• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS reportedly burns 45 people alive

Higgins86 said:
Helping the Kurds is key I agree my only worry is with Turkey and how they will react to a potential free Kurdish state which could potentially happen especially if we arm them/ fund them. Another worry with that is that if were to support the Kurds we could potentially see Iraq break up as each region looks to defend its borders and its own cultural identity.
I like most of your points except negotiation with the Assad government, Don't you think that given the weapons he has used and the brutal tactics he has been implementing that the West could possibly discredit itself by entering talks with them? Especially given the relationship they have with Russia?
Click to expand...

Turkey has had its chance and shown itself happy to sit watching Kobane burn, ISIS recruits openly walking past Turkish border guards into Syria (and back).

We aren't doing enough to coerce Turkey to take a stand, the Kurds should be supported much more, they are dying in large numbers at the hands of ISIS and I think if we start training and arming the Kurds with much more potent weaponry then Turkey would be pressured into doing more than she does now.

as for the breakup of Iraq - do you remember a few years ago when the idea was first mooted as the sunni / shia strife started to really take hold? Some (including on DP and myself) argued this should have happened when it could have been managed peaceably. Nouri al-Maliki and Turkey argued for Iraq to be kept whole and their ideas and policies have failed. Their reasons for keeping Iraq as a contiguous nation were not for the right reasons.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Turkey has had its chance and shown itself happy to sit watching Kobane burn, ISIS recruits openly walking past Turkish border guards into Syria (and back).

We aren't doing enough to coerce Turkey to take a stand, the Kurds should be supported much more, they are dying in large numbers at the hands of ISIS and I think if we start training and arming the Kurds with much more potent weaponry then Turkey would be pressured into doing more than she does now.

as for the breakup of Iraq - do you remember a few years ago when the idea was first mooted as the sunni / shia strife started to really take hold? Some (including on DP and myself) argued this should have happened when it could have been managed peaceably. Nouri al-Maliki and Turkey argued for Iraq to be kept whole and their ideas and policies have failed. Their reasons for keeping Iraq as a contiguous nation were not for the right reasons.
Click to expand...



Heya IC. :2wave: Yeah and the Kurds are Muslims and they are on the ground. They did push back today on a coordinated effort to break thru to Erbil. But they can't do it alone and with just the Iraqis.
 
MMC said:
Heya IC. :2wave: Yeah and the Kurds are Muslims and they are on the ground. They did push back today on a coordinated effort to break thru to Erbil. But they can't do it alone and with just the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

After Iraqi troops dropped their weapons and ran when confronted by ISIS, I wouldn't rely on them either. The kurds have shown themselves prepared to die, throw men and women into the front line and more importantly, in one video I saw on ISIS recruits walking past Turkish border troops - they were the only ones trying to stop the recruits entering Syria.

If a country called "Kurdistan" appears from all this, they will have deserved it completely.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes of course, your own country's fault, your DOMINATION (as you confess in your post) of the Middle East and a couple centuries of imperialism in which you raped and vandalised and exploited every ****ing thing you could lift from three fourths of the world, and now you stand up here and point a finger of ****ing blame. How about a little humility for a change, an apology and a leg up for the lives you've destroyed for so long. Maybe its time for the ****ing UK to sit down, shut the **** up and leave the rest of the world alone, hear? Do you hear??
Click to expand...

What a pointless rant.

No blame to the history of the Ottomans, House of Saud, Abdul Wahab - it's all the fault of Britain.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
After Iraqi troops dropped their weapons and ran when confronted by ISIS, I wouldn't rely on them either. The kurds have shown themselves prepared to die, throw men and women into the front line and more importantly, in one video I saw on ISIS recruits walking past Turkish border troops - they were the only ones trying to stop the recruits entering Syria.

If a country called "Kurdistan" appears from all this, they will have deserved it completely.
Click to expand...

We've screwed them over too many times. They are like a loyal dog that keeps coming back-they absolutely deserve a nation.
 
PeteEU said:
What on earth are you babbling about now?
Click to expand...

I realize English isn't your first language, so I'll let it go this time. :lol:
 
Infinite Chaos said:
That's only because it doesn't take a compromise and cooperation policy you espoused on another thread - a policy which could equally be called "appeasement."
Click to expand...

I can only imagine life around a person who considers cooperation and compromise to be appeasement. Your poor wife or husband or friends if you have any.
 
MMC said:
Not any of our policies.....might be a country who has never been involved in Foreign policy to be acceptable for him. See if everybody just stayed home and never went out to play.

All would be like Rosie and the flowers wouldn't have thorns.
Click to expand...

"PLAY" figures you'd consider warmongering sport!!!!
 
Grant said:
So you would handle it by going back in time and casting blame. That appears to be your one constant strategy.
Click to expand...

Right, from the Canadian, living in bum **** CA, who spends his career at DP, blaming everything on the Democratic Party.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
What a pointless rant.

No blame to the history of the Ottomans, House of Saud, Abdul Wahab - it's all the fault of Britain.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, I thought it was all the US, lol.
 
Montecresto said:
I can only imagine life around a person who considers cooperation and compromise to be appeasement. Your poor wife or husband or friends if you have any.
Click to expand...

That statement depends on whether the persons wife or husband or friends want to decapitate, crucify or burn them alive, now doesn't it?
 
jmotivator said:
That statement depends on whether the persons wife or husband or friends want to decapitate, crucify or burn them alive, now doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Right, because the UK was going about the globe with their imperialistic policy of rape and pillage for a couple centuries because they were defending themselves against folk around the world that wanted to crucify, decapitate and burn them alive. See what happens when you jump into a conversation that you haven't caught yourself up on? :lol:
 
Montecresto said:
Right, because the UK was going about the globe with their imperialistic policy of rape and pillage for a couple centuries because they were defending themselves against folk around the world that wanted to crucify, decapitate and burn them alive. See what happens when you jump into a conversation that you haven't caught yourself up on? :lol:
Click to expand...

No Montecresto, the UK imperialism comment you made was simply an ad hominem fallacy trying to avoid addressing the On-Topic comment by Higgins86, likewise, Infinite Chaos' statement on appeasement was on a comment you made in another thread, not your logical fallacy.

I have read the thread but I am starting to wonder if you have.
 
jmotivator said:
No Montecresto, the UK imperialism comment you made was simply an ad hominem fallacy trying to avoid addressing the On-Topic comment by Higgins86, likewise, Infinite Chaos' statement on appeasement was on a comment you made in another thread, not your logical fallacy.

I have read the thread but I am starting to wonder if you have.
Click to expand...

Thread bleed!! No :doh
 
Montecresto said:
Thread bleed!! No :doh
Click to expand...

So how was your comment about UK imperialism at all on topic?

Also, do you change your world view from thread to thread?
 
Montecresto said:
Right, because the UK was going about the globe with their imperialistic policy of rape and pillage for a couple centuries because they were defending themselves against folk around the world that wanted to crucify, decapitate and burn them alive. See what happens when you jump into a conversation that you haven't caught yourself up on? :lol:
Click to expand...


Whats the deal with your aversion to deal with issues in real time ?

You claim to be objective, but then almost always revert back to Bush blame instead of addressing whats relevent.

I think ( I know ) you're just another Obama apologist.
 
jmotivator said:
So how was your comment about UK imperialism at all on topic?

Also, do you change your world view from thread to thread?
Click to expand...

I thought you were the one pointing out to me that IC was speaking to me about something I'd said in another thread, thread bleed.
 
Fenton said:
Whats the deal with your aversion to deal with issues in real time ?

You claim to be objective, but then almost always revert back to Bush blame instead of addressing whats relevent.

I think ( I know ) you're just another Obama apologist.
Click to expand...

The ****. What's with you people? You quote me criticising the UK and bring in Bush, and, you ignore all my criticisms of the Obama administration for having supported the MB in Egypt, AQ in Libya and al Nusra/AQ in Syria, for supporting regime change in Egypt, Libya and Syria, for abusing UN resolution 1973 and for interfering in Maiden Square in the fall of 2013. That's hardly Obama apology.
 
Montecresto said:
I thought you were the one pointing out to me that IC was speaking to me about something I'd said in another thread, thread bleed.
Click to expand...

It was still on the topic of this thread. It seems odd that you are alarmed by ISIS thread bleed when you are trying to derail this thread with idiotic tangents on British imperialism.
 
jmotivator said:
It was still on the topic of this thread. It seems odd that you are alarmed by ISIS thread bleed when you are trying to derail this thread with idiotic tangents on British imperialism.
Click to expand...

It's called hypocrisy, you see.
 
Montecresto said:
The ****. What's with you people? You quote me criticising the UK and bring in Bush, and, you ignore all my criticisms of the Obama administration for having supported the MB in Egypt, AQ in Libya and al Nusra/AQ in Syria, for supporting regime change in Egypt, Libya and Syria, for abusing UN resolution 1973 and for interfering in Maiden Square in the fall of 2013. That's hardly Obama apology.
Click to expand...

You devote far more time and energy to diversion and Bush blame than addressing the issue at hand.

Its your MO but we're the one's with the problem when we bring it up ?
 
Fenton said:
You devote far more time and energy to diversion and Bush blame than addressing the issue at hand.

Its your MO but we're the one's with the problem when we bring it up ?
Click to expand...

The post you quoted had nothing to do with Bush, secondly, I corrected you on your false accusation that I'm an apologist for Obama. It's just unconscionable to a partisan hack that anybody could hold both parties accountable. One must pick a team to idolise, while demonising the other.
 
jmotivator said:
No Montecresto, the UK imperialism comment you made was simply an ad hominem fallacy trying to avoid addressing the On-Topic comment by Higgins86, likewise, Infinite Chaos' statement on appeasement was on a comment you made in another thread, not your logical fallacy.

I have read the thread but I am starting to wonder if you have.
Click to expand...

Brilliant. Made my afternoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom