There was an interesting coincidence the other day when I was arguing with someone who initially thought that ISIS should be bombed into oblivion.
After the usual back and forths on the use of violence, he proposed that we should probably just recolonize the area, a bit like the Russians did with the Baltic states (breed and immigrate them into a minority, aside from plentiful killing), and that according to him, based on his visits, worked really well because they supposedly ended up really pro-Russian. I had to pull a Godwin on him, by saying that was more or less what the Nazis were trying to do with their Lebensraum out east. (I could have used American natives or the Palestinians as well, but Nazis work better with my Dutch debating opponent).
So the next day I finally watched Virunga which at one point featured a British white mercenary and a French exec/negotiator (for a British oil company), who were being filmed with a hidden camera, going on about how these "barbarians" or "savages" (in Congo this time) have a violent bloodlust and clearly aren't mature enough to rule themselves, because they are essentially like children. The solution was that they too needed to be recolonized (but this time to take away the Virunga national park and exploit the oil). Those that wanted to protect the park for its rare wildlife (and a sustainable economy based on tourism) must have been harbouring secrets such as diamonds or precious ores. No one could possible give a toss about mere "monkeys" (while talking about the few remaining mountain gorillas, which are of course apes, not monkeys). Another hidden camera conversation shows a rebel army general asserting that he was promised a cut in the oil profits if he can deliver the national park for exploitation.
Because in the end "it's all just business, you know", as the mercenary mentioned...
Hey like I said, if I did not care about the people of the middle east at all, the easy thing for us to do is nothing. For all the arm waving hysteria from the neo con crowd, the true victims of ISIS are those that are within physical reach of their reign of terror. Somehow I do not expect an ISIS militia to be storming my neighborhood any time soon. From a compassionate point of view from the people that are getting it from ISIS as we speak, what do you propose we do to help them?
As I said before I am not sure what the solution is, however unleashing more violence and killing more people just isn't going to make a difference. Maybe they should have their little area (for now) and we help keeping it cordoned off. No weapons, money, etc. goes in, and people can/will flee/get out.
It does help to keep in mind that the people indeed get to bear the brunt, whether in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq. And everyone's eager to either sell them yet more weapons or to "correct" the situation, because freedom and democracy. The flipside of that wonderful story are of course the Al Sisis and various other dictatorial despots, and autocratic monarchy such as the Gulf States, who oppress their people as well.
The white man's burden is to teach these "barbarians" (as some love to call them) how they should run their countries properly like we do (cough, hackle, spit).
(...) the only reason that I even support any military action at all against this group, I kinda feel we owe them since ISIS would not exist in its present form without our "help". (...)
More noble intentions to "help the people." The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Hey like I said, if I did not care about the people of the middle east at all, the easy thing for us to do is nothing. For all the arm waving hysteria from the neo con crowd, the true victims of ISIS are those that are within physical reach of their reign of terror. Somehow I do not expect an ISIS militia to be storming my neighborhood any time soon. From a compassionate point of view from the people that are getting it from ISIS as we speak, what do you propose we do to help them?
Are you even responding to me? Are you sure you aren't responding to someone else because your comments don't seem to match anything that I said at all. I look at any action at all as nothing but attempting to help out the poor people on the ground that ISIS is terrorizing, if I had no sympathy at all I would tend to not want to get involved at all in this matter as I am opposed to most military action. We owe them, but I fear you are probably right about not being able to protect them without doing more harm.
I was responding to
(...) the only reason that I even support any military action at all against this group, I kinda feel we owe them since ISIS would not exist in its present form without our "help". (...)
More noble intentions via military action to "help the people." The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Riiiight, and you're still under the illusion that you can actually improve matters by destroying the people even further.
Are you even responding to me? Are you sure you aren't responding to someone else because your comments don't seem to match anything that I said at all. I look at any action at all as nothing but attempting to help out the poor people on the ground that ISIS is terrorizing, if I had no sympathy at all I would tend to not want to get involved at all in this matter as I am opposed to most military action. We owe them, but I fear you are probably right about not being able to protect them without doing more harm.
I tell you who the real victims are in all of this and that is the common people of the middle east who have to live under the persecution of these guys. That is the only reason that I even support any military action at all against this group, I kinda feel we owe them since ISIS would not exist in its present form without our "help". I am afraid though at this point, we are about 50 years or so past doing the right thing and there is no resolution or right answer, just fear, terror and flowing oil.
Riiiight, and you're still under the illusion that you can actually improve matters by destroying the people and the environment in which they live even further, i.e. military action.
Just use some drones and precision bombing on these ninja-clad guys who are going to stay perfectly still just so you can get them...
I'm not sure, however unleashing massive violence in response to their particular brand of "shock and awe", while creating more "collateral damage" isn't likely going to help. Violence simply begets yet more violence
I tell you who the real victims are in all of this and that is the common people of the middle east who have to live under the persecution of these guys. That is the only reason that I even support any military action at all against this group, I kinda feel we owe them since ISIS would not exist in its present form without our "help". I am afraid though at this point, we are about 50 years or so past doing the right thing and there is no resolution or right answer, just fear, terror and flowing oil.
I'm not sure, however unleashing massive violence in response to their particular brand of "shock and awe", while creating more "collateral damage" isn't likely going to help. Violence simply begets yet more violence
I do see another side having an annual budget that's getting closer to a cool trillion dollars (got investments?) and that's killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, (whether directly or indirectly by pliant henchmen) and probably more as we speak... Oh wait, that's your side.
Yeah, but what is the position of your side ? A question you will never answer ...
Your article that you linked to led me to a none working Financial Times link (...)
More lies. The link works fine, but it's behind something called a paywall. They offer three articles a month for free if you register.
(...) “We have been following up on this question of the stolen money since the beginning of the crisis,” Abdul-Aziz Hassoun, executive director of the Iraqi Private Banks League, told the Financial Times during a recent meeting in Baghdad.
“We speak to the banks there all the time. We have been informed that all are guarded from the outside by their own guards and that nothing has been removed from the premises of any banks, not even a piece of paper.”
Reports that Isis had stolen 500bn Iraqi dinars ($430m) from Mosul financial institutions as the Islamist group and its Sunni insurgent allies seized control of the city more than a month ago raised alarm bells in the west and throughout the region, amid concern over the ambitions and growing capacity of extremist Islamists.
Iraq officials, including one-time CIA asset and lawmaker Ahmed Chalabi*, described the alleged bank heist in comments cited by Iraqi and international media.
But Atheel al-Nujaifi, governor of Nineveh province, which includes Mosul, rejects the stories of vast sums of money being taken away by militants.
“Nobody until now has confirmed that story,” he said in a telephone interview from Erbil.
Not a single witness account has emerged of the Isis members making off with any money, and executives and employees from among the 20 private banks and 15 or so government bank branches in Mosul say there is no evidence that militants stole any money from the banks, many of which continue to operate.
Isis itself has never claimed to have stolen the cash, though it has boasted repeatedly of the millions of dollars in US military equipment it looted from Iraqi armed forces who fled the city. (...)
Your article that you linked to led me to a none working Financial Times link and another to NBC news when it purported to link to ultimately, US officials themselves, inferring a government website.
Find another repudiation please. While many would argue that NBC News is the official news outlet for the Obama White House, they are tainted and unreliable for news, first with the fabrications it put forth as truth regarding the Trevor Martin murder and now with Brian Williams.
ISIS knocked off banks in Mosul and got lot's of cash. Deny this. Remember that Bush lost a billion dollars of US dollars in Iraq that was never accounted for. Tell me, in fact prove that ISIS is not the current wealthiest terror organization on this planet. I think you are facetiously barking up a wrong tree.
And here is where your quote gets it wrong. While ISIS is trying to draw the USA into a ground war on their turf, they are not stopping and waiting to be engaged. They have many fronts, not just one as your quote myopically states. ISIS has stated that they are going after Rome (and Europe) by means of launching their assault by sea from Libya. We are witnessing the early stages of the re enactment of the Moorish (Islamic) invasion of Europe which brought about the Crusades as the response to that invasion.
Not actually my quote, it's from Graeme Wood, the guy who wrote the March 2014 article in the Atlantic that neocons are all tumescent about and pointing to as proof that we have to DO SOMETHING NOW! about ISIS.
Apparently few of them can actually get to the part I highlighted pointing out how foolhardy another invasion would be.
As for the imminent threat of seaborne invasion that ISIS presents, I think there was a movie about that . . .
It's too bad you can't engage in a reasonable and mature conversation without sneering at those holding differing opinions by taking aim at the person. I mean really - why bother with any effort to respond at all? It's not like you're interested in hearing what anyone with views counter to your own has to say.
I suggest you go find a suitable topic to do some "mature cursing", or alternatively, scroll back and read some of my reasonable and mature posts (if you can recognize them).
I look at any action at all as nothing but attempting to help out the poor people on the ground that ISIS is terrorizing, if I had no sympathy at all I would tend to not want to get involved at all in this matter as I am opposed to most military action. We owe them, but I fear you are probably right about not being able to protect them without doing more harm. 
