Massacre... a consequence of US leaving Iraq...


moralist

Recommended Posts

ISIS MASSACRES 90 YAZIDIS IN NORTHERN IRAQ TOWN, SAY IRAQI OFFICIALS

Published August 15, 2014

Aug. 10, 2014: Displaced Iraqis from the Yazidi community settle at a camp at Derike, Syria. In a dusty camp here, Iraqi refugees have new heroes: Syrian Kurdish fighters who battled militants to carve an escape route to tens of thousands trapped on a mountaintop. While the U.S. and Iraqi militaries dropped food and water to the starving members of Iraqs Yazidi minority, the Kurds took it on themselves to rescue them, a sign of how Syrias Kurds -- like Iraqs -- are using the regions conflicts to establish their own rule.AP/File

Islamic militants killed 90 members of Iraq's Yazidi minority in a northern village, sources told Fox News on Friday.

The Kurdish-speaking ethnic and religious group, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands in Iraq, has been persecuted in the north by Islamic State militants, with at least 500 killed prior to Friday's news, according to Iraq's human rights minister.

Shortly after receiving reports of civilians being attacked, U.S. forces conducted airstrikes on Islamic State vehicles near Sinjar, according to a statement released by Central Command Friday.

The latest killings came just a day after President Obama said U.S. air strikes and humanitarian aid drops on Sinjar mountain, where thousands of Yazidi have been stranded in an Islamic State siege had been ended.

"[Militants] arrived in vehicles and they started their killing this afternoon,'' senior Kurdish official Hoshiyar Zebari told Reuters. "We believe it's because of their creed: convert or be killed."

A Yazidi lawmaker and another senior Kurdish official also said the killings had taken place and that the women of the village were kidnapped.

Iraqi and Yazidi leaders say the brutal Islamic State fighters have buried Yazidi men alive, killed children and kidnapped women to be slaves.

"We have striking evidence obtained from Yazidis fleeing Sinjar and some who escaped death, and also crime scene images that show indisputably that the gangs of the Islamic States have executed at least 500 Yazidis after seizing Sinjar," Sudani told Reuters Sunday.

Sinjar is the ancient home of the Yazidis, but also one of several towns captured by the Sunni militants who view the community as "devil worshipers" and demand conversion to Islam under threat of death.

The Islamic State, which has declared a Sharia state caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria, forced tens of thousands of Yazidis and Christians to flee their homes or face certain death.

The Yazidis, followers of an ancient religion derived from Zoroastrianism, are spread over northern Iraq and are part of the country's Kurdish minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are you implying this massacre is the fault of the United States?

No, I'm not implying.

I'm directly stating that ISIS taking over half of Iraq and this massacre would not have happened with a continued US military presence there.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying this massacre is the fault of the United States?

No, I'm not implying.

I'm directly stating that ISIS taking over half of Iraq and this massacre would not have happened with a continued US military presence there.

Greg

Nor would ISIS have been successful if the U.S. had not overthrown Saddam Hussein.

More U.S. lives were lost in the conquest of Iraq than were killed in 9/11, not to mention the thousands more young Americans who were injured or maimed for life. And for what? Well, the U.S. trained an army that would rather run than fight, and we managed to arm ISIS with sophisticated weapons. Oh, and we also provided military training for a bunch of Sunnis who later joined ISIS.

To sacrifice one more American life in that obscene religious conflict would be a monstrous crime.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor would ISIS have been successful if the U.S. had not overthrown Saddam Hussein.

Ghs

That is about as useful as consulting a crystal ball. The fact is, no one knows where things would stand today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed.

Richard

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq. But if others can engage in counter-factual history, so can I.

Saddam had established a balance of power against Iran. As things stand now, if ISIS is held at bay, then Iraq will probably become a client state of Iran. That has already happened, to a certain extent. That would be certainly be worth 4000 American lives, don't you think?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

When may we expect you to sacrifice your own life to prevent these terrible things from happening? I hope you say goodbye before embarking on your noble crusade.

And when may I borrow your crystal ball? Your Royal "we" does not include me.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r




We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs


We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

When may we expect you to sacrifice your own life to prevent these terrible things from happening? I hope you say goodbye before embarking on your noble crusade.

And when may I borrow your crystal ball? Your Royal "we" does not include me.

Ghs

I don't advocate any sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of any lives. The we, btw, does include you. It isn't something you have a choice in, unless of course giving up civilisation is an option for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

If it's the last intervention by the USA for many years (by a Coalition force, preferably) this would be the one that counts. ISIS must be eradicated, whatever the uncertain geo-political outcomes. I think I see multiple stirrings by Muslims worldwide, many more beginning to give -at least- their tacit support to Islamicists.

IS is the point of that spear. The silver lining? Many of the vilest humans in memory are all together in one place in open territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

When may we expect you to sacrifice your own life to prevent these terrible things from happening? I hope you say goodbye before embarking on your noble crusade.

And when may I borrow your crystal ball? Your Royal "we" does not include me.

Ghs

I don't advocate any sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of any lives. The we, btw, does include you. It isn't something you have a choice in, unless of course giving up civilisation is an option for you.

You're paranoid if you think that yet another group of Muslim fanatics, who number maybe 10-15,000 fighters, is going to destroy civilization. Even the damage they have caused, and will cause, would have been considerably less if the U.S. had not provided them with military equipment, trained leaders, and a power vacuum. But if you want to go fight tyrants in that part of the world, be my guest. There are endless numbers for you to battle, so after you defeat one group, another will spring up. But if you are not willing to put your own life on the line fighting savage religious wars that may continue for centuries, then you have no business telling others that they should do so.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

If it's the last intervention by the USA for many years (by a Coalition force, preferably) this would be the one that counts. ISIS must be eradicated, whatever the uncertain geo-political outcomes. I think I see multiple stirrings by Muslims worldwide, many more beginning to give -at least- their tacit support to Islamicists.

IS is the point of that spear. The silver lining? Many of the vilest humans in memory are all together in one place in open territory.

Where does the U.S. Constitution authorize the American government to eradicate vile human beings in other countries? I must have missed that clause.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

You are arguing with a bigot.

I have had to moderate him before.

All he knows is that all the world's problems are due to Islam and Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the earth along with those who follow it. Every single one.

But wait!

There's more!

We can ignore all killed Americans and innocents carrying that out to this dude. They don't count.

He won't say any of that out loud, but look at how he frames everything.

It's there. Over and over and over.

btw - I don't know if you noticed, but he says you have no choice in the matter.

That is the wet dream of bigots.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does the U.S. Constitution authorize the American government to eradicate vile human beings in other countries? I must have missed that clause.

"The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions -- such as the constitutionality of the 'police action' in Korea or the 'undeclared war' in Viet Nam -- were never decided by the Court. Although the Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one." http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Obama said War Powers Act did not apply to air attacks and covert ops in Libya. He claimed "authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"The President's 'war powers' derive to a great extent from the actions of Abraham Lincoln in the conduct of the Civil War... Harry Truman greatly expanded the war powers when he ordered use of the atomic bomb, sent troops to Europe in peacetime and to fight in Korea... Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon conducted the Vietnam War without a Congressional declaration... The powers of the Commander in Chief are what a President says they are, limited by what Congress will permit him to do. This makes them broad indeed, since once a President has committed troops to combat, it's difficult for Congress not to support them..." http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/opinion/in-the-nation-bush-s-war-powers.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar

The Constitution invested the President "with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country, and to his own conscience." Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

---------

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

obama%203%20branches.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a lot of people against the US Iraqi invasion of 2003, including me. Of course I didn't know it would be as bad as it has turned out. Contrarily, there was a libertarian named Tim Starr who actually started a pro-war Yahoo Group yak site. I couldn't make sense of the basis his position and can't begin to recap it today. The last time I saw it, maybe a decade ago, it had been taken over by a hyper-posting fanatic. Can't remember the name* Tim gave it. I wonder what happened to him?

What should be done now is simply to provide the Kurds with the ammo they need to fight these bastards off. They have the guts to do it. Generally speaking, however, it's Vietnam all over again--Vietnam light, only in this case long-term light can become long-term heavy. Now it's year 12 of Bush's War. First there's the war. Then the US "wins" it. Then the US leaves. Then the bad guys move in and take over after all.

--Brant

next: a wall of water drowns Baghdad?

*edit: Tim's site is "Fight for Liberty"

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a lot of people against the US Iraqi invasion of 2003, including me. Of course I didn't know it would be as bad as it has turned out. Contrarily, there was a libertarian named Tim Starr who actually started a pro-war Yahoo Group yak site. I couldn't make sense of the basis his position and can't begin to recap it today. The last time I saw it, maybe a decade ago, it had been taken over by a hyper-posting fanatic. Can't remember the name* Tim gave it. I wonder what happened to him?

What should be done now is simply to provide the Kurds with the ammo they need to fight these bastards off. They have the guts to do it. Generally speaking, however, it's Vietnam all over again--Vietnam light, only in this case long-term light can become long-term heavy. Now it's year 12 of Bush's War. First there's the war. Then the US "wins" it. Then the US leaves. Then the bad guys move in and take over after all.

--Brant

next: a wall of water drowns Baghdad?

*edit: Tim's site is "Fight for Liberty"

Like you, I opposed the invasion of Iraq during that debate. I predicted that the U.S. would achieve a quick military victory, stay a long time for "nation-building," and after our military pulled out, Iraq would become essentially a client-state of Iran. All the infrastructure and military supplies financed by the U.S. would thus be used for the benefit of anti-American Islamicists. It didn't exactly take a forecasting wizard to predict this outcome, which has largely come to pass.

Murderous groups like ISIS don't spring up out of nothing; they are rooted in an irrational, violent, and intolerant culture. And so long as that culture doesn't change dramatically, then you can kill all the crazies you like, but it won't do any good in the long run.

Eradicate ISIS if you can, but before long similar groups, which may be even more murderous than ISIS, will spring up. There is absolutely no excuse for sacrificing young Americans to that insatiable Moloch of terror and destruction.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

r

We also don't know where things would stand today if the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq.

Ghs

We do know that the full force of Western military might would be no match for IS. We also know that to allow IS to expand and strengthen will be a great morale booster to the global Jihadists. We also know that it is a war that ultimately we are all eventually going to have to fight. And we know that the longer it is evaded the more tragic it will become.

When may we expect you to sacrifice your own life to prevent these terrible things from happening? I hope you say goodbye before embarking on your noble crusade.

And when may I borrow your crystal ball? Your Royal "we" does not include me.

Ghs

I don't advocate any sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of any lives. The we, btw, does include you. It isn't something you have a choice in, unless of course giving up civilisation is an option for you.

You're paranoid if you think that yet another group of Muslim fanatics, who number maybe 10-15,000 fighters, is going to destroy civilization.

Ghs

IS are just one group in a much larger whole. This war is global, and Islamic supremacists are present, and growing, in just about every city in the world. Wherever in fact there is a mosque.

I am not a bigot, btw. Even if I was a bigot, though, it would be irrelevant to any debate.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

You are arguing with a bigot.

I have had to moderate him before.

All he knows is that all the world's problems are due to Islam and Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the earth along with those who follow it. Every single one.

But wait!

There's more!

We can ignore all killed Americans and innocents carrying that out to this dude. They don't count.

He won't say any of that out loud, but look at how he frames everything.

It's there. Over and over and over.

btw - I don't know if you noticed, but he says you have no choice in the matter.

That is the wet dream of bigots.

Michael

You really must dislike me a lot to have made all that stuff up, Michael. I have never advocated wiping Islam off the face of the earth. Nor have I ever advocated rushing headlong into military action.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - I don't know if you noticed, but he says you have no choice in the matter.

That is the wet dream of bigots.

Michael

No! That is the recognition that the conflict is being brought to us whether we asked for it or not. It is all being brought about by forces beyond your and my control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the conflict is being brought to us whether we asked for it or not. It is all being brought about by forces beyond your and my control.

Rubbish. We brought it on ourselves, stupidly and self-sacrificially.

1979 - The U.S. pursued a policy of building up and training the Saudi military as a counterweight to Shiite extremism and revolution following the revolution in Iran. The U.S. provided top of the line equipment and training, and consulted the Saudi government frequently, acknowledging them as the most important Islamic leader in that part of the world, and key player in the U.S. security strategy.

1990 - U.S. troops arrive in Saudi Arabia. Over 60,000 were stationed, until withdrawn (moved to Qatar) in 2003.

How stupid are we?

In 1996, a wealthy Saudi cleric issued a fatwā calling for American soldiers to leave Saudi Arabia. In a second fatwā issued in 1998, he repeated the condemnation of American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula." A few days after the 9/11 WTC and Pentagon attacks, the FBI identified all 19 hijackers. Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia...

Capturing or killing the wealthy Saudi cleric, Osama bin Laden, had been a national security objective of the U.S. government since 1998. Bill Clinton directed the CIA to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the U.S. to stand trial, or if taking him alive was too difficult, then deadly force was authorized. In August 1998, the U.S. Navy fired 66 cruise missiles at bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours. In 2000, CIA operatives fired an RPG at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling, hitting one of the cars, but not the one in which bin Laden was riding. In other words we attacked Osama bin Ladin repeatedly, long before September 11, 2001 — and then blamed him for attacking us?

[COGIGG, p.139]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the conflict is being brought to us whether we asked for it or not. It is all being brought about by forces beyond your and my control.

Rubbish. We brought it on ourselves, stupidly and self-sacrificially.

You can go over American foreign policy endlessly and argue as to how much it has or hasn't given power to particular jihadist groups, but it, American foreign policy, is not the source of the problem. All the jihad groups around the world, of which IS is just one, are built upon the ideas of Muhammad, not American foreign policy. Many jihadists use American foreign policy to rationalise their actions to Westerners (to Islamic audiences they refer to Islamic law), but it is Islam that is their motivation, not American foreign policy. Islam is a force that goes beyond what both you and I are capable of having power over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is Islam that is their motivation

 

Hmm. Five million internal enemies in the United States?

 

Native-born American Muslims are mainly African-Americans who make up about a quarter of the total Muslim population. Many of these have converted to Islam during the last seventy years. Conversion to Islam in large urban areas has also contributed to its growth over the years. The Muslim population of the U.S. increased dramatically in the 20th century, with much of the growth driven by a comparatively high birth rate and immigrant communities of Arab and South Asian descent. About 72% of American Muslims are immigrants or "second- generation." [Wikipedia]

 

"Okay, Barack was only a muslim during his formative years when he was growing up in a muslim country

in a muslim school with a muslim step-father after being named by his muslim father." [comment at Zero Hedge]

 

 

see also Jihad Watch: Obama visits Malaysian national mosque

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is Islam that is their motivation

Hmm. Five million internal enemies in the United States?

I don't know how many internal enemies. Islam is incompatible with liberty, but that tells us nothing about individual muslims. Each only knows within him or herself whether their loyalty lies more with Islam or with Western freedoms. The one thing that is clear (and it is not bigoted to recognise and acknowledge this) is that the teachings of Muhammad are tyrannical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, however he was lying here like he has been lying since at least 2002 that I am aware of.

Probably even before that.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now