• 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!

The Rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes

M

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal


This video, produced by Vox, is one of the best explanations that I have seen to explain the rise, current status, and future predictions on ISIS. My hope is that some additional information will help to yield a better understanding from individuals who are trying to criticize the President and simultaneously to capitalize on the fear felt by many individuals in order to push policies that are reprehensible and likely to exacerbate the issue.
 
Not a bad explanation, not bad at all.
 
WCH said:
As predicted;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ukJlcpqEY

Could have something to do with not finishing what was started.
Click to expand...

Or, it could have something to do with a completely unrealistic idea for Iraq resulting in permanent occupation and all the complications that yields. I would ask you to point out exactly what the OP video got wrong, or at least misrepresented, something.
 
MrT said:


This video, produced by Vox, is one of the best explanations that I have seen to explain the rise, current status, and future predictions on ISIS. My hope is that some additional information will help to yield a better understanding from individuals who are trying to criticize the President and simultaneously to capitalize on the fear felt by many individuals in order to push policies that are reprehensible and likely to exacerbate the issue.
Click to expand...


Do you think Vox will ever produce an actual historical overview of the events that gave rise to the current situation in the ME, or do you think this simplistic, vague, and tremendously biased view is sufficient?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Or, it could have something to do with a completely unrealistic idea for Iraq resulting in permanent occupation and all the complications that yields. I would ask you to point out exactly what the OP video got wrong, or at least misrepresented, something.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the OP got it wrong. I simply showed that Bush and his WH knew what the consequences would be if we and our allies left before the job was done. We did and the prediction came true.
 
ocean515 said:
Do you think Vox will ever produce an actual historical overview of the events that gave rise to the current situation in the ME, or do you think this simplistic, vague, and tremendously biased view is sufficient?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that. It's quite accurate in its treatment. The destabilization of the ME is exactly what has created this monster and it started in Iraq.
 
jet57 said:
I don't know how you can say that. It's quite accurate in its treatment. The destabilization of the ME is exactly what has created this monster and it started in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Your claim, like that of the very ideologically driven Vox, is not supported in any way by historical facts.

The ME has been a powder keg of conflict for many millenniums. If one were not driven by ideological imperatives, they might settle on Saddam's attempt to corner a vast portion of the known global oil reserves by invading Kuwait as the flash point creating Daesh, since that resulted in a global response and occupation by Westerners.

One could point to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and identify that as the catalyst for the Daesh. The historical context list could go on and on.

Yet, Vox can only point to it's ideologically predetermined conclusion: Bush, and the response to 9/11 created Daesh.

As I wrote, it would refreshing to view an actual historical overview of the true events that gave rise to Daesh, you know, something that might include Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, etc., etc..
 
ocean515 said:
Your claim, like that of the very ideologically driven Vox, is not supported in any way by historical facts.

The ME has been a powder keg of conflict for many millenniums. If one were not driven by ideological imperatives, they might settle on Saddam's attempt to corner a vast portion of the known global oil reserves by invading Kuwait as the flash point creating Daesh, since that resulted in a global response and occupation by Westerners.

One could point to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and identify that as the catalyst for the Daesh. The historical context list could go on and on.

Yet, Vox can only point to it's ideologically predetermined conclusion: Bush, and the response to 9/11 created Daesh.

As I wrote, it would refreshing to view an actual historical overview of the true events that gave rise to Daesh, you know, something that might include Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, etc., etc..
Click to expand...

Well okay, but before we continue, why don't inform me of that history that was not told that makes the vox story incorrect.
 
jet57 said:
Well okay, but before we continue, why don't inform me of that history that was not told that makes the vox story incorrect.
Click to expand...

I think I've already given you hints of what that history should include. You might consider this link.

NPR : The Mideast : A Century of Conflict

If you're simply satisfied with the ideologically driven version supplied through Vox, who am I to stop you?
 
ocean515 said:
I think I've already given you hints of what that history should include. You might consider this link.

NPR : The Mideast : A Century of Conflict

If you're simply satisfied with the ideologically driven version supplied through Vox, who am I to stop you?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. I didn't think you knew.

So, everybody knows about hundreds of years of war and everybody knows that bot English and Americans were staking out oil reserves before WWI: see T.E. Lawrence... We're talking about "now". Once Iraq was emptied out, it became the fertile ground; every expert in the world knows that. Iraq was dismal failure and attracted the worst of the worst. Afghanistan has iol, bu not that much. It is rich in precious metals, but nobody has ever really been interested in the place other than Russia, and the Afghanistan has always been bogged by feudal tribalism, i.e. Tombstone.

So, your opinion is partisan and empty unless you can credibly refute the information it.
 
WCH said:
As predicted;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ukJlcpqEY

Could have something to do with not finishing what was started.
Click to expand...



Good God. This is the single most UN-biased presentation on ISIS I have ever seen. It reveals a **** load of information dating back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan....

It is also likely correct in its conclusion that as a terrorist group will be around for a long, long, long time....and your reaction is single out one of the hundreds of events and suggest all would be well had Bush 'finished the job"

You don't get it do you? None of you do. There is no "finish the job" and there hasn't been since the United States got its ass whipped in Vietnam. There are no more grand invasions followed by glorious parades.

I don't think Amerika is ever going to get it. No matter what happens, the instant reptilian response is to either blame Bush, or Obama. You see this whole ****ing video explain the complexities [which actually began when the US installed the Shah of Iran] and your reaction is a ten year old clip of George W. Bush.

Why the adult world lets the US play at all is beyond me
 
ocean515 said:
I think I've already given you hints of what that history should include. You might consider this link.

NPR : The Mideast : A Century of Conflict

If you're simply satisfied with the ideologically driven version supplied through Vox, who am I to stop you?
Click to expand...



It's really no use. The same people whose first response to anything in the middle east is to involve George Bush are the same people who vote, that in itself is frightening. To them there is never background, their knowledge of an event begins the moment an American television network airs it, and their opinion on it is shaped by the first comment of whatever political side they support.

The original video began in '79, and made the culprits the Soviets, but as we see in your post it started a lot sooner than that. In any even, no matter what, I see the American voter as too shallow to be able to understand that by empowering the students who took over the US embassy in Iran, the US also added to that draw of extremists. Not mentioned there either is Benghazi, which Americans turned into a gong show. As a result potential terrorists wee that the United States walks away from terrorists attacks on its own people, and they become emboldened.

But the focus is always only the US and its presidents.
 
ocean515 said:
Your claim, like that of the very ideologically driven Vox, is not supported in any way by historical facts.

The ME has been a powder keg of conflict for many millenniums. If one were not driven by ideological imperatives, they might settle on Saddam's attempt to corner a vast portion of the known global oil reserves by invading Kuwait as the flash point creating Daesh, since that resulted in a global response and occupation by Westerners.

One could point to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and identify that as the catalyst for the Daesh. The historical context list could go on and on.

Yet, Vox can only point to it's ideologically predetermined conclusion: Bush, and the response to 9/11 created Daesh.

As I wrote, it would refreshing to view an actual historical overview of the true events that gave rise to Daesh, you know, something that might include Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, etc., etc..
Click to expand...



The video never lays blame clearly at the feet of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan but you have to begin somewhere, and that is where the greatest rise of terrorists happened.

It could have started at the US installation of the Shah in Iran, as Irani's fanned out across the globe and then later showed just how powerful they could be. That's like an add campaign

The thing about history is you have to start somewhere. As for example the US teaches North American history beginning when the English Arrived, when Europeans had already been 150 to 200 years
 
jet57 said:
Uh, yeah. I didn't think you knew.

So, everybody knows about hundreds of years of war and everybody knows that bot English and Americans were staking out oil reserves before WWI: see T.E. Lawrence... We're talking about "now". Once Iraq was emptied out, it became the fertile ground; every expert in the world knows that. Iraq was dismal failure and attracted the worst of the worst. Afghanistan has iol, bu not that much. It is rich in precious metals, but nobody has ever really been interested in the place other than Russia, and the Afghanistan has always been bogged by feudal tribalism, i.e. Tombstone.

So, your opinion is partisan and empty unless you can credibly refute the information it.
Click to expand...

An absurd conclusion and faulty assumption.

Following your logic, and Vox's inventiveness, it's quite clear ISIS is the sole result of President Obama's policies, since, after all, you want to focus on "now".
 
ocean515 said:
An absurd conclusion and faulty assumption.

Following your logic, and Vox's inventiveness, it's quite clear ISIS is the sole result of President Obama's policies, since, after all, you want to focus on "now".
Click to expand...

Yeeeaaaah, no.... you don't know what you'r talking about.
 
Fearandloathing said:
It's really no use. The same people whose first response to anything in the middle east is to involve George Bush are the same people who vote, that in itself is frightening. To them there is never background, their knowledge of an event begins the moment an American television network airs it, and their opinion on it is shaped by the first comment of whatever political side they support.

The original video began in '79, and made the culprits the Soviets, but as we see in your post it started a lot sooner than that. In any even, no matter what, I see the American voter as too shallow to be able to understand that by empowering the students who took over the US embassy in Iran, the US also added to that draw of extremists. Not mentioned there either is Benghazi, which Americans turned into a gong show. As a result potential terrorists wee that the United States walks away from terrorists attacks on its own people, and they become emboldened.

But the focus is always only the US and its presidents.
Click to expand...


I agree, it is really no use. With millenniums of documented conflict, there is only one to blame. How can obsession be overcome with logic and facts?
 
Fearandloathing said:
The video never lays blame clearly at the feet of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan but you have to begin somewhere, and that is where the greatest rise of terrorists happened.

It could have started at the US installation of the Shah in Iran, as Irani's fanned out across the globe and then later showed just how powerful they could be. That's like an add campaign

The thing about history is you have to start somewhere. As for example the US teaches North American history beginning when the English Arrived, when Europeans had already been 150 to 200 years
Click to expand...

Good point. That is the challenge when considering history, especially when applying it they way they are today. Where is the starting point?

It could probably be argued that raids by nomads hundreds of years ago represented terrorism little changed from the effects that are seen today.
 
ocean515 said:
I agree, it is really no use. With millenniums of documented conflict, there is only one to blame. How can obsession be overcome with logic and facts?
Click to expand...


This might seem unkind, but years ago we were watching coverage of hurricane Katrina as a group. Much of the coverage was of the mistakes and how poorly aid was getting to people...

Over in the corner a young man of about 16 said "shouldn't they all be worried about fixing that dike?"

That spoke for the room. We would at least try to help ourselves. However complaining about what you don't get seems to have become a refrain in the US.
 
Fearandloathing said:
This might seem unkind, but years ago we were watching coverage of hurricane Katrina as a group. Much of the coverage was of the mistakes and how poorly aid was getting to people...

Over in the corner a young man of about 16 said "shouldn't they all be worried about fixing that dike?"

That spoke for the room. We would at least try to help ourselves. However complaining about what you don't get seems to have become a refrain in the US.
Click to expand...

Not unkind, wise.

Reversing the course of the USS Victim is going to be a challenging task. Too many free boarding passes have been handed out promising a comfortable cruise.
 
ocean515 said:
Do you think Vox will ever produce an actual historical overview of the events that gave rise to the current situation in the ME, or do you think this simplistic, vague, and tremendously biased view is sufficient?
Click to expand...

Maybe if they'd make a video stating that Africa in its entireity is nothing but an ebola, AIDS and war incuding ****hole, you may have said "well it's an interesting opinion".

But nah, a well rounded, fairly even handed youtube video is totally simplistic, vague and biased...

Perhaps if it blames Obama harshly you'd find it acceptable?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Maybe if they'd make a video stating that Africa in its entireity is nothing but an ebola, AIDS and war incuding ****hole, you may have said "well it's an interesting opinion".

But nah, a well rounded, fairly even handed youtube video is totally simplistic, vague and biased...

Perhaps if it blames Obama harshly you'd find it acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what purpose this fantastical rhetoric you have posted serves, but I guess it must do something for you, or you wouldn't have taken the time.

Perhaps this obsession you have displayed multiple times is to blame.

What I think would be interesting is a video that accurately presents the long history of conflict in the ME, rather than this Vox propaganda that confirms the obsession of the cult unable to move past George Bush.
 
ocean515 said:
Good point. That is the challenge when considering history, especially when applying it they way they are today. Where is the starting point?

It could probably be argued that raids by nomads hundreds of years ago represented terrorism little changed from the effects that are seen today.
Click to expand...


I recall an historian, specialist on Balcan states, was on CBC and the moderator asked him "who started shooting" His immediate answer was "whoever was the first to discover gunpowder."

What I learned from history was that the Second world war was started by the end of the first world war, and the first world war resulted from a hundred years of little wars, in breeding of kings and because hockey hadn't been invented. Pearl Harbor was no more the start of America's role in the war, they had been supplying arms to Britain and Russia as an alleged "neutral" from the outset.

And as I grapple with the kind of simple thinking that cannot see that, I come to understand more about the American voter. For some it will be all about "Bush" and they will flip the switch for anyone claiming to be "not Bush".

It also, unfortunately explains why nothing gets done. I have a bit more respect for Obama now that I have seen some Klingons among you. Of course he didn't have the balls to go for UHC out of the gate, he's thin skinned and the ACA cost him enough. However, it is NOT the pathway to UHC and won't be until it gets so expansive people start hurting. In his Naivety, Obama drank the insurance industry cool aid and insured himself the $ for two terms.

But its classic. They promised change and delivered. The fact that its worse than before you can blame on the voter above, the idiot who still thinks its about Bush
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom