ISIS is evil and it is as dangerous as the Third Reich was

Obama, a man from Chicago, does not value lives of people in the Middle East. He does not value unique historic sites outside USA. He tried to use ISIS to continue the same geopolitics and was weighing all kinds of evils, from Ebola virus to ISIS, to Russia, and he could not recognize, which one was the worst: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ra-to-execute-3-monitor/ar-BBmsvcr?li=AAa0dzB
This is how out country contributed in preservation of the world culture. Bush started destruction in Iraq. Obama continues it in Syria.

 

I read that Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported ISIS, while Turkey supported Al Nusra/Al Queda...which surprised me. I thought Turkey supported ISIS, and that the jihadists were trained there to fight the Kurds. If true, I could see why the Washington sociopaths wanted to split Syria in parts, and give one section to ISIS to please SA and Qatar, and the other to Al Nusra/Al Queda to please Turkey.

Israel would have kept the Golan Heights, and maybe get another chunk of Syria as well. Jordan would have taken a large part, maybe for the Palestinians to live on, and another area would have gone to the Kurds...which they well deserve.

A small area would have been left to the Alawites, and this way they would all be easy to control by Washington and Israel, since each area would be in conflict with the other. Isn't this what Britain did with Cyprus, India and Pakistan, Ireland and N. Ireland, etc.

For Washington to draw more lines in the sands, and achieve this change in demographics, a lot of ethnic cleansing was needed to get people to move from one area to another. But no problem for the sociopaths. All they had to do was frighten them by arming Isis, and then give them money to migrate to Europe. Whoever decided later to return to Syria, would simply go to the ethnic and religious area allotted them by Washington.

This way everybody would be happy...except the Syrian people of course, since they would be the ones forced to leave their ancestral homes. Too bad though! Russia stepped in and spoiled the plot. I wonder who was paying for all these journeys to Europe?

 

No doubt about it....ISIS is evil.

 

As dangerous as the third reich? Are you kidding me? The middle east is poor and backwards. They could go full nazi and it wouldn't matter because they're so weak. Germany on the other hand was, as it is now, a top tier country which, if it goes nazi again, would rightly be a cause of concern for everyone.

 

It's rather a case of disunification and tribalism. This is what happens when the Arabs unite:

 

Laughable.


As Tony Blair said, it is Bush and Blair who led to ISIS's emergence in the ME.

 

No, that literally never happened because no arab empire has ever owned the balkans. That map is not a map of any arab empire, or any other empire that I know of. But anyways, the age of the great arab empires was a thousand years ago. Referring to the old caliphates as a reason to be scared of the arabs today is like referring to alexander and sparta as a reason to fear modern greece, or to rome to fear italy for that matter. Things have changed.

 

SBattle of Vienna (German: Schlacht am Kahlen Berge or Kahlenberg; Polish: bitwa pod Wiedniem or odsiecz wiedeńska; Modern Turkish: İkinci Viyana Kuşatması, Ottoman Turkish: Beç Ḳalʿası Muḥāṣaras&#305 took place in Vienna on 11th and concluding on the 12th of September 1683[1][11] after the imperial city of Vienna had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. The battle was fought by the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations in league with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Holy League) against the invading Muslim Ottoman Empire and chiefdoms of the Ottoman Empire, and took place at Kahlenberg Mountain near Vienna. The battle marked the first time Poland and the Holy Roman Empire had cooperated militarily against the Turks, and it is often seen as a turning point in history, after which "the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world".[12] In the ensuing war that lasted until 1698, the Turks lost almost all of Hungary to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I.[12]

 

The Ottoman empire was turkish not arab.

 

The Messiah refuses to even refer to them by the same name as everyone else. I don't know what exactly that is about, but I'm sure it some kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up agenda Bam Bam has and will issue an Executive Order on it soon.

 

It was muslim... Or at least the europeans of the time felt it was muslim and a muslim threat

 

Perhaps, but the ideas that allowed the Arabs to spring into action still exist. That isn't the case with Rome or Greece. All Western notions of the past are dead and buried. All that remains now are Communism and Liberal Democracy. I doubt anything will come after these two.

 

It was indisputably muslim. What's your point?

The ideas (I guess you refer to Islam) are still there but the world is not the same. Arabs conquered an empire because they were skilled horsemen and innovative and zealous. The arabs rose from obscurity much like the mongols. Their nomadic traditions gave them an edge on the battlefield, but there is little in arab culture which gives it any advantage in war today. Modern war is fought on an industrial scale, and the arabs are not industrious, nor are they innovative.

 

Ah, but why assume that they themselves have to be industrious? They built modern cities out of a desert in a few decades without lifting a finger.

 

Only because of oil. Arab countries are glorified gas stations. They are rich only because of oil, not because of the people. The oil is exported to people who are genuinely industrious, like europeans. The current situation of arab countries might be sweet for the moment, but it only last as long as the west needs them. They have no inherent strength, and that is not good for the long term. They dont produce their own equipment, nor weapons, nor do they have the skills to operate any of it. If i was arab I would start to think more of the long term.

 

There is plenty left from the Romans and Greeks in today's Europe. In fact. Most educations in Europe teach about Europeans from ancient times until today. It is not like Humanism, Liberalism and Enlightenment just exploded into being a few hundred years ago.

Less nationalism/tribalism and more facts.

 

Yes, they have oil- so what? They had nothing else but sand, so I do think the oil makes up for everything they didn't have.

And they certainly are thinking of the long-term. Oil and gas, for example, make up 3% of Dubai's GDP. And if Dubai isn't an innovative city, I don't know what is. And the fact that they built the city in mere decades shows their inherent strength- they get things done. They don't spend months mulling over things in parliaments.

 

They may be taught, but they are not practiced. Christianity is dead. Nationalism is dead. Nazism is dead. And so forth.

 

Eh... Most people are much more like Erasmus and Locke than you think it seems.
Just because most Europeans have rejected organised religion as a basis for society or personal life does not mean they cannot replace it with writers from Plato to Aurelius. From Erasmus to Habermas.
Most people would argue that Europe's leaping progress came from shedding those ancient constraints.

I rejoice the death of organized religion as progress. Nationalism is not dead yet but if it does die I will be the first to celebrate. It won't happen in my time though.
Why would anyone care about such a thing as nationalism? It is just as fake as religion. Who were the most bloody is rather the question?

 

Yes, well, you are a good reason why the West is dying. It's become a nihilistic and materialistic place that is based on...nothing.

This vacuum will be filled...just don't expect the filling will come form the West.

 

Yes yes. Aurelius and Erasmus are materialists and nihilists.

You are no better than European nationalists talking about Muslims. Just as uninformed and just as tribal.

 

I think Blair was skeptical of U.S. intelligence and Bush simply didn't know what he was doing. Nor did he care enough to find out.

 

Isis is based upon muslim theology ...albeit a perverted interpretation.... Isis is not intrinsically arab in nature
Therefore there is no distinction between the threat posed by turk muslim conquest of Europe vs isis

 

You are citing dubai's gdp -a city- when the country as a whole still has 71% of its gdp from oil and related products? I don't want to accuse you of trying to mislead and paint a false picture, but you kind of did. My point stands, they are rich because of oil. My point is that without the oil they would just be savages in the desert, because they have no skills themselves. They aren't innovative, they are tribals who happened to live under a sea of oil and who can buy lots of stuff from westerners who are the ones who actually know how to build things. But yes, UAE is diversifying their economy, which is a step in the right direction.

I don't think this lunacy the west is endulging in at the moment will last forever. I think they will regain their senses after a while. When your civilization is so much superior to everything else, you can afford to pretend that reality doesn't exist. But I think the realities of the world will soon force europe back more towards the values it once had.

The Ottoman empire was at times the most powerful empire in the world and it posed a very real threat of invading europe. IS is a pathetic band of bandits. The only reason IS isn't dead already is because no strong country has bothered to commit to destroying them. If e.g. Turkey or Iran chose to go total war on IS it would be over very quickly.

 

That is pretty spot on except they do have the skills to operate it all, after all, they are not stupid. Like the Toyotas that they are driving, turns out they were supplied by the US after an investigation by the US. Funny but sad.