kairparavel Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Because generally when someone runs off to X, and fight with Y/against Z, they aren't usually fighting against their (Western World) American countrymen/committing treason. But with ISIS they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamSongs Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Isis is a well-known name for an ancient goddess. I refuse to use the acronym assigned by the media. Their correct name is Daesh. /end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Because the US (indirectly or not, as it is currently bombing ISIS) is trying to deny them new recruits to keep up with their war? I mean, it's not as if the US let people go fight with the Chinese in Korea. True, but that reminds me of the statues in 1984, one year they are bravely facing the enemy, the next year they are greeting allies. Fighting with the Chinese was ok the previous decade. Just like fighting with the Russians was fine. We are opponents of Assad in Syria, but now we're going to bomb ISIS and support him? (Canada is....) I'm sure it comes down to wanting to slow or stop their recruitment of new members. They are getting bombed all the time and must be losing people, if you can prevent them from replenishing, they should begin to lose their grip on territory. Also you don't want citizens of your country going over there for a while, learning some new tricks, and then making their way back into the US (or wherever else) well prepared to create havok. Perhaps another element is that Westerners who attempt to go and join ISIS tend to be disenfranchised young people who have bought into ISIS ideology for whatever reason. I think that many of them are in for a rude awakening when they get to their destination. I do not think it's the state's responsibility to babysit you or talk you out of making a really bad decision - but it IS a really bad and probably ill-informed decision that is likely to get that person killed. If you're caught red-handed trying to do it, they should stop you, imo. And when you catch them, what are you going to do, send them to Guantanamo? Brainwash them? Lock them up and throw the key away? Execute them? If you have the burning desire to go and support an ideal, how is that burning desire going to be quenched if you stop them? Refuse them the right to travel, so they can buy a gun and show up at your parliament buildings, gun down an unarmed soldier and then look for the prime minister to kill? Isis is a well-known name for an ancient goddess. I refuse to use the acronym assigned by the media. Their correct name is Daesh. /end rant Our government insists on using ISIL, most of our media use ISIS, and no one uses Daesh (what the ef is that and tell me why it's correct). Use whatever you want. :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 And when you catch them, what are you going to do, send them to Guantanamo? Brainwash them? Lock them up and throw the key away? Execute them? If you have the burning desire to go and support an ideal, how is that burning desire going to be quenched if you stop them? Refuse them the right to travel, so they can buy a gun and show up at your parliament buildings, gun down an unarmed soldier and then look for the prime minister to kill? Don't know, but probably fine them and put them on the no-fly list for a period of time. I'm just saying that I think the government position of not allowing them to go makes sense. Personally, I say let them. I've got no qualms with everyone who believes that ISIS ideology and methods are the way forward for humanity hanging out in an area where we can conveniently bomb them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Don't know, but probably fine them and put them on the no-fly list for a period of time. I'm just saying that I think the government position of not allowing them to go makes sense. Personally, I say let them. I've got no qualms with everyone who believes that ISIS ideology and methods are the way forward for humanity hanging out in an area where we can conveniently bomb them.Do you really thing the bombing campaign is thinning out numbers? I'd argue it has an opposite effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Do you really thing the bombing campaign is thinning out numbers? I'd argue it has an opposite effect. Eh, if you have been following the war against ISIS you should know that the tide turned after pretty fast after everyone started bombing them. They have gone from being seemingly unstoppable to now being pushed back on practically all fronts, starting with Kobane but then followed pretty much everywhere. The Kurds were even close to attacking their capital in Syria a few weeks back. As it looks now ISIS will be history in a pretty short time. At least as an organized military power, random terror attacks might of course continue just like they were before this big war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamSongs Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Our government insists on using ISIL, most of our media use ISIS, and no one uses Daesh (what the ef is that and tell me why it's correct). Use whatever you want. :shrug: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/tony-abbott-say-hell-now-use-daesh-instead-of-isil-for-death-cult-but-why That and my FB feed is full of complaints from my Pagan friends ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/tony-abbott-say-hell-now-use-daesh-instead-of-isil-for-death-cult-but-why That and my FB feed is full of complaints from my Pagan friends ;)Did you see my story about the Ontario teen who was told by Facebook she would be banned until she changed her first name? She drew so many angry comments from idiots who called her disrespectful, and worse, for using the name of a terrorist group as her name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Eh, if you have been following the war against ISIS you should know that the tide turned after pretty fast after everyone started bombing them. They have gone from being seemingly unstoppable to now being pushed back on practically all fronts, starting with Kobane but then followed pretty much everywhere. The Kurds were even close to attacking their capital in Syria a few weeks back. As it looks now ISIS will be history in a pretty short time. At least as an organized military power, random terror attacks might of course continue just like they were before this big war. If you look into how IS came to be I would think that the lesson is pretty clear. Dropping bombs doesn't solve these issues, just creates new, and potentially more barbaric, foes. So maybe IS will be done for soon but unless we take a totally different approach to finding a solution they will just be replaced by something worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Do you really thing the bombing campaign is thinning out numbers? I'd argue it has an opposite effect. I think that as long as the bombing campaign is going on, the ability of ISIS to function as a military force that can capture and hold additional territory is on hiatus. Maybe eventually weaken them to the point that the Iraqi military and/or the Peshmerga can force them out without the assistance of a large US ground presence. Like any US action, it is a double-edged sword. There will always be those for whom any US activity is a rallying cry. There is nothing we can do about that except adopt a less interventionist foreign policy and gradually wean this country off of involving ourselves in these messes to begin with - something that I personally advocate, but nobody listens to me. Take away the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam and we probably don't get an ISIS - at least not on the Iraqi side of the border. The majority of the American people and the president, understandably, wanted to get out of Iraq. It turned out that these IS dudes were badder than the Iraqi military that we spent billions of dollars to train and equip. The US is kind of in a hard place when it comes to ISIS. In many ways they are the product of our previous meddlings and I would like nothing more than to cut the cord, say enough is enough, and stop the cycle of violence and war. On the other hand, IS has proven to be composed of brutal, genocidal fanatics that nobody wants to see in control of anything. Since the US is at least partially responsible for the conditions that allowed them to rise and prosper, we bear some of the responsibility for getting rid of them, imo. I see the bombing campaign as a compromise between doing nothing at all and having to go in there again with ground troops. Bombing people is not gonna address the underlying issues that cause groups like IS to come into existence and I would desperately love for the US to re-evaluate our status as self-appointed world police.. but there needed to be a short term solution to prevent these guys from gaining any more territory and I do think that the bombing campaign is the right call given the situation and our hand in creating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkhangel Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 This topic has been bothering me for months. We have a long history, in most countries, of seeing people go off and join wars in foreign lands that we, the people in in the home land, may not care about, or know about, or actively disagree with. [...] The topic comes up again because of reports about 11 medical students/young graduate doctors leaving their medical school in the Middle East to join ISIS in Syria and provide medical assistance. The group includes a Canadian, and his father has flown to Turkey to join other parents who are trying to find their sons and daughters and get them out of Syria. One of the great heroes of the Chinese Communist struggle against the Chinese Japanese is Dr. Norman Bethune, a Canadian doctor who went to China to attend to the needs of Chinese soldiers, and died there. He had done the same service during the Spanish Civil War. Why stop these young people? Let them go, let them die for their beliefs. If that makes them terrorists, strip them of their citizenships or cancel their passports, don't let them back in, put them on the no fly list. Because: 1. Western recruits represent a symbolic victory for ISIS over the immoral West. You can see this in the disproportionately high prominence of Western recruits, even very junior ones, in ISIS communications material - they're showing off their trophies. Obviously, we want to deny them this propaganda tool (as well as denying them the satisfaction).2. Related to this, Western recruits are generally more effective at recruiting other Westerners than are e.g. native Iraqis or Syrians.3. Again, related to this, there is a risk of spreading radicalisation. Even if that individual is prevented from returning, or perhaps especially if they are prevented, they leave behind them networks of friends and family who may also become radicalised either through contact with the recruit or through exposure to the same influences. These radicalised individuals may then represent a security threat within the country. 4. They're leaving with the clear intent of killing innocent people. Not stopping them would be a pretty shitty thing to do, no? I mean, imagine if you found out that another government had known that its citizens were planning to commit terrorist attacks in the US, and had just stood back and let them go? You'd probably, I don't know, invade, overthrow the government, kill more than 21,000 civilians and throw the country into a chaos it would take generations to recover from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salafi Stannis Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Sure, why don't counties let their own citizens go join a group of people actively trying to kill them, who massacre civilians in the thousands, who burn people alive and behead people in the desert? Why not let people leave our countries so they can commit these atrocities themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salafi Stannis Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 OP is hurting my brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StannisForKing299AL Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Sure, why don't counties let their own citizens go join a group of people actively trying to kill them, who massacre civilians in the thousands, who burn people alive and behead people in the desert? Why not let people leave our countries so they can commit these atrocities themselves?Because their rights should technically allow them to do so, but in doing so, actively endangers those rights. So really its a loophole. Why anyone would think ISIS is an answer I dunno. Obviously different perspectives than me, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 The word "daesh" is Arabic for "one who crushes underfoot", apparently, and the so-called "caliphate" HATES IT. While callibg them "ISIS" or "ISIL" implies the legitimacy of a state. Fuckers will be "daesh" to me. French media uses the term. Oh. Sounds like George Bush and crowd mispronouncing "Saddam" and "Iraq" to show how insulting they could be. Juvenile. Sure, why don't counties let their own citizens go join a group of people actively trying to kill them, who massacre civilians in the thousands, who burn people alive and behead people in the desert? Why not let people leave our countries so they can commit these atrocities themselves? Have you any idea how many Iraqis were killed while the American coalition was in Iraq? The estimate is at least 500,000 (some studies thought it was closer to a million). Why the concern for Iraqi citizens all of a sudden? My deeply cynical self says it has to do with the same old thing: the need to control oil. I think these young people who head off to Syria and Iraq are idiots, but that's not what they think. They think they are liberating their ancient homeland (or, in many cases, their homeland, or their parents' homeland, or their grandparents' homeland) from Western murderers. Most of these young people are untrained enthusiasts who are going to become cannon fodder. It is a sad waste of young lives. Maybe governments should hold them back, but someone needs to tell us what they are going to do with them. Take away their passports, and then let them kill people here, like ISIS suggests they do? Take away their passports, then force an intervention on them, to convert them from terrorist Muslims to 'good' Muslims, like the way homophobic parents convert their gay children into straight children? Good luck on that one. Lock them up in prisons? For how long? Until there are no extremist Muslims left in the world? I still go back to the point that no one stopped Irish Americans from supporting the IRA, no one stopped American or Canadian or British or French Croatians and Serbs going home to fight in that war. Why? Did not enough people die there? Or was it because there was no oil there? There were certainly enough atrocities committed against innocent civilians. Lots of money got collected from Sri Lankan communities to support the civil war there, not many countries did much to stop that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Is this a serious question? Daesh are killing Americans and our allies. They are terrorists. They want to topple our goverment and rule the world with their backwards ass religous laws. So why dont we want them to have more soldiers? Especially ones who speak our languages and know our lands and ways? Good question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Is this a serious question?Daesh are killing Americans and our allies. They are terrorists. They want to topple our goverment and rule the world with their backwards ass religous laws. You're one of those people that think the British would be speaking German if it wasn't for the US aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I have been coming across accounts lately claiming at least some of the Islamic States western recruits are extremely unhappy with life in the Islamic State, and that increasing numbers of them are deserting. Those same accounts mention what appear to be deep rifts in the top echelons of IS. Given such fanaticism and an inability to modify beliefs to fit reality, I suspect the Islamic State will probably collapse into warring factions and terror groups directing violence at each other within a few years time. About the only thing that would prevent this would be a major outside (US) invasion of the region, which would prompt them to unify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Daesh is a modified Arabic acronym like Nazi in English and has entered the common vernacular in many Arabic countries. Also I feel calling them IS gives them to much legitimacy if some crazy group of rebels in Idaho called themselves the American Empire I doubt that's what we'd refer to them as. As for the recruits can they be charged with treason? Does fighting for an enemy army meet the definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Once and Future King Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 You're one of those people that think the British would be speaking German if it wasn't for the US aren't you?Dont be silly. It would take the british way longer than 70 years to learn a foreign language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.