President Obama authorises air-strikes on Islamist barbarians

Original post by TheIsotope

Are there normal muslim sunnis fighting in iraq as well against ISIS?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Most Kurds are Sunnis, they have been fighting hard against ISIS. That's what the 'Peshmerga' are, they are the Muslim Kurdish armed forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshmerga

Many Sunnis have been killed by ISIS already in Iraq, either for not being Muslim enough, or for alleged collaboration with the Iraqi government. It's been difficult for many of them to fight, as they were rapidly overwhelmed by the heavily armed insurgency and the main Iraqi army had fled.

Reply 64

TheIsotope

9

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Most Kurds are Sunnis, they have been fighting hard against ISIS. That's what the 'Peshmerga' are, they are the Muslim Kurdish armed forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshmerga

Many Sunnis have been killed by ISIS already in Iraq, either for not being Muslim enough, or for alleged collaboration with the Iraqi government. It's been difficult for many of them to fight, as they were rapidly overwhelmed by the heavily armed insurgency and the main Iraqi army had fled.

The way the media and some on here are making it sound is that all the sunni muslims in iraq are killing the christians and yazadis which apparently is not the case

Reply 65

Original post by Snagprophet

It's a bit gay that we've just heard of their plight. It's probably like, to us, if Druids and Wicca were living segregated from the rest of British society and then we start killing them. Terrible. Glad something positive is coming out from all this.

I agree with the general gist of your comment, but no; it's not "a bit gay". Nothing homosexual about it at all.

Reply 66

felamaslen

15

Obama's paying for the mistake he made in 2011 when he took all the troops out. Iraqis are paying in blood.

Reply 67

Original post by TheIsotope

The way the media and some on here are making it sound is that all the sunni muslims in iraq are killing the christians and yazadis which apparently is not the case

Sometimes that seems to come across, yes. We should remember that Christian and other non-Islamic communities lived reasonably happily alongside Sunnis (and Shias) for many centuries in these areas. Part of that was the influence of the multi-racial and reasonably (but not always) tolerant Ottoman Empire. At least some of what's happening now is still linked to the collapse of that empire and the piecemeal division of its shattered remnants by the British and French after World War I. (The infamous 'Sykes-Picot Agreement'.)

People who think the British Empire was marvellous could do worse than consider this piece of imperialistic high handedness, grotesque indifference to the well being and history of local people and their traditions and, frankly, utterly crass stupidity.

Reply 68

felamaslen

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Another attempt to equate Hamas directly with ISIS. We await any evidence that they are linked in any way, beyond press releases from the IDF and Likud.

They both want to set up totalitarian Islamic states in the former Ottoman empire. They both target civilians. They are both Islamist organisations. What about them is different?

Reply 69

Original post by felamaslen

They both want to set up totalitarian Islamic states in the former Ottoman empire. They both target civilians. They are both Islamist organisations. What about them is different?

I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly, but Hamas were elected in Gaza in a UN-monitored vote. They are also part of the Palestinian government and they run numerous social and health services, so the charge that they 'target civilians' per se is a bit thin. Israel routinely alleges that they position their rocket batteries next to civilian sites. Evidence from UN and other sources often challenges those claims.

Reply 70

ThatNorthernLad

10

Original post by Marky Mark

Why don't they bomb Israel while they're at it as well?

And it''s funny hearing that America wants to help when they created the mess in the first place.

What's more shocking about this whole thing is that the christian population inside iraq is very low compared to the Muslims (both shia/sunni), including the kurds. Going into a country to save a minority of it's citizens while killing the majority seems completely ridiculous to me. But ofc people will support America and see them as the heroes they truly are. :wink:

The minority aren't genocidal psychopathic overzealous nutjobs, so that kinda balances it out.

Reply 71

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly, but Hamas were elected in Gaza in a UN-monitored vote

Actually, they weren't elected in Gaza. They were elected to a majority of seats on the Palestinian Authority's legislative assembly (while Abu Mazen of Fatah is the President) which covers both the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas then took over the Gaza Strip with force of arms, and declared themselves to be the government and ruling authority of Gaza.

Palestinian law requires elections every four years, and yet Hamas made no effort to hold elections after their 2006 election and subsequent takeover of the Gaza Strip

They are also part of the Palestinian government and they run numerous social and health services,

There mere fact that someone runs social services confers no inherent legitimacy. All politico-military nationalist movements do that in some way or another. Al-Shabaab and ISIS also do it.

Israel routinely alleges that they position their rocket batteries next to civilian sites

I'm sorry, that Hamas sites their rockets and command bases in civilian areas, in houses, and fires from residential zones (which constitutes a large proportion of the Gaza Strip) is substantiated fact. I don't think there has been any serious dispute

Evidence from UN and other sources often challenges those claims

So you're saying the UN was lying when it announced that they had been storing rockets in an UNRWA school?

Reply 72

Original post by Fullofsurprises

We should remember that Christian and other non-Islamic communities lived reasonably happily alongside Sunnis (and Shias) for many centuries in these areas. Part of that was the influence of the multi-racial and reasonably (but not always) tolerant Ottoman Empire

I'm sorry but I think you need to have a long, hard think about what you're saying, and why you're saying it.

The Yezidi people suffered absolutely appalling repression under the Ottomans, with countless cases of punitive raids, forced conversions, oppressive laws, social marginalisation. The Ottomans, from their perspective of Sunni Hanafi Islam, saw the Yezidi as devil-worshippers, and acted accordingly. The intolerance, discrimination and marginalisation against Yezidi in the Ottoman Empire was profound and total. Attacks on the Yezidi by Ottoman forces and Kurdish princes almost completely wiped out that community in the 19th century, and they are lucky that they're still around. In harshness if not necessarily in quantity, their experience might be compared to the slaughter and genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

So, one comes to having to ask why you simply made up that stuff about non-Islamic communities living happily alongside the other religious groups under the "reasonably...tolerant Ottoman Empire"? Is it because you have some kind of need to believe that the Muslim world is this marvellously peaceful oasis of tolerance except where they come into contact with the West? I don't doubt that you really believe what you said, but the fact you said it when it is the complete opposite of the truth calls in to question your judgment on this subject

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 73

Original post by Fullofsurprises

At least some of what's happening now is still linked to the collapse of that empire and the piecemeal division of its shattered remnants by the British and French after World War I. (The infamous 'Sykes-Picot Agreement'.)

The Sykes-Picot agreement is certainly a relevant historical fact to modern day Iraq, but the insinuation that the Agreement and Western intervention is responsible for the problems of the region is risible.

What proposed division of territory would you have made (leaving aside Mandatory Palestine)? Are you seriously asserting that what they should have done was implement the proposed "Greater Syria" (encompassing all of modern day Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait, plus the Sinai peninsula and parts of south-eastern Turkey) that many Arabs demanded (and some still seek today)?

Can it be considered a serious suggestion that placing all these countries under one super state would be a recipe for peace? It would be a recipe for disaster. The British gave the Arabs living in Arabia a state for the first time ever, protecting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The British also dismantled the discriminatory jizya, it ended the outrageous state-sponsored slaughters of religious minorities that occurred under the Ottomans.

Say what you like about the British, but for the religious and ethnic minorities of the region, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was possibly the best thing that ever happened for them. It eventually led to a Jewish state, it led eventually to regimes in Syria and Iraq that were secular and nationalist in orientation (for all their nauseating repression, they did not add religious repression to the mix).

Criticism of Sykes-Picot has, underlying it, the implication that what the region really needed was a Sunni Arab super-state covering the entire region, which is what the Sunni Arabs wanted. The modern incarnation of that old dream is the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

People who think the British Empire was marvellous could do worse than consider this piece of imperialistic high handedness, grotesque indifference to the well being and history of local people and their traditions and, frankly, utterly crass stupidity.

Grotesquely indifferent to the well-being and history of local people and their traditions.... as opposed to how the Ottomans treated the Yezidi, the Druze, the Alevi, the Alawites, the Armenians, Jews and Christians. These minorities saw their lot improve considerably under French and British rule.

Reply 74

viddy9

16

Good.

While it's patently obvious that the United States are only intervening because their own interests are threatened, the likelihood is very high that these air strikes will - as a by-product - serve the greater good by protecting the civilian population from genocide by these IS murderers. It won't completely reverse the damage done by the West during the illegal war and occupation in Iraq by any means, but in the here and now, I don't think anybody can legitimately argue against action being taken against IS. (Yes, there are plenty more human rights abuses that are being ignored by the United States and the UK, but just because everything isn't being done, it doesn't mean nothing should be done.)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 75

Original post by MostUncivilised

I'm sorry but I think you need to have a long, hard think about what you're saying, and why you're saying it.

The Yezidi people suffered absolutely appalling repression under the Ottomans, with countless cases of punitive raids, forced conversions, oppressive laws, social marginalisation. The Ottomans, from their perspective of Sunni Hanafi Islam, saw the Yezidi as devil-worshippers, and acted accordingly. The intolerance, discrimination and marginalisation against Yezidi in the Ottoman Empire was profound and total. Attacks on the Yezidi by Ottoman forces and Kurdish princes almost completely wiped out that community in the 19th century, and they are lucky that they're still around. In harshness if not necessarily in quantity, their experience might be compared to the slaughter and genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

So, one comes to having to ask why you simply made up that stuff about non-Islamic communities living happily alongside the other religious groups under the "reasonably...tolerant Ottoman Empire"? Is it because you have some kind of need to believe that the Muslim world is this marvellously peaceful oasis of tolerance except where they come into contact with the West? I don't doubt that you really believe what you said, but the fact you said it when it is the complete opposite of the truth calls in to question your judgment on this subject

Yes, I didn't specifically mention the Yazidi, I was really thinking of Christian communities in Syria and Iraq when I wrote that and before you go into another long diatribe, for sure I realise there have been times when Christians were persecuted in the Arab lands too.

Reply 76

Original post by MostUncivilised

Criticism of Sykes-Picot has, underlying it, the implication that what the region really needed was a Sunni Arab super-state covering the entire region, which is what the Sunni Arabs wanted. The modern incarnation of that old dream is the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

Can you please stop inferring in a derogatory manner that anyone who has even a mild criticism of Israel is some kind of automatic ally of the worst of extremist Islamism?

You are being very selective. You've chosen the modern radical Islamist idea (or rather, the Muslim Brotherhood idea, or their interpretation of Pan-Arabism) and made it sound as though that's also what critics of Sykes-Picot would have wanted. I was thinking of the way arbitrary lines on maps were drawn up for the Mandates and the way the British and French imposed kings on those invented territories and ignored local history, racial and cultural divisions and their inevitable results. For what it's worth, I agree that things were hardly better before and I certainly don't advocate a surrender to the ISIS viewpoint.

Reply 77

felamaslen

15

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly, but Hamas were elected in Gaza in a UN-monitored vote. They are also part of the Palestinian government and they run numerous social and health services, so the charge that they 'target civilians' per se is a bit thin. Israel routinely alleges that they position their rocket batteries next to civilian sites. Evidence from UN and other sources often challenges those claims.

Hamas are not democrats and don't plan on holding any more elections. Their rocket strikes target civilians.

Reply 78

Original post by felamaslen

Hamas are not democrats and don't plan on holding any more elections. Their rocket strikes target civilians.

Well, officially the unity government of 2014 are in charge of Gaza, I agree the facts on the ground may not reflect that, but that's what the Palestinian position is, or was. The Palestinian Legislative Council, when it did meet, was not assisted by the fact that Israel blocked the movements of its members, arrested some of them and killed others. It's hard to run a democracy when another power won't let it function. I can accept that Hamas aren't the most democratically-minded movement in the world, but they have more democratic legitimacy than ISIS.

Reply 79

tsr1269