The Student Room Group

ISIS in Iraq megathread

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
ISIS is an actual state; albeit, an internationally unrecognised state. They would pose a serious threat to British soldiers and Britain would suffer many casualties; that is not even mentioning the reprisal attacks that will definitely occur in Britain if the government does dispatch the army.
Original post by GPODT
ISIS is an actual state; albeit, an internationally unrecognised state. They would pose a serious threat to British soldiers and Britain would suffer many casualties; that is not even mentioning the reprisal attacks that will definitely occur in Britain if the government does dispatch the army.

do u think they can take Baghdad
Original post by themanwithaplanb
my question is do u think iraq can deal with isis, do u support isis, do u feel we need to intervene again.


If ISIS start committing human right atrocities (as they already are doing) I can see us going back there again, or at least the USA. This will be a disaster on our part, and I can fully see the start of the decline of NATO and the west (if we do get involved), occurring in the duration of this conflict, and the east, particularly China and Russia taking over in global military dominance from the 2020's/ 2030's onwards. See my thread on around the subject. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2711990

Iraq can not and does not have the resources to deal with this on their own. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27820800 But that is not a reason for us to intervene.
(edited 9 years ago)
We certainly do not 'need' to intervene. More so because there is a serious lack of education in the West regarding why the turmoil in Iraq is going on. Calling ISIL 'terrorists' and 'al-qaeda affiliated' is vague at best and overly simplistic. There is an ever ongoing feud between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq as well as the whole Muslim world. The Iraqi government under Maliki has been categorically repressing Sunnis, as a result of which they have had to flee places like Baghdad, Basra, for Northern areas, and these places are populated with people who support ISIL purely because they detest the government. The news won't tell you any of that. It'll condense it into a 'government' versus 'extremist Islamist West-hating terrorists' argument. This war, between Shiites and Sunnis, is inevitable. I may as well add that end times seem well nigh upon us.
Not our ****ing problem , sorry to all the innocents that have and shall die at their hands but hopefully we wont make the same mistake again.
(edited 9 years ago)
If a nuke were to be dropped from an anonymous plane.. would the world know who was responsible?
Original post by GPODT
ISIS is an actual state; albeit, an internationally unrecognised state. They would pose a serious threat to British soldiers and Britain would suffer many casualties; that is not even mentioning the reprisal attacks that will definitely occur in Britain if the government does dispatch the army.

'Britain would suffer many casualties'? :lolwut: There are no British troops in Iraq currently.
Original post by imlosingmyhead
'Britain would suffer many casualties'? :lolwut: There are no British troops in Iraq currently.


Other than UKSF. But shhhh...

Anyway, I think he meant it would become a base for terrorism. Which is plausible and actually, highly likely. Do you know ISIS's aims?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
Other than UKSF. But shhhh...

Anyway, I think he meant it would become a base for terrorism. Which is plausible and actually, highly likely. Do you know ISIS's aims?

I'm sorry, I don't think a well-balanced intellectual discussion can be held when vague terms like 'terrorism' are employed by either party. They are not terrorists to the majority of Iraqi Sunnis, they are quite contrarily liberators. They are terrorists to the West, and the West seriously needs to get out of the habit of extrapolating its viewpoint to the world. ISIL aims to set up a state where Islam can be legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers.
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I'm sorry, I don't think a well-balanced intellectual discussion can be held when vague terms like 'terrorism' are employed by either party. They are not terrorists to the majority of Iraqi Sunnis, they are quite contrarily liberators. They are terrorists to the West, and the West seriously needs to get out of the habit of extrapolating its viewpoint to the world. ISIL aims to set up a state where Islam can be legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers.


Terrorist = someone who uses terror to promote their aims. Blowing up civilians = terror. ISIS do this = terrorists.

Are you a Muslim or a Dhimmi?
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I'm sorry, I don't think a well-balanced intellectual discussion can be held when vague terms like 'terrorism' are employed by either party. They are not terrorists to the majority of Iraqi Sunnis, they are quite contrarily liberators. They are terrorists to the West, and the West seriously needs to get out of the habit of extrapolating its viewpoint to the world. ISIL aims to set up a state where Islam can be legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers.


We helped Sunni Muslims get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and they pay us back by flying planes into tall buildings. Sorry, I meant Al Qaeda.

You have got to be out of your mind to think ISIS et al are friendly to the west and will bring justice to criminals who commit war crimes and international terrorism.

People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naΓ―ve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.
SNED
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I'm sorry, I don't think a well-balanced intellectual discussion can be held when vague terms like 'terrorism' are employed by either party. They are not terrorists to the majority of Iraqi Sunnis, they are quite contrarily liberators. They are terrorists to the West, and the West seriously needs to get out of the habit of extrapolating its viewpoint to the world. ISIL aims to set up a state where Islam can be legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers.



So if we wanted to set up a Fourth Reich in Europe where white supremacy and national socialism can be 'legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers' you would not oppose it?
Original post by the mezzil
We helped Sunni Muslims get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and they pay us back by flying planes into tall buildings. Sorry, I meant Al Qaeda.



People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naΓ―ve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.

I do not believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with flying planes into tall buildings.
The West far from 'helped' Sunni Muslims get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the West used the Muslims as pawns to get rid of the Soviets.
'You have got to be out of your mind to think ISIS et al are friendly to the west and will bring justice to criminals who commit war crimes and international terrorism.' I don't really get what that means to imply. You mean to say that you are 100% sure of ISIL's intentions, and that what you think they will do is what they will do?
'People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naΓ―ve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.' I agree. This is a war and there are 2 sides to it. You choose your side, I choose mine. That doesn't mean your side is any more correct than mine, nor the other way round. It simply means that this is a good old-fashioned, human war.
Original post by TheAnusFiles
Terrorist = someone who uses terror to promote their aims. Blowing up civilians = terror. ISIS do this = terrorists.

Are you a Muslim or a Dhimmi?

Blowing up civilians=terror, correct. The West has been doing this in parts of the World for years now. The West=terrorists to those living in those parts of the world.
I do not believe that ISIL blows up innocents as I have no reason to believe it.
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I do not believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with flying planes into tall buildings.
The West far from 'helped' Sunni Muslims get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the West used the Muslims as pawns to get rid of the Soviets.
'You have got to be out of your mind to think ISIS et al are friendly to the west and will bring justice to criminals who commit war crimes and international terrorism.' I don't really get what that means to imply. You mean to say that you are 100% sure of ISIL's intentions, and that what you think they will do is what they will do?
'People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naΓ―ve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.' I agree. This is a war and there are 2 sides to it. You choose your side, I choose mine. That doesn't mean your side is any more correct than mine, nor the other way round. It simply means that this is a good old-fashioned, human war.


So you support execution of apostates etc...
Original post by TheAnusFiles
SNED


So if we wanted to set up a Fourth Reich in Europe where white supremacy and national socialism can be 'legitimately and comfortably practiced, without any barriers' you would not oppose it?

I would oppose it. If you are comparing Islam to white supremacy then you need to go educate yourself about Islam before attempting to discuss it. Or if you prefer wallowing in dire misinformation then you're welcome to do so, I suppose. Different strokes for different folks.
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I do not believe Al Qaeda had anything to do with flying planes into tall buildings.
The West far from 'helped' Sunni Muslims get the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the West used the Muslims as pawns to get rid of the Soviets.
'You have got to be out of your mind to think ISIS et al are friendly to the west and will bring justice to criminals who commit war crimes and international terrorism.' I don't really get what that means to imply. You mean to say that you are 100% sure of ISIL's intentions, and that what you think they will do is what they will do?
'People have the right to self determination. If they want a unified Islamic state that is fine, but it would be naΓ―ve to think that the outcome and consequences would be peaceful for Britain regardless of whether we intervened.' I agree. This is a war and there are 2 sides to it. You choose your side, I choose mine. That doesn't mean your side is any more correct than mine, nor the other way round. It simply means that this is a good old-fashioned, human war.


Who flew the planes into tall buildings then?

I am confident to make the assertion that ISIL has no intentions to act in a peaceful manner towards us, or the west in general. I will even go as far to say it also seeks to enact genocide.

Basically from what I can see, you dislike Britain, and support a side that routinely carries out war crimes without any thought for the rule of international law. Yes?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TheAnusFiles
So you support execution of apostates etc...

This is so classic it's laughable. You know nothing about Islam if (a) that is the only thing you can bring up when Sharia is discussed and (b) if you actually believe that that is true Sharia.
Original post by imlosingmyhead
I would oppose it. If you are comparing Islam to white supremacy then you need to go educate yourself about Islam before attempting to discuss it. Or if you prefer wallowing in dire misinformation then you're welcome to do so, I suppose. Different strokes for different folks.


So let me just check an Islamic state opposes:

homosexuality
jews
gender equality
artistic/musical expression
democracy
capitalism
freedom of speech against the state

any mistakes so far?

Quick Reply

Latest