

a) wipe out all the chechens. including women, children and elderly;
b) find a way to let chechens live and sort their issues among themselves.

Option a required additional casualties in the Russian army (the casualties were already in the 10s of thousands), and a tough moral decision on the nation itself to wipe out completely another nation. And Russians in general are i'd say more wild and primal than most of Europeans, but even taking that into account it was understood that taking such a decision will take an enormous blow to the image and self-sentiment of the nation itself. Not taking into account the resources that would've been wasted.
Instead the decision was taken to let the chechens sort things out between chechens. Giving chechens a strong authoritarian leader from one of the big clans, that is controlling the country with the help of the other big clans. It is a subotpimal solution, but it lead to reducing the amount of people killed, to a great reduction of the amount of terrorist attacks in Russia, and ultimately to a stop at a bloody war.

What the West did was the other way around.
They've overthrown the strong dictator or authoritarian regimes in several countries (mainly Iraq and Lybia), and tried to overthrow the dictators in some others, but failed for different reasons (e.g. Egypt, Syria), leading to a spread of radical muslims, that were controlled to a point by those dictatorships.

Take an example of Lybia, that before the coup lead and supported by the West had a GDP per capita on the level of eastern european countries like Croatia and Poland, free healthcare, growing economy etc. And now is basically back to a feudal state, with the central government not having control over the whole territory of the country. Different tribes controlling different parts of the country, ISIS, radical islamism on the rise etc.

There is not a single functioning country in the region that is not an authoritarian state controlled by the army, or by the religious leaders, or a straightforward dictatorship or a monarchy. And that is for a reason.
The West came in with their own rules, trying to enforce them on a region that didn't need that kind of enforcing, and lead the region into chaos.

While also cherry picking which dictatorships to consider evil, and which not to.

How is the Saudi King less of an evil dictator than Qaddafi, or Saddam?
Iraq or Lybia were, at least, quite secular countries, while Saudi Arabia is living in accordance with the freaking Sharia Law.

How is Iran bad and evil, since it is ruled by the court of Ayatollahs in accordance with the Quran and Sharia Law, but Saudi Arabia and Arab Emirates are the best friend of the West, while basically being as backward and fanatic as Iran (or argueably worse).

The people of Europe have no one to blame except themselves for letting their politicians to blindly follow the US lead in the matter of ME.
Forgetting that in order to come to the US people from ME need a freaking plane, or a nice ship, but you can actually phycially see Spain from Morocco, or take a freakin canoe from Tunisia to Italy.

[StayTuned]

The problem is in islam, indeed. When interpreted by the extremely religious/extremists. Because it lends legitimacy to them, if you strictly go by the ideas espoused it leads to factions like ISIS and other ones, then those that has existed in the past

You hit the nail on the head. The last 70 years made Islamic extremism as accessible as bread for those who live in the ME.

[cyberglum]

Not really. In the past you could have seen islamic incursions instead as means of conquest, not really feasible today as they're no longer what they were in the past. They would never win such a war now.

Suicide bombing isn't the only method.

Recent history does have a lot to do with extremist suicide bombers. The concept of suicide bombs being used by martyrs has only been in existence since the mid-80's. Also, as a favour, I'd recommend you research the definition of the word "martyr" as opposed to what you're referring to, which is "soldier".

[Xjev]

Justifying attack based on what happened in history is worse way to put this. It means we cannot let them in because as you say, they want to kill us because of what ever political shenanigans.

[PassingBy]

The problem is in islam, indeed. When interpreted by the extremely religious/extremists. Because it lends legitimacy to them, if you strictly go by the ideas espoused it leads to factions like ISIS and other ones, then those that has existed in the past

Problem is that these people have nothing to lose.
I can imagine myself planning on making a bomb, planning to go kill some infidels etc.

I'd be much more reluctant to take that bomb and place it somewhere myself, since it increases the chances of me getting caught.

I'd never go and blow up myself with that bomb, since I have what to live for.

But if you kill my family, destroy my country, leave me jobless and living a shit life - I might be an easy target for someone telling me "hey, we have a way for you to get revenge, become a hero AND go to heaven with 72 (or how many) virgins".
If someone killed my wife and my children, I can quite vividly imagine myself going a bit crazy and wanting a revenge.

[Deleted]

Better to join the group who slaughters the most children and civilians that will show them. Dont think i need to list all the things they do or force children to do.

It's a no win situation i guess.

Definitely a no win situation. Desperation and hopelessness I guess pushes people to the extreme.

- - - Updated - - -

Which, of course, is why those of us that aren't nihilists regard the Islamist scum that hide among children to be so very awful. This is a deliberate tactic, the use of human shields, to put the West in a no-win position - allow freedom of operation for terrorists or make the choice to fight them and accept collateral damage.

Those that insist that the West is obligated to sit on its hands are pathetic and are the handmaidens for Islamism.

Human shield.... please. Just.... please. Can you not take the fucking hint and realize that blaming human shield for what we have been talking about is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not talking about one specific bomb. I'm talking about actions that have led to the support of extremists, the destruction of countries and ALSO the COUNTLESS major army fuck ups that have clustered these last pathetic 20 years of foreign policies.
Human shields... please.

No, you know who are the handmaiden of islamists? The ones that supports the system that creates and feeds them.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS kills more muslims and children in their own countries than any western country... but yeh... sure..

That's great but it isn't related to anything I was saying.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, as anyone that's studied history knows, as long as one ignores Islamism and doesn't interfere in the politics of Arab Muslim countries, it renders Islam completely harmless and impotent to engage in attacks

Why... have you studied the history of the area and the cultural groups that live in it?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not referring to "truth" in that way at all. You know full well your over simplistic narrative leaves out a good deal of inconvenient facts. However, that doesn't bother people like you in the least. If there's anything I've learned from interacting with Djalil, The Emperor, and you is that your narrative is unfalsifiable in your mind. You're unwilling to be wrong and debate/conversation is not a goal. You're going to ram your bullshit down everyone's throat regardless of what's said to refute it. As far as I can tell it's not very effective and nobody is buying your bullshit other than those that already buy into RT.com drivel.

I'm honestly puzzled. You sound unstable.

- - - Updated - - -

The refugee crisis was created by President Assad of Syria for his bro Putin, Assad terrorized the Syrian Sunnis and drove them like cattle into the EU, this was destabilize the EU and it led to the Brexit.

In exchange Putin put Russian troops and materials in Syria to prop up Assad.

And did he do that while shooting flaming monkeys coming out of his ass?

- - - Updated - - -

Exclusive rights for oil trade, that's why.

God that worked out well didn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, this is ridiculous short-termism. The Islamic world existed prior to the establishment of the post-WW2 order was established and it was emphatically not a set of nations that were disinclined to wage war against infidels.

Contrary to the beliefs of anti-Western ideologues, Arabs actually do have free will and agency rather than only responding to what whites do to them.

And? What does that mean? How exactly is their free will going to stop a coup organised from outside. Please do tell.

- - - Updated - - -

Recent history has little to do with islamic extremism.

What do you mean? Because the last 100 years specifically with the blind support to the house of saud has ALL to do with Islamic extremism. Wahhabism played a tiny part in the world of Islam before we propped it up in yes, recent history.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not true.

The trajectory of that region would have not changed without US involvement. As I mentioned earlier in this thread...lets presume Iran was still a Democracy...Iran would still would have it ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia. Palestinians would still not have a homeland and be in conflict with Israel. Pakistan and India would still be foes. Animists in Thailand fighting extremist salifists. Ethopian army having to go in and clean up Somalia periodically, etc.

What? What are you talking about. Iran most likely would have been a stable democracy, the house of saud would have disappeared and the secular alternative that was already growing would have spread everywhere.