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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    You make fair points. But letting ISIS rise, develop, attempt to conquer, and then fail under the strain of its own stupidity as a system will involve the suffering of millions.


    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Never? Never is a mighty long day.

    Never. Not yet, anyway. There are certain people (especially ex AMAL members) in hezbollah that I can see taking over from Sayyed Hassan Nasrullah who might take the organisation in that direction if allowed to take over from him, but I doubt that they would be selected as leader because of their ideological positions. Hezbollah is in good stead with arab christians and is attempting to reach out to mizrahim nowadays in an effort to restore Lebanon's jewish community - ending that would destroy a lot of things that are a boon to them.

    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You want to undo secularism then?
    Turkey's political secularism is great. Enforcing personal secularism on people is a moral travesty. The banning of the headscarf in public and government ostracisation propaganda against the religious as well as supporting secularist police in beating people who 'dressed too religiously' (including keeping beards) was awful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Atatürk is spinning in his grave.
    Like a Doner kebab...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    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.
    Poor policy making in the past is how it got like this, not 'western intervention'. The broad spectrum notion of western meddling is not inherently wrong. It's worked in the past, off the top of my head, in Greece, Korea, Malaya, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. Even if you buy into the idea that the West helped create ISIS, that doesn't mean we should suddenly run with out tail in-between our legs. ISIS isn't just some country we don't like- they're a barbaric terror organisation that wholesale massacre civilians.
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Not ethnic cleansing.
    I see you are wearing your Kurdish goggles. :sigh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Poor policy making in the past is how it got like this, not 'western intervention'. The broad spectrum notion of western meddling is not inherently wrong. It's worked in the past, off the top of my head, in Greece, Korea, Malaya, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. Even if you buy into the idea that the West helped create ISIS, that doesn't mean we should suddenly run with out tail in-between our legs. ISIS isn't just some country we don't like- they're a barbaric terror organisation that wholesale massacre civilians.
    What I'm saying is that the methods of western intervention need to change. And afghanistan is hardly a success story in my eyes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Instead of arming the Kurdish YPG and YPJ
    Err, the US is arming the YPG.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...air-drops-arms

    And the US has provided massive air support to them. You want to see that support ended, don't you? Or is it easier to pretend it doesn't exist because then you don't seem so obviously hypocritical by supporting the Kurds enemies while claiming to be left-wing
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    What I'm saying is that the methods of western intervention need to change.
    Western methods of intervention have changed. Instead of sending in ground troops and wiping ISIS out in a matter of months, we are instead slowly and methodically bombing the crap out of them while arming and training the Kurds and Iraqis so they can drive the fascists out.

    And because of the massive criticism of ground troop interventions and holding Islamist prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Barack Obama concluded it was much easier just to kill them and decided to ramp up the drone programme. That allows us to clip terrorists without all the media criticism we'd get if we had a more conventional intervention

    And afghanistan is hardly a success story in my eyes.
    I disagree. Many leftists forget that there's a reason we went into Afghanistan. Afghanistan's Taliban regime played host to Al-Qaeda training camps from which the 9/11 attacks were planned and its hijackers trained. We went in there to clean out the terrorist training camps, and this necessitated toppling the Taliban.

    Today, there are 6 million Afghan children in school, 2 million of which are girls. There were no girls in Afghan schools in 2001. Today there is an elected Afghan government, an Afghan Army and police force. Al-Qaeda no longer has a safe haven there.

    It is by no means perfect, but it is a million miles ahead of what Afghanistan was (both in terms of the national security threat, and for its human rights issues) on September 10th, 2001
    Offline

    19
    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.
    Because Putin managed to wrangle country of Russia that somehow invalidates the Soviet Union collapsing, it's satellite states abandoning communism, and the United States being now the sole global superpower?

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    But why was Soviet economic spending through the roof?
    It was because the United States upped the ante in the Cold War, massively increasing their own spending and channelling huge funds to anti-communist forces all over the Soviet sphere of influence. The Afghan Mujahideen were bankrolled by the CIA. All those helicopter gunship destroy surface-to-air missiles weren't a gift from Allah.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    No, I'm talking about modern day South Koreans, who I'd imagine overwhelming prefer the path their country did take than a hypothetical scenario of 1950s North Korean takeover.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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
    I think you're overestimating the 'legitimacy' ISIS is gaining. As far as I'm aware, quite literally zero Syrian civilian casualties have reported in relation to Operation Shader. Even if there were any, the positives, of helping to prevent wholesale massacres, far outweigh the negative. Can't quite emphasise the whole 'ISIS have murdered tens of thousands of civilians' part enough.

    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    We should have supported a despot who was inflicting wholesale massacres against civilians to prevent wholesale massacres against civilians happening?


    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    Right, because recognising them as rulers of their own country wouldn't be justifying their existence? That is simply the most 'justifying their existence' thing we could possible ever do, short of declaring our own allegiance to them.
    And how then would we prevent them from doing what they do best- attacking their neighbours?
    Maybe, just maybe, sometimes conflict is inevitable. People who bend over backwards to appease others find themselves bending over backwards a lot. Sometimes war is the answer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    What I'm saying is that the methods of western intervention need to change. And afghanistan is hardly a success story in my eyes.
    To what?
    Afghanistan is much better off today than it was before we intervened.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I've lost a lot of respect for Turkey these last few years. I'm glad they're not apart of the EU.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Our continued involvement helps to legitimise ISIS
    It does no such thing. Nothing can legitimise ISIS, they are amongst the most murderous and evil fascist killers we have seen since the days of the Khmer Rouge.

    You may recall (or maybe you don't) that in mid-2014, the Iraqi government was close to collapse and Baghdad a mere 20 miles from the ISIS front lines. ISIS troops had taken control of Kirkuk and were moving on Irbil. It was this emergency that prompted the US to intervene to prevent all of central and northern Iraq being overrun.

    I for one do not think it is a matter of indifference whether the Kurds go under and are conquered by ISIS. I do not think it is wrong that we used our airpower to prevent Kobane from becoming yet another notch on ISIS' belt. I do not think it is wrong that we are methodically using our airpower to keep ISIS in check while we simultaneously arm, train and build-up the Kurds and the Iraqi army so that they can take ISIS on.

    If you want us to withdraw from the ISIS campaign then that is your prerogative. But do not pretend that it would be without consequence, that the Kurds and Iraqis would get along fine and that we could congratulate ourselves on our moral rectitude. If we pull the airstrikes, the arms shipments and the training, the Kurdish and Iraqi fronts will collapse. Is that moral? Is that wise? Is it preferable that the Islamic State has a vast safe haven from which to plan attacks against us, like Afghanistan pre-9/11 only far more menacing?

    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
    It is the Assad regime that created this mess. It was because of their outrageous abuse of human rights, the torture and the killings, that turned the Syrian people against them.

    And it was the Assad regime that chose to open the jails and release thousands of Islamist prisoners in late 2011 knowing these criminals would take up arms and that all opposition could then be smeared as terrorists.

    The persecution of minority groups is happening today in Syria because the regime was so corrupt and oppressive that Syria became a failed state and collapsed. The Christians of Syria would not be in such mortal danger if the Assad regime had accepted it was time to call it a night and organise elections and a democratic transition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    It does no such thing. Nothing can legitimise ISIS, they are amongst the most murderous and evil fascist killers we have seen since the days of the Khmer Rouge.

    You may recall (or maybe you don't) that in mid-2014, the Iraqi government was close to collapse and Baghdad a mere 20 miles from the ISIS front lines. ISIS troops had taken control of Kirkuk and were moving on Irbil. It was this emergency that prompted the US to intervene to prevent all of central and northern Iraq being overrun.

    I for one do not think it is a matter of indifference whether the Kurds go under and are conquered by ISIS. I do not think it is wrong that we used our airpower to prevent Kobane from becoming yet another notch on ISIS' belt. I do not think it is wrong that we are methodically using our airpower to keep ISIS in check while we simultaneously arm, train and build-up the Kurds and the Iraqi army so that they can take ISIS on.

    If you want us to withdraw from the ISIS campaign then that is your prerogative. But do not pretend that it would be without consequence, that the Kurds and Iraqis would get along fine and that we could congratulate ourselves on our moral rectitude. If we pull the airstrikes, the arms shipments and the training, the Kurdish and Iraqi fronts will collapse. Is that moral? Is that wise? Is it preferable that the Islamic State has a vast safe haven from which to plan attacks against us, like Afghanistan pre-9/11 only far more menacing?



    It is the Assad regime that created this mess. It was because of their outrageous abuse of human rights, the torture and the killings, that turned the Syrian people against them.

    And it was the Assad regime that chose to open the jails and release thousands of Islamist prisoners in late 2011 knowing these criminals would take up arms and that all opposition could then be smeared as terrorists.

    The persecution of minority groups is happening today in Syria because the regime was so corrupt and oppressive that Syria became a failed state and collapsed. The Christians of Syria would not be in such mortal danger if the Assad regime had accepted it was time to call it a night and organise elections and a democratic transition.
    Lol shut up then mate
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heyyyyy)
    Lol shut up then mate
    I don't think I've ever encountered such rapier-like wit. With such a remarkable command of the English language and your obvious high intelligence, who could doubt the substance of your rebuke? I bow to your superior wisdom.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Because Putin managed to wrangle country of Russia that somehow invalidates the Soviet Union collapsing, it's satellite states abandoning communism, and the United States being now the sole global superpower?
    Many of those high up in modern day Russia were high up in the Soviet Union. As they say, same **** different toilet. Russia still has military bases in all of those satellite states and has a large influence over many of their governments.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    But why was Soviet economic spending through the roof?
    It was because the United States upped the ante in the Cold War, massively increasing their own spending and channelling huge funds to anti-communist forces all over the Soviet sphere of influence. The Afghan Mujahideen were bankrolled by the CIA. All those helicopter gunship destroy surface-to-air missiles weren't a gift from Allah.
    Part of it was military and part of it was economic inefficiency. The Soviet Union collapsed on its own accord. It tried to reform and the reform opened it up to attack



    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No, I'm talking about modern day South Koreans, who I'd imagine overwhelming prefer the path their country did take than a hypothetical scenario of 1950s North Korean takeover.
    I don't think we can really congratulate the west for modern day Korea. We helped to demolish South Korea during the war, separated many families, helped to install a military dictatorship and turned a blind eye to the authoritarian governments abuse of human rights. Now South Korea share a border that is the most militarised zone in the world and live in constant threat of an impending war. The Korean people stood up bravely and challenged their Western backed dictatorship and after many struggles, persevered.



    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I think you're overestimating the 'legitimacy' ISIS is gaining. As far as I'm aware, quite literally zero Syrian civilian casualties have reported in relation to Operation Shader. Even if there were any, the positives, of helping to prevent wholesale massacres, far outweigh the negative. Can't quite emphasise the whole 'ISIS have murdered tens of thousands of civilians' part enough.
    Islamism does have a lot of support sadly. Whilst many might not wholly support ISIS, as we can see from Egypt, people of the Middle East are more than happy to elect an Islamist group like the Muslim Brotherhood. Communism also used to have a lot of support once upon a time. The genocides we support in Indonesia didn't stop communism. Rather communisms own collapse caused its own failure.

    And I can't quite emphasise that we keep repeating the same mistakes. We overthrow ISIS, prop up a new abusive military dictatorship, who will get overthrown and ISIS 2.0 will arise, and with each incarnation they seem to be getting worse.



    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    We should have supported a despot who was inflicting wholesale massacres against civilians to prevent wholesale massacres against civilians happening?
    I never said we should. I have been critical of the Assad regime since day one. I just said that some people would argue that.


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Right, because recognising them as rulers of their own country wouldn't be justifying their existence? That is simply the most 'justifying their existence' thing we could possible ever do, short of declaring our own allegiance to them.
    And how then would we prevent them from doing what they do best- attacking their neighbours?
    Maybe, just maybe, sometimes conflict is inevitable. People who bend over backwards to appease others find themselves bending over backwards a lot. Sometimes war is the answer.
    As opposed to legitimising their existence by continuing to lead military campaigns in the Middle East?

    Ah, so which Middle East military conflict has had a successful end? As I said, our current stance is clearly not working as such groups keep continuing to rise up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There is no longer any option of 'keeping out of conflict' and any idea to the contrary is very naive, welcome to the 21st century where armies often rely on guerilla organisations and terrorist cells to attack civilians, sometimes for having nothing more than a different ideology. Think about ISIS for a moment, their entire belief system is that anyone who is a kafir needs to convert or die, this is not propaganda, this is genuine belief.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Many of those high up in modern day Russia were high up in the Soviet Union. As they say, same **** different toilet. Russia still has military bases in all of those satellite states and has a large influence over many of their governments..
    It was the only real way power could transition without civil war, and it made no sense to expel so many experts who had already contributed to the founding of the Soviet Union and had an understanding of its apparatus and personal relations with foreign politicians,

    Putin became powerful for three reasons:
    - He increased the standard of living of ordinary Russians by continuing liberal and modernisation reforms, at a time of great theft by robber barons Putin increasingly began purging those oligarchs who were completely against public interest and feared would incite revolution due to poor living conditions
    - He very successfully handled the Chechen war convincing the public he was a strong leader in contrast to the sloppy drunken Yeltsin
    - He was loyal to and received the support of key figures, e.g Yeltsin
    -
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    To what?
    Afghanistan is much better off today than it was before we intervened.
    The taliban were changing among themselves organically, becoming more 'afghan' and less islamist - as their fusion of islam with indigenous pashtunwaali showed. Given time, afghanistan would have rebalanced. Instead a swamp of hate has been filled. I have a -lot- of close friends in afghanistan who can vouch for me on this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    becoming more 'afghan' and less islamist
    There are degrees of Islamism? Quite frankly, any attempt to rule a country by reference to superstitious beliefs is bad in the extreme, and the use of force to do so is beyond the pale.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Could the world be any more screwed up?
    It could. The EU could admit Turkey to membership, and Merkel has been making positive noises about that recently in trying to deal with the mess she caused by opening Germany's doors to the Syrians and other migrants in an uncontrolled way.

    Can you imagine the damage that having Turkey in the EU could do to Europe, with its citizens given rights to live and work?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    There are degrees of Islamism? Quite frankly, any attempt to rule a country by reference to superstitious beliefs is bad in the extreme, and the use of force to do so is beyond the pale.
    The basis of islamism might be superstitious/religious from an outside perspective. However, a lot of islamic political principles are pretty much only 'supported' by theological principles, such as zakaat and khums (islamic redistribution of wealth) being supported by the islamics principle of charity and social mobility, which are not necessary dependent solely upon religion. I know atheists who believe in the islamic political system, but with all faith based aspects removed. Some of them believe in the faith aspects too, because they agree with Voltaire's "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" idea in terms of legal entrenchment, personal motivation to adhere to law, etc.
 
 
 
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.