• 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!

Iraq Slave Markets Sell Women for $10 to Attract Isis Recruits

Why don't Iraqis and Syrians do something about it? Isn't that their responsibility? Does the constitution say that the US is responsible for curing the entire world of it's ills?

I mean I don't mind helping in the fight against evil, and I do belive that ISIS is evil, but it seems to me that the people in Iraq and Syria are just about worthless when a dozen terrorists in a Mad Max style pickup truck can overrun a village of hundreds.

It would be absolutely great if Iraq and Syria and other countries in that region would defeat ISIS. However, no matter if you agree with it or not, we (and many other nations) interfered in 2003, so we should be responsible and help Iraq with the ISIS problem. And we should help them until they are strong enough to fight off ISIS on their own.
 
But, all Southerners are racist, right?

You know how you keep complaining about people responding to things you didn't say?
 
It would be absolutely great if Iraq and Syria and other countries in that region would defeat ISIS. However, no matter if you agree with it or not, we (and many other nations) interfered in 2003, so we should be responsible and help Iraq with the ISIS problem. And we should help them until they are strong enough to fight off ISIS on their own.

They will never be strong enough to fight ISIS off on their own. That is why ISIS is there. The Iraqi military outnumbers ISIS by better than 10 to 1, yet they are so inept and the government is so corrupt that they still cannot defeat ISIS. Even if we somehow killed every single member of ISIS in Iraq, the only result would be another bunch of radical Islamists would take their place.
 
Yes, liberals are against all of those things.
There's not much evidence of that.. At least they don't give it the attention they do global warming, Wall Street, or abortion or an American woman's 'right to choose'.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that when Muslims do something like that, a liberal doesn't suggest that all Muslims are murderers, doesn't blame all of Islam, doesn't demand moderate muslims be held accountable for extremists, and doesn't suggest ridiculous things like gutting the first amendment's protections in relation to Islam.
You are fabricating here. It seems you watch too much MSNBC.
Same with Christians. When was the last time you saw a liberal demand that Christians police Christian terrorists in Africa, or are even remotely connected to those monsters? Or even the westboro baptist church? How often do you see liberals suggest we not allow Christians to build churches?
Neither Liberals or Conservatives are against the building of Churches. Only Muslims are against it.
 
Yes, liberals are against all of those things. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that when Muslims do something like that, a liberal doesn't suggest that all Muslims are murderers, doesn't blame all of Islam, doesn't demand moderate muslims be held accountable for extremists, and doesn't suggest ridiculous things like gutting the first amendment's protections in relation to Islam. Same with Christians. When was the last time you saw a liberal demand that Christians police Christian terrorists in Africa, or are even remotely connected to those monsters? Or even the westboro baptist church? How often do you see liberals suggest we not allow Christians to build churches?

WOW! Powerful post, Deuce. Excellent! :thumbs:
 
When any country did what we did in 2003 in Iraq, they have a long term obligation to that country, and we should have stayed there as a deterrent and stabilizing force. Abandoning Iraq in 2011 was inhumane and irresponsible. The Status Of Forces Agreement could have been resolved if there was a will on part of our current Presidential Administration, but there was not. Hell, the Obama Administration accepted the same terms this year for the boots on the ground that we now have in Baghdad as was offered in 2011. Back then it was apparently not good enough, but now it suddenly is.

Diplomatic Note Promises Immunity From Iraqi Law for U.S. Advisory Troops:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/us-advisory-troops-get-immunity-from-iraqi-law.html?_r=0

We'll if Bush hadn't found support for his trumped up war from Americans frightened of mushroom clouds over US cities, we wouldn't be talking about this. I wonder if lessons are learned and Americans shut the next president down who talks about regime change, or if we'll allow ourselves to be frightened into another fiasco.
 
Yes, liberals are against all of those things. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that when Muslims do something like that, a liberal doesn't suggest that all Muslims are murderers, doesn't blame all of Islam, doesn't demand moderate muslims be held accountable for extremists, and doesn't suggest ridiculous things like gutting the first amendment's protections in relation to Islam. Same with Christians. When was the last time you saw a liberal demand that Christians police Christian terrorists in Africa, or are even remotely connected to those monsters? Or even the westboro baptist church? How often do you see liberals suggest we not allow Christians to build churches?

So in claiming that liberals don't paint with a broad brush you paint conservatives with a broad brush... congratulations on nailing the "complete lack of self awareness" award.
 
But you have this miraculous ability to see inside the minds of others, do you?

No, but I can judge from their comments and actions. To see what their comments and actions are , you don't have to be a mind reader.
 
Why don't Iraqis and Syrians do something about it? Isn't that their responsibility? Does the constitution say that the US is responsible for curing the entire world of it's ills?

At the end of the day what we're going to discover is there's a reason the Sunni officers in units in Baathist strongholds near Mosul and Tikrit melted away as ISIS approached and why a relatively small number of militants were able to overrun military bases with heavy weapons and armor. It's all about settling old scores and taking on the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. Let's call it what it is: a civil war. And we intervene at our peril. I mean, I've seen this movie before. It even has some of the same characters, such as Sunnis and Shiites, while some of the original stars (Maronites, Palestinians, and Druze) have been replaced by a couple of new ones called Kurds and Yazidis. The collapse of the Iraqi Army reminds me of the collapse of the Lebanese Army during the initial phase of that country's civil war. Officers and men chose to join militias based on sectarian affiliations. I imagine that's what's happening here.
 
That is where the true "war on women" is happening. We should do something about it...much more than what we are doing now. And countries in that area need to do something too.

The countries in the area that respect and cherish women? Who'd they be?
 
There's not much evidence of that.. At least they don't give it the attention they do global warming, Wall Street, or abortion or an American woman's 'right to choose'. You are fabricating here. It seems you watch too much MSNBC. Neither Liberals or Conservatives are against the building of Churches. Only Muslims are against it.

Conservatives do sometimes suggest we not allow muslims to build mosques. Are you not aware of this? You haven't seen the suggestions on these boards that we not allow muslims to immigrate to America?
 
Conservatives do sometimes suggest we not allow muslims to build mosques.
Are you talking of the ground zero mosque? There were many opposed to this construction and believe it crossed political lines.
You haven't seen the suggestions on these boards that we not allow muslims to immigrate to America?
No, not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if this idea wasn't suggested.
 
This, the slave trade, is normal for muslims. Who were the trades of black slaves? Muslims.

As far as stopping the building of mosques here in the USA, I'm all for it. A lot to most of the money to build these buildings of hate is supplied by the Saudis. But try to build a church in Saudi Arabia. Ya, like that will happen. Hey, muslims, ever hear of the policy of reciprocity?
 
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that when Muslims do something like that, a liberal doesn't suggest that all Muslims are murderers, doesn't blame all of Islam, doesn't demand moderate muslims be held accountable for extremists, and doesn't suggest ridiculous things like gutting the first amendment's protections in relation to Islam.

Isn’t that a rather simplistic view? Your inference that all conservatives believe the same thing on all issues is as ridiculous as saying all liberals believe the same way on all issues.

There are mouth pieces on both sides of the spectrum that express derivatives that don’t represent the popular opinion of their cause. Of course the media cherry picks the statements and typically plays the extreme view points [Left & Right]. Then people like you interpret a series of sound bits as the platform for the class or group.





Here is an example of an agenda driven mouth piece on the Left...

When was the last time you saw a liberal demand that Christians police Christian terrorists in Africa, or are even remotely connected to those monsters?

Christian terrorists? Those monsters? Hmm. Another typical oversimplification of the problem and the manipulation of the facts by a liberal.



Background: The Central African Republic Conflict


The Seleka, a mostly Muslim group, is comprised of nomads that have raped and plundered their way across Africa.

The Seleka initially backed and installed Michel Djotodia as president of the Central African Republic in March 2013. Shortly afterwards, Djotodia announced the dissolution of the Séléka in September 2013,[9] but most of the militias refused to disband. The fighters that ushered in Djotodia ran wild across the country during his time in office, plundering villages and killing Christians as well as supporters of the former president Francois Bozize. The disbanded group has dispersed into the countryside and have been committing mass atrocities according to Human Rights Watch.[19][20][21][22][23]

Executions, rape and looting by ex-Seleka fighters after the coup and disbanding have fomented religious tension where the population is 80% Christian.[24] As many Christians had sedentary lifestyles and many Muslims were nomadic, claims to the land were yet another dimension of the tensions.[11]

Christian militias, using the name anti-balaka, have been formed to defend the population and fight the Muslim Seleka.[8][9][19]

In November 2013, the UN warned that the Central African Republic was at risk of spiraling into genocide,[12] and was "descending into complete chaos”. The United Nations is considering sending troops to stop the atrocities.[25] On November 26, France indicated that it would boost its presence an additional 1,000 soldiers in the Central African Republic to augment its existent 400 troops if it receives U.N. backing.[26]

On May 28, 2014, the Seleka members threw grenades before shooting indiscriminately at the Church of Fatima in the capital Bangui, killing at least 11 people.​

In retaliation, the Christian militias are fighting back. Anyway they can. Fighting for their lives.


By arbitrarily calling the Christian militia “Christian terrorists “ and “Monsters” demonstrates that you are:

1) Ill informed of the situation

or

2) You are just parroting the chants of agenda driven individuals regardless of the facts

or

3) You support the Muslim Seleka nomads in their quest to destroy the Christians and take their land.




By the way... The Christian militias, go by the name anti-balaka. Do you know what that means in English? Anti-balaka means "anti-machete" or "anti-sword" in the local Sango and Mandja languages.[4][5]

And you see them as “Christian terrorists “ and “Monsters”. I guess we all see where you stand now.
 
Back
Top Bottom