Should we give help to Extremist Islam terrorist groups to fight Syria ?

Thread: Should we give help to Extremist Islam terrorist groups to fight Syria ?

We should stay the hell out of it and let them deal with killing each other as they have for thousand of years. These Islamic nations will remain backward and violent for quite some time, and should simply be allowed to evolve their societies and culture until they are no longer barbaric.
Everyone that attempts to "Help" them will be considered a great Satan and targeted for violence as well....so why bother trying. Perhaps in a few centuries they will either tire of fighting each other for reading the words of Allah differently, or will have accomplished the goal of wiping each other out....wither way we just sit back and watch the children play.

It is unfortunate that so many innocent people will die in the process...but, they need not be us.

 

I think it's a fair point if we had armed the opposition from the beginning of the civil war, we might have had an opposition more to our liking and could have tipped the tide in the war. But I think the hesitation at the time was that for the US, Obama had said, "Assad must go" and previously, whenever he's said somebody must go, they have in short order. Not always to the benefit of US foreign policy or to the people in that country (Egypt). But I remember at the beginning, every idiot pundit and foreign policy "expert" on TV said that the Assad regime was doomed and would fall within weeks. I felt almost alone in thinking that Assad knew there was never going to be any peaceful transfer of power and any end result of negotiation would have him swinging by the end of a rope. The only question was how much torture he would have before he was executed.

So... Assad fought like his life depended on it, because it does. Even to using chemical weapons. And so far, it's paid off, particularly when you're supported by Russia. Another lesson learned. Russia supports it's client states, the US betrays theirs.

But we are where we are now, not where we were then. So I think the main US interest in the conflict is containing it.

 

I think that's absolutely right. And I think it explains the otherwise inexplicable stupid domestic and foreign policy decisions the government has made over the years. We've been the big dog so long we don't think we're susceptible to real danger and don't think anything is at stake. Except of course for a brief moment after 9/11 when we had the scales fall from our eyes. But the scales are firmly back on now.

Writer Mark Steyn made the point that when John Walker Lindh was found fighting for the Taliban, we sent him to jail. Now, Bergdahl deserts and the administration honors his service.

 

First time I hear that definition of the word. But you too must be a control freak/extremist, given that you want to force your beliefs on secularism and the like on others.

This is the Middle East; you'll have to understand that things here aren't that simple.

 

He's right; Islamism is really popular in the Levant.

 

Why do insist on furthering the stereotype that Jews are an ungrateful people who constantly play the victim card? You should be thanking the Arabs and Islam that your community still exists.

So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews?

Albanian Righteous Muslims Who Saved Jews During Holocaust

 

To "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until religion should only be for Allah", is as old as Islam itself. Government and medias attempt to portray what we are now experiencing from "Islamist" or what ever catch phrase they want to call them, as some kind of recent phenomenon, always claimed to be a distortion of Islamic doctrine and USUALLY claimed to of begun in 1948, is an attempt to portray what is not true. It began in 632 and it is a strict, literal interpretation of Islamic doctrine not a distortion of it. Only relevant recent change would be 1924, the demise of the last caliphate. Taking the fight from one conducted overtly by the government in power to one conducted covertly by those who interpret the doctrine the same way it was interpreted from 632-1924 by the ruling caliphates.

 

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Would be like the mafia who demands protection money from the local shop owner with threats of firebombing the place if they don't pay, demanding that the shop owner they have been collecting protection money from for decades, thank the mafia for giving them this opportunity to not be firebombed.

 

All citizens of a state are expected to pay tax.

 

I have never stated to want to force secularism on others. I am for freedom of choice.

You have not shown the ability to understand even simple concepts. If the situation in the Middle east is "not that simple", best you avoid comment all together.

 

What does "Islamism being popular in the Levant" have do with "Syrian Rebels not being interested in Theocracy" ?

 

Jizyah and a "state of subjection" is reserved for Christians and Jews.

 

And I never stated I want to force Islam on others.

Says the guy who claims it's all about religion.

 

Most of the fighters who are aiming for an "Islamic state" don't come from the Levant. Makes sense, given that Islamism isn't popular in the Levant.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope;

http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html#sdfootnote27sym

 

Yes you did. You have been arguing for theocracy. What is a joke is you claiming that it is not about religion.

I did not say it is all about religion.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about. You say one thing and then contradict yourself in the next post.

 

et al,

Syria is much like the case of Libya. Diplomatically and otherwise, it is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. No matter which side America selects to support, at the end of the day, we will be faced with a hostile regime. It is simply best to stay as far away as possible from becoming linked or associated with either side. It is the dilemma of selecting the lesser of two evils.

Later, when the smoke clears, we can only hope that we've not aggravated a situation were we cannot possibly make a positive difference.

No matter which side we choose, we will be criticized. We need to back away slowly before we become irretrievably entangled.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

And you have been arguing for secularism.

Well, you did say that it's essentially about religion;

- - - Updated - - -

It's called a typo.

 

Why should we help backwards religious nuts?

 

What does (what I have been arguing) have to do with your denying that you have been arguing for theocracy when clearly you have. Why are you trying to avoid this fact by changing the topic .

This is very disingenuous. Either get your act together or quit commenting on my posts por favor.

 

It is essentially about religion. You claiming that it is not about religion is a joke.

What is even more a joke is that you have been arguing for theocracy which is the same thing that the Rebels want. Syria was a secular society and this is an anathema to the Rebels and hence why Al Qaeda (Wahhabists) fight along side the Rebels and why Saudi Arabia supports the Rebels.

Fine .. you are forgiven. Then clarify where the typo was. How am I supposed to know what your position is ? What is wrong with you ?

 

Arguing for theocracy is not the same thing as forcing theocracy on others, just as arguing for secularism is not the same thing as forcing secularism on others.

 

How did you reach this conclusion?

Those uneducated and benighted fools don't want what I want.

No, Al Qaeda fights alongside the Syrian Rebels because the latter are better trained and equipped. You are aware that Saudi Arabia was an ally of Assad before the conflict, right?

As to Syria being secular once...I should care because?...

Here it is;

 

You are quite wrong. The whole point of theocracy is that religion be forced on people by infusion of that religion into law.

Secularism only seeks to keep religion out of the process of making law. Huge difference.