Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Turkey Condemns Russia for Fighting Islam in Syria, Calls on West to Accept ISIS watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should accept that ISIS are here to stay. I don't believe our continued fighting against ISIS will help improve the perception of the West nor will it assist the spread of Western values in the Middle East.

    Whilst I do not condone ISIS, I don't believe war is going to solve anything. Maybe what is needed is a re-carving up of the borders of the Middle East which was done so poorly by the British and the French after WWII? Whilst this might be far fetched, maybe allowing ISIS to have their own state, creating a Kurdish state, among other new drawings of borders in the Middle East might help to abate some of the fighting taking place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...rrorist_groups

    Hezbollah and its many wings are designated terror groups

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

    Hezbollah itself described with evidence as anti-Semite, anti-west,basically anti everything you expect from an Islamist group

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1148

    Timeline of hebzollah terror attacks and violence


    http://archive.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/hezbollah.html
    The aims of hebzollah all fitting terror aims and Islamist aims



    Hebzollah even say themselves they want a caliphate comprising of Lebanon and Israel
    1. Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organisation by western powers because it liberated the south of Lebanon from Israeli occupation, which was against their interests.
    2.'Christians and Jews differ with Muslims concerning the interpretation of the unity of God and the personality of God. Despite that, the Qur'an commands: Turn to the principle of unity—the unity of God and the unity of mankind. We interpret this to mean that we can meet with Marxists on the common ground of standing up to the forces of international arrogance; we can meet nationalists, even secular nationalists, on the common ground of Arab causes, which are also Islamic causes. Islam recognizes the Other.... So Islam does not negate the Other; it invites the Other to dialogue.'
    - Ayatullah Fadhlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah

    Scroll down to attitudes regarding Jews and Judaism.
    Anti-zionism/anti-occupationism =/= anti-semitism.

    3. All of the actual terror operations carried out in the link you provided were claimed responsibility for by organisations other than Hezbollah. Terrorist groups always take credit for their atrocities - that's kind of the point. You can't strike terror into the hearts of your enemies by seeking to disconnect yourself from acts of violence towards them.
    This includes the US embassy in Lebanon, as well as all of the terrorist attacks in Buenos Aires. Hezbollah publicly denied involvement in any of these attacks.
    Many of the atrocities cited in the article were commited by AMAL, an organisation which hezbollah has distanced itself from.

    4. Hezbollah does not want to create a caliphate. The shia believe that a caliphate can only be created if it is ruled by the awaited messiah, the Mahdi.

    'The Hezbollah Program', a sort of manifesto:

    '3. To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government their desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which, alone, is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any future tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration onto our country.'

    Hezbollah doesn't want to 'create an islamic state encompassing israel and lebanon'. One of the key features of shia islam is that we only believe that the sharia is legitimate when a large majority vote for it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    None of these say that Amnesty International accuse them of ethnic cleansing. I read them out of courtesy because you posted them but I knew they wouldn't say it because Amnesty has not accused them of ethnic cleansing. That was hyperbolic language on your part I'm afraid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Hezbollah are not terrorists. I am amazed at such accusations towards them still being made when they have hundreds of christian recruits this year, proving that they aren't islamo-fascists, and have never engaged in the deliberate killing of civilians, removing any possibility of the 'terrorist' label being placed upon them.
    I hope you know that the definition of terrorism constitutes, 'Violent acts or their threat towards civilians for the purpose of coercing a group (including governments, populations, and organisations) into conceding to demands.'
    So embassy bombings don't count as acts of terrorism?

    Besides, what say you of them being one of the main exponents of Holocaust denial? They even have a history of spreading anti-Semitic propoganda so retarded that even The Neo-Nazi retards on Stormfront wouldn't stoop to it such as Jews spreading AIDs throughout the Musim World.

    They even have a military arm called Jihad Council lol. "Nah, Mane, they just be peaceful yo. They din do nuffin." Do you support Hezbollah by the way?
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    None of these say that Amnesty International accuse them of ethnic cleansing. I read them out of courtesy because you posted them but I knew they wouldn't say it because Amnesty has not accused them of ethnic cleansing. That was hyperbolic language on your part I'm afraid.
    Here:

    Amnesty International catalogues allegations of forced evictions of Arabs and Turkmens and the destruction of their homes and property. “In some cases, entire villages have been demolished, apparently in retaliation for the perceived support of their Arab or Turkmen residents for the group that calls itself the Islamic State,” Amnesty International noted. Villagers said they were ordered to leave at gunpoint, their livestock shot at. The watchdog used satellite imagery and video footage to verify the claims.

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3r7dkRSxb
    YPG had razed their homes in February. In Raneen, near Tell Abyad, locals said YPG forces had threatened to shoot them if they failed to leave. One person said, “They told us we had to leave or they would tell the US coalition that we were terrorists and their planes would hit us and our families. In Raneen, where some people were with IS, there were lots of problems but we had nothing to do with anything.” Alleged YPG threats of calling in US airstrikes against villagers if they didn’t leave are repeated throughout the report.

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3r7dw4AnR
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    So embassy bombings don't count as acts of terrorism?

    Besides, what say you of them being one of the main exponents of Holocaust denial? They even have a history of spreading anti-Semitic propoganda so retarded that even The Neo-Nazi retards on Stormfront wouldn't stoop to it such as Jews spreading AIDs throughout the Musim World.

    They even have a military arm called Jihad Council lol. "Nah, Mane, they just be peaceful yo. They din do nuffin." Do you support Hezbollah by the way?
    Please read what I've said so far about the embassy bombing, which they denied involvement in and which a different group claimed credit for.

    On the subject of the anti-semitic cartoon getting aired on Al Manar which said that jews spread aids purposefully to the middle east - it wasn't made by hezbollah itself, and was allowed to be aired by a supervisor who was part of one of the more extreme elements of the organisation - which don't have any actual power.

    Also, if you think of 'jihad' as some kind of taboo word, you're jumping on the takfiri/extremist bandwagon of considering jihad to be 'aggressive war, in the modern day regarding terrorism'. Jihad is summed up in the following verse of the Quran: (2:190) 'Fight in the cause of God, but do not initiate hostilites - indeed, god does not love the aggressors.' Hezbollah's wars can be called Jihad - defensive war for the sake of maintaining their nation's sovereignty and freedom. Or did you miss the fact that their country was occupied by a foreign army?

    Yes, I would consider myself a hezbollah supporter in some aspects, although I don't support their allegiance to Ayatullah Khamanei because I disagree with his policies.

    I am not aware of Hezbollah denying the holocaust. If they do, then that is a part of their ideology I don't agree with. I am aware that Mahmoud Abbaas was allowed to say,
    "I challenge anyone who can deny that the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis before World War II" on beirut tv, which is affiliated with Hezbollah, but I'm not sure if this constitutes even indirect holocaust denial.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I think we should accept that ISIS are here to stay. I don't believe our continued fighting against ISIS will help improve the perception of the West nor will it assist the spread of Western values in the Middle East.

    Whilst I do not condone ISIS, I don't believe war is going to solve anything. Maybe what is needed is a re-carving up of the borders of the Middle East which was done so poorly by the British and the French after WWII? Whilst this might be far fetched, maybe allowing ISIS to have their own state, creating a Kurdish state, among other new drawings of borders in the Middle East might help to abate some of the fighting taking place.
    You think capitulating to a mass murdering terror group would be better PR than fighting them?
    And yeah something about their global
    Islamic caliphate expansionist ideology suggests your plan is flawed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You think capitulating to a mass murdering terror group would be better PR than fighting them?
    And yeah something about their global
    Islamic caliphate expansionist ideology suggests your plan is flawed.
    Communist also wanted to expand their communist ideology worldwide and many of them were rather brutal mass murdering regimes. Fighting them didn't always work out so well (think Vietnam or North Korea). Maybe we should just let them collapse on their own such as Ceausescu's Romania. Whereas with North Korea, we chose to fight them, and all we have done is create an awful state that we have helped to legitimise by providing them with the perfect bogeyman from which to justify the existence of their state.

    For as long as we continue to interfere, we are going to cause casualties and they are going to have that to use as propaganda. And should we eradicate ISIS, they will merely be replaced by ISIS Version 2.0. Why do such groups keep springing up in the Middle East? And it seems that each incarnation is getting worse. We are not solving the root problem by attacking groups like ISIS.

    The fact is that there are many who do sympathise with the goals and aims of ISIS. Much like many people were sympathetic to the goals and aims of the communists, but that support has since largely dissipated after their collapse and failure. Currently ISIS are still fighting for their utopian goal and have yet to achieve it, and maybe if we allow them to achieve their 'utopian' goal and we let it collapse on its own accord, it would do far greater damage to the concept of an Islamic caliphate than merely fighting them would.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Communist also wanted to expand their communist ideology worldwide and many of them were rather brutal mass murdering regimes. Fighting them didn't always work out so well (think Vietnam or North Korea). Maybe we should just let them collapse on their own such as Ceausescu's Romania. Whereas with North Korea, we chose to fight them, and all we have done is create an awful state that we have helped to legitimise by providing them with the perfect bogeyman from which to justify the existence of their state.

    For as long as we continue to interfere, we are going to cause casualties and they are going to have that to use as propaganda. And should we eradicate ISIS, they will merely be replaced by ISIS Version 2.0. Why do such groups keep springing up in the Middle East? And it seems that each incarnation is getting worse. We are not solving the root problem by attacking groups like ISIS.

    The fact is that there are many who do sympathise with the goals and aims of ISIS. Much like many people were sympathetic to the goals and aims of the communists, but that support has since largely dissipated after their collapse and failure. Currently ISIS are still fighting for their utopian goal and have yet to achieve it, and maybe if we allow them to achieve their 'utopian' goal and we let it collapse on its own accord, it would do far greater damage to the concept of an Islamic caliphate than merely fighting them would.
    I don't think that the concept of caliphate is necessarily the problem. It's more about their specific idea of what constitutes a caliphate, as well as their policies and etc that are screwed up. If the middle east and other muslim regions somehow gained peace and relative prosperity while remaining relatively religious for the next hundred years or so, I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of federal caliphate was created via alliances and cooperative relationships, much like we have an EU in europe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Communist also wanted to expand their communist ideology worldwide and many of them were rather brutal mass murdering regimes. Fighting them didn't always work out so well (think Vietnam or North Korea). Maybe we should just let them collapse on their own such as Ceausescu's Romania. Whereas with North Korea, we chose to fight them, and all we have done is create an awful state that we have helped to legitimise by providing them with the perfect bogeyman from which to justify the existence of their state.

    For as long as we continue to interfere, we are going to cause casualties and they are going to have that to use as propaganda. And should we eradicate ISIS, they will merely be replaced by ISIS Version 2.0. Why do such groups keep springing up in the Middle East? And it seems that each incarnation is getting worse. We are not solving the root problem by attacking groups like ISIS.

    The fact is that there are many who do sympathise with the goals and aims of ISIS. Much like many people were sympathetic to the goals and aims of the communists, but that support has since largely dissipated after their collapse and failure. Currently ISIS are still fighting for their utopian goal and have yet to achieve it, and maybe if we allow them to achieve their 'utopian' goal and we let it collapse on its own accord, it would do far greater damage to the concept of an Islamic caliphate than merely fighting them would.
    Last time I checked, the West won the Cold War. It didn't achieve that victory by capitulation and backing down every time it got a bloody nose. The West fought it at every turn and corner and that's what caused it to collapse.
    Also I think the South Koreans are quite happy we intervened on their behalf IMO.

    ISIS don't need Western help causing casualties. They're pretty fine on that front. Ultimately the benefits of Western intervention- literally saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, Assyrians, Christians, Kurds and Shiites, is well worth the 'cost' of the propaganda ISIS will be able to use to recruit people who are already clearly quite sympathetic to their view point already.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Last time I checked, the West won the Cold War.
    Because America and Russia aren't still in a stalemate? Many who were high up within the Soviet government leadership network are now the leaders of modern Russia. Seeing that an ex-KGB agent is in control of the country would say otherwise about the cold war effective being 'won' or having ended.


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It didn't achieve that victory by capitulation and backing down every time it got a bloody nose. The West fought it at every turn and corner and that's what caused it to collapse.
    The inefficiency of the Communist regimes and the people's dissatisfaction ultimately drove change. The west did not overthrow Ceausescu or bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed as firstly the economic system was inefficient, their military spending was through the roof (the year before collapse in 1990, the Soviet Union had an estimated 37,000 nuclear weapons whereas America only had an estimated 11,000) and the Soviet Union had been embroiled in a war in Afghanistan for a decade. Therefore some reform needed to take place, which is where Gorbachev stepped in with his reforms which only helped to encourage and bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Also I think the South Koreans are quite happy we intervened on their behalf IMO.
    You wouldn't happen to be talking about the Syngman Rhee dictatorship the West installed in South Korea would you? It took over a decade for the South Korean people to overthrow the dictatorships the West installed and backed in South Korea (although sadly was replaced by another military dictatorship). The Syngman Rhee dictatorship was guilty of many massacres such as the Bodo League massacre where an estimated 100,000 Koreans were killed. It is also worth mentioning that the North Korean economy (based on GDP per capita) was actually larger than the South Korea's until the mid 1970's. So it is quite clear that the western backed dictatorship in South Korea was neither good for the South Korean economy nor was it a model for human rights or democracy.


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    ISIS don't need Western help causing casualties.
    Which is exactly my point. ISIS have done more the enough to give themselves negative press. But sadly there are many who seem them standing up to the West and opposing everything that many would perceive as bad and negative about the West. Our continued involvement helps to legitimise ISIS by providing them with innocent civilian deaths as propaganda. This article below is rather interesting in how it argues that the Islamism we are seeing emerging among many in the Middle East is effectively an Islamic liberation theology.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Isl...41012-698.html


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're pretty fine on that front. Ultimately the benefits of Western intervention- literally saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, Assyrians, Christians, Kurds and Shiites, is well worth the 'cost' of the propaganda ISIS will be able to use to recruit people who are already clearly quite sympathetic to their view point already.
    Some would argue that supporting Assad in the beginning could have achieved all of that far better and stopped the rise of ISIS and the persecution of such minority groups.

    Maybe we need to try something different instead of continued wars and installing dictatorships in the Middle East? Maybe our current tactic just isn't working and maybe it might be worth attempting the redrawing of borders as an alternative way forward? Maybe giving ISIS their own state and redrawing borders so that the minority groups get their own state/s might be an option. ISIS want to set up their own state, but that cannot be achieved if they are constantly fighting. And the more we fight them, the more we help to provide them with propaganda with which to justify their existence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Atatürk is spinning in his grave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Last time I checked, the West won the Cold War. It didn't achieve that victory by capitulation and backing down every time it got a bloody nose. The West fought it at every turn and corner and that's what caused it to collapse.
    Also I think the South Koreans are quite happy we intervened on their behalf IMO.

    ISIS don't need Western help causing casualties. They're pretty fine on that front. Ultimately the benefits of Western intervention- literally saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yazidis, Assyrians, Christians, Kurds and Shiites, is well worth the 'cost' of the propaganda ISIS will be able to use to recruit people who are already clearly quite sympathetic to their view point already.
    Western intervention is how it got like this in the first place. Not only in the instability which was allowed to fester like an untreated wound after the ousting of Saddam, but the funding of 'moderate rebel groups' who openly admitted cooperation with ISIS and al Nusra to the point of joint operations and resource sharing. ISIS is a problem for which the ideological foundation was already present, but which could have only got where it is thanks to western support by way of funding, arming, training. A lot of the membership from so called 'moderate rebel groups' has been absorbed by ISIS. Their ranks didn't mainly swell from the civilian population.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Atatürk is spinning in his grave.
    I hope he is. And I hope he continues to do so, but for the right reason. Knocking down his statues and removing the hero-worship culture around him would be nice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Turkey is part of NATO. They are with the west
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Because America and Russia aren't still in a stalemate? Many who were high up within the Soviet government leadership network are now the leaders of modern Russia. Seeing that an ex-KGB agent is in control of the country would say otherwise about the cold war effective being 'won' or having ended.




    The inefficiency of the Communist regimes and the people's dissatisfaction ultimately drove change. The west did not overthrow Ceausescu or bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed as firstly the economic system was inefficient, their military spending was through the roof (the year before collapse in 1990, the Soviet Union had an estimated 37,000 nuclear weapons whereas America only had an estimated 11,000) and the Soviet Union had been embroiled in a war in Afghanistan for a decade. Therefore some reform needed to take place, which is where Gorbachev stepped in with his reforms which only helped to encourage and bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union.



    You wouldn't happen to be talking about the Syngman Rhee dictatorship the West installed in South Korea would you? It took over a decade for the South Korean people to overthrow the dictatorships the West installed and backed in South Korea (although sadly was replaced by another military dictatorship). The Syngman Rhee dictatorship was guilty of many massacres such as the Bodo League massacre where an estimated 100,000 Koreans were killed. It is also worth mentioning that the North Korean economy (based on GDP per capita) was actually larger than the South Korea's until the mid 1970's. So it is quite clear that the western backed dictatorship in South Korea was neither good for the South Korean economy nor was it a model for human rights or democracy.




    Which is exactly my point. ISIS have done more the enough to give themselves negative press. But sadly there are many who seem them standing up to the West and opposing everything that many would perceive as bad and negative about the West. Our continued involvement helps to legitimise ISIS by providing them with innocent civilian deaths as propaganda. This article below is rather interesting in how it argues that the Islamism we are seeing emerging among many in the Middle East is effectively an Islamic liberation theology.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Isl...41012-698.html




    Some would argue that supporting Assad in the beginning could have achieved all of that far better and stopped the rise of ISIS and the persecution of such minority groups.

    Maybe we need to try something different instead of continued wars and installing dictatorships in the Middle East? Maybe our current tactic just isn't working and maybe it might be worth attempting the redrawing of borders as an alternative way forward? Maybe giving ISIS their own state and redrawing borders so that the minority groups get their own state/s might be an option. ISIS want to set up their own state, but that cannot be achieved if they are constantly fighting. And the more we fight them, the more we help to provide them with propaganda with which to justify their existence.
    Giving ISIS a state allows them to develop and plan for their expansionist ideology's future goals. When a group talks about creating an empire from Albania and Greece to Indonesia, a swathe of Russia and most of africa, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to give them the ability to work towards that..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RamocitoMorales)
    Here:
    Not ethnic cleansing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Giving ISIS a state allows them to develop and plan for their expansionist ideology's future goals. When a group talks about creating an empire from Albania and Greece to Indonesia, a swathe of Russia and most of africa, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to give them the ability to work towards that..
    Communism had expansionist goals too. The West also effectively has expansionist goals, which is why the West has installed dictatorships the world over, including Indonesia, which you happen to mention. We set up a dictatorship in Indonesia which killed over a million of its own people and went about committing a genocide against the East Timorese people (to which we turned a blind eye). That was all done with the goal of preventing the spreading of Communism. So obviously our trying to prevent the spread of Communism, as can be shown by Indonesia, has only resorted in dictatorships and countless deaths.

    Say we overthrow ISIS, then what? ISIS will still have many sympathisers and it wont be long till ISIS 2.0 appears. The only means to which prevent that from happening would be to set up another pro-West dictatorship that brutally represses any descent, but we have seen how popular those dictatorships have been. Which is why I believe a different method needs to be taken. Let them set up their own state and let that state fail on its own accord. ISIS will bring about its own downfall and will be left with few sympathisers. Much like how Ceaușescu's Romania collapsed on its own accord.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I hope he is. And I hope he continues to do so, but for the right reason. Knocking down his statues and removing the hero-worship culture around him would be nice.
    You want to undo secularism then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Hezbollah are not terrorists. ... and have never engaged in the deliberate killing of civilians
    Never? Never is a mighty long day.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.