• 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!

Libya’s Islamist militia strike from the sky

Montecresto said:
Yes, the Islamic State did exist in 2007, they just hadn't adopted the name yet. The ambition for a caliphate state is old. Now, due to decades of failed US policy, they got themselves one. The reason that Bush stopped using the language that you insist Obama use, is that it was brought to his attention that it was inadvertently encouraging terrorists, and legitimising them. Is that what you support, is that what you want Obama to do, hmm? Stop being a hypocrite about this.
Click to expand...

So you know that by that argument ISIS actually started in 1999 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, right?
 
Montecresto said:
I know that the Islamic State is nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they never really had the perfect storm of bad US policy until 2013. they really seized upon our ineptitude.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, they never really had the perfect storm of bad US policy until 2013. they really seized upon our ineptitude.
Click to expand...

You may call it what you wish j, but the caliph, that the current proprietors are enforcing, IS NOT NEW, and has had its moments in time past. Why do you continue to deny that the Obama administration has facilitated and enabled the recent incarnation, hmm?


A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة‎ khalīfah pronunciation )—a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1] The Rashidun caliphs, who directly succeeded Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim community, were chosen through shura, a process of community consultation which some consider an early form of Islamic democracy.[2] During the history of Islam after the Rashidun period, many Muslim states, almost all of them hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.[1]
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
You may call it what you wish j, but the caliph, that the current proprietors are enforcing, IS NOT NEW, and has had its moments in time past.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself please on the goals of ISIS and how they plan to bring about this caliphate.

Why do you continue to deny that the Obama administration has facilitated and enabled the recent incarnation, hmm?
Click to expand...

Is this a Freudian slip?
 
jmotivator said:
Educate yourself please on the goals of ISIS and how they plan to bring about this caliphate.



Is this a Freudian slip?
Click to expand...

Two things jmo, One, you have no clue what the caliphate is, so keep quite about it, and Two, you don't understand what the Bush nor the Obama administration have done to diminish American standing in global politics. So, stop talking about it, hear?
 
Montecresto said:
Two things jmo, One, you have no clue what the caliphate is, so keep quite about it, and Two, you don't understand what the Bush nor the Obama administration have done to diminish American standing in global politics. So, stop talking about it, hear?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to keep quite about anything.
 
Montecresto said:
Two things jmo, One, you have no clue what the caliphate is, so keep quite about it, and Two, you don't understand what the Bush nor the Obama administration have done to diminish American standing in global politics. So, stop talking about it, hear?
Click to expand...

Two things Mon, One, I don't think you know anything about the Caliphate as seen by ISIS so educate yourself, and Two, I am quite aware of how diminished America's standing is, but that is what happens when you ignore your countries treaties with allies and court your enemies. No leader in the world save maybe Iran has any reason to trust that Obama will do what he says he will do. He is a lying sack of dung to everyone from the Clinton to the Polish government to Ukraine. THAT is how the US lost standing. It's one thing to be a dick to a evil dictator, it's another to f*** your allies over.

Why do you think the Iraqis are meeting with George W Bush about ISIS?
 
jmotivator said:
Two things Mon, One, I don't think you know anything about the Caliphate as seen by ISIS so educate yourself, and Two, I am quite aware of how diminished America's standing is, but that is what happens when you ignore your countries treaties with allies and court your enemies. No leader in the world save maybe Iran has any reason to trust that Obama will do what he says he will do. He is a lying sack of dung to everyone from the Clinton to the Polish government to Ukraine. THAT is how the US lost standing. It's one thing to be a dick to a evil dictator, it's another to f*** your allies over.

Why do you think the Iraqis are meeting with George W Bush about ISIS?
Click to expand...

Well, to the last question first, because he removed a secular government and replaced it with a religious Shia government. Makes perfect sense that they might want to appeal to him. To your second point, yes, America has been courting its "stated" enemies. But you confuse friend and foe! To your third point, it's funny that you think that world leaders "trust" each other. And fourth, dictators are a historic US asset, and either you are naive to that, or just don't give a ****, not sure which.
 
Montecresto said:
You may call it what you wish j, but the caliph, that the current proprietors are enforcing, IS NOT NEW, and has had its moments in time past. Why do you continue to deny that the Obama administration has facilitated and enabled the recent incarnation, hmm?


A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎ khilāfa) is a form of Islamic government led by a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة‎ khalīfah pronunciation )—a person considered a political and religious successor to the prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1] The Rashidun caliphs, who directly succeeded Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim community, were chosen through shura, a process of community consultation which some consider an early form of Islamic democracy.[2] During the history of Islam after the Rashidun period, many Muslim states, almost all of them hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.[1]
Click to expand...

But this isn't any normal Caliphate that they believe they are establishing. Keep reading, you might learn something.

In fact, go read the article "What ISIS Really Wants" I posted over at the Middle East subforum. Unfortunately it was printed in the Atlantic so you can't claim you don't need to read it because it is Right Wing propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Well, to the last question first, because he removed a secular government and replaced it with a religious Shia government.
Click to expand...

The "secular government" was as much Sunni as the current "secular government" is Shia. You are woefully ignorant.

Makes perfect sense that they might want to appeal to him. To your second point, yes, America has been courting its "stated" enemies. But you confuse friend and foe!
Click to expand...

So screwing over Poland and Ukraine to court Russia... who is the foe there? Courting Iran and screwing Israel, who is the enemy?

To your third point, it's funny that you think that world leaders "trust" each other. And fourth, dictators are a historic US asset, and either you are naive to that, or just don't give a ****, not sure which.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was a time when US allies trusted the US. Obama has ended all of that. Hopefully Obama's replacement will be able to heal some of Obama's damage.
 
jmotivator said:
The "secular government" was as much Sunni as the current "secular government" is Shia. You are woefully ignorant.



So screwing over Poland and Ukraine to court Russia... who is the foe there? Courting Iran and screwing Israel, who is the enemy?



Yes, there was a time when US allies trusted the US. Obama has ended all of that. Hopefully Obama's replacement will be able to heal some of Obama's damage.
Click to expand...

Your really are naive if you believe that tripe you're peddling that world leaders trust each other.
 
Montecresto said:
Your really are naive if you believe that tripe you're peddling that world leaders trust each other.
Click to expand...

So your assertion is that world leaders never trusted each other... are you going to go further and argue that the US has always backed out of its treaties? I mean, your world view is broken but IO never realized it was THIS broken.
 
jmotivator said:
So your assertion is that world leaders never trusted each other... are you going to go further and argue that the US has always backed out of its treaties? I mean, your world view is broken but IO never realized it was THIS broken.
Click to expand...

If they trusted each other, treaty contracts wouldn't be SIGNED.
 
Ockham said:
Then according to your logic the Islamic State has existed since the 5th century, post Muhammad's death. :roll:
Click to expand...
Um...no, LOL. ISIS has changed its name multiple times, but the organization itself has been in existence since the 90s. And I hope you don't honestly think that ISIS is the only radical Islamist group we've ever fought. :lol:

Yes I support calling an enemy by their name - don't care if that legitimizes them or not. If they are Islamic Terrorists - that's what you call them. If they are Neo-Nazi's that's what you call them.
Click to expand...

So you don't really care whether or not our statements increase ISIS' support or credibility and therefore actually harm us strategically - you just want to be able to **** on Obama based on your fantasy of him not being ballsy enough to see ISIS as an enemy.
 
MadLib said:
Um...no, LOL.
Click to expand...
Well factually, it did. You can look it up.
MadLib said:
ISIS has changed its name multiple times, but the organization itself has been in existence since the 90s. And I hope you don't honestly think that ISIS is the only radical Islamist group we've ever fought. :lol:
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on one's definition of radical - you mean radical like the Taliban of whom we traded 5 of their top ranking members for Bo Bergdahl or do you mean radical as in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was caught on US soil or are we talking about Adam Yahiye Gadahn who fights America with propaganda from Al Qaeda?


MadLib said:
So you don't really care whether or not our statements increase ISIS' support or credibility and therefore actually harm us strategically - you just want to be able to **** on Obama based on your fantasy of him not being ballsy enough to see ISIS as an enemy.
Click to expand...
No, I don't care. TRE's are better for military personnel whether on the ground or in the air.
 
MadLib said:
Um...no, LOL. ISIS has changed its name multiple times, but the organization itself has been in existence since the 90s. And I hope you don't honestly think that ISIS is the only radical Islamist group we've ever fought. :lol:

So you don't really care whether or not our statements increase ISIS' support or credibility and therefore actually harm us strategically - you just want to be able to **** on Obama based on your fantasy of him not being ballsy enough to see ISIS as an enemy.
Click to expand...

Nothing empowers ISIS more than leaving them alone. Nothing attracts followers faster than not blowing them to bits.

When we ignored the Syrian civil war and abandoned the Iraqi army we did everything necessary to allow ISIS to prosper. I am being kind when I chalk it up to abject stupidity on the part of the White House.
 
US Conservative said:
:lamo
Click to expand...

Treaties can be renegotiated, they can be obsoleted. Backing out doesn't necessitate wrong doing. But my point of course is that men aren't angels, and as such we all sign contacts, borrow money, form partnerships, etc. none of which are done on handshake deals, and often times collaterals are collected, liens are imposed, etc, because men cannot be trusted. World leaders, in an arena where the stakes are hugely higher, cannot be and are not trusted. We even spy on our friends remember. So yes, the notion that we "trust" our friends and allies deserves that emoticon. :lamo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom