Hayyoth Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Can someone tell me why ISIS hates the Kurds so much? Like ISIS, Iraqi Kurdistan is mostly made up of Sunni Muslims. As terrible as it is, I believe Islamic extremism offically condemns racial and ethnic chauvanism. In radical Islam's eyes, Africans, Arabs and Kurds are all equal, so long as they follow their extremist version of Islam. So if that is the case, why is there a conflict? Is it because Kurdistan is fairly progressive compared to many Arab countries? They don't hate Kurds, there are plenty of Islamist Kurds who have joined Daesh. What they hate are the socialists (PKK etc) who dominate the Kurdish ethno quasi state. They're the worse of the worse, Sunni Muslims who advocate and live by a heretical western ideology with female soldiers being the cherry on top given the weird as fuck psycho-sexual craziness going on with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 ^ For all the hype ISIS gets, they don't seem all that powerful. Kurdistan is very much a ramshackle state, fighting agsint them with inferior weapons. But still they are holding their own quite well. Perhaps ISIS is a little insincere/hypocritical. We know many of their leaders used to be Saddam Hussein's generals and security agents and Saddam hated the Kurds. Perhaps it is just a continuation of Al-Anfal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Nor is it the same because, again, Obama didn't start no clusterfuck. Libya would like a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Libya would like a word Obama didn't start Libya silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Kurdistan is very much a ramshackle state, fighting agsint them with inferior weapons. But still they are holding their own quite well. And also airsupport from Western and Arab countries. Not to knock the Kurds of course, they seem to be quite adapt at this kind of warfare. They have to be of course, the Kurds have been under attack for a far greater period of time then ISIS has even existed, so it makes sense that they have the strength and the will to face them in the field. Still, progress seems to have halted for now. Ignoring the clusterfuck policies that make any intervention practically unworkable, the area's geography really doesn't help. ISIS controls a couple of vital arteries surrounded by huge swaths of desert, making movement easy. Attacking and withdrawing, the Kurds will have a hard time dealing with them. And now that Erdogan has gone ballistic in his attempts to destroy the HDP, we can all forget about progress for a good while. Obama didn't start Libya silly. I distinctly recall a chap going by the name Muammar Gaddafi having something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I distinctly recall a chap going by the name Muammar Gaddafi having something to do with it. Just like Saddam started the Iraq War, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Just like Saddam started the Iraq War, right? Uh, no, nothing like that. Cause Saddam didn't start the Iraq War whereas Libya was a civil war mess before the US did anything. But please, it's funny to see you scramble to try and rewrite incredibly recent history. So do go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Uh, no, nothing like that. Cause Saddam didn't start the Iraq War whereas Libya was a civil war mess before the US did anything. But please, it's funny to see you scramble to try and rewrite incredibly recent history. So do go on. Oh god not this shit again. The fact that a country is in a state of civil war does not negate acts of aggression/invasion from countries half a world away. Muammar Qadaffi may have started Libya's civil war (that's very debatable). But he was on his way to finishing it when the U.S./NATO stuck it's dick in. And now with him gone it's a total clusterfuck, as predicted by anyone with a brain. It's funny to see you scramble to defend U.S. warmongering as long as it's done by your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Oh god not this shit again. The fact that a country is in a state of civil war does not negate acts of aggression/invasion from countries half a world away. Muammar Qadaffi may have started Libya's civil war (that's very debatable). But he was on his way to finishing it when the U.S./NATO stuck it's dick in. And now with him gone it's a total clusterfuck, as predicted by anyone with a brain. It's funny to see you scramble to defend U.S. warmongering as long as it's done by your team. Right, so thank you for admitting your entire comparison is bunk. Libya was nothing like the Iraq invasion because one of them was already in the middle of a huge civil war. Now that you've stopped trying to rewrite history in order to craft apologia for the Bush Administration, we can hopefully move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Right, so thank you for admitting your entire comparison is bunk. Libya was nothing like the Iraq invasion because one of them was already in the middle of a huge civil war. Now that you've stopped trying to rewrite history in order to craft apologia for the Bush Administration, we can hopefully move on. You are just picking out one aspect of the situation that was different, and then claiming that all similarities (no threat to the U.S. or its allies, removal of a dictator, chaotic results, Islamist victory) are therefore null and void. Very dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Right, so thank you for admitting your entire comparison is bunk. Libya was nothing like the Iraq invasion because one of them was already in the middle of a huge civil war. Now that you've stopped trying to rewrite history in order to craft apologia for the Bush Administration, we can hopefully move on. So if there were several Iraqi plotting against Saddam and one of them would have thrown a stone half a second before the US struck, it would be the same? Your argument is silly. If oppressing your population is a reason to overthrow you Saddam had it even more comming than Gaddafi. Gaddafi never used chemical weapons against his people. You make distinctions without differences. The reasons why Iraq was stupid were the exact same reasons why Lybia was stupid. The only thing which differance with any significance between the two cases is, that after Iraq one really should have known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 You are just picking out one aspect of the situation that was different, and then claiming that all similarities (no threat to the U.S. or its allies, removal of a dictator, chaotic results, Islamist victory) are therefore null and void. Very dumb. Obama was also like this close from launching a full scale air war against Assad in Syria, which among other totally unforseeable consequences would have given us an Islamist Sunni take over and Alawites and Christians being shipped off to death camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.