Does ISIS have a right to be pissed off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the Iraq war. One American journalist dies and ISIS is a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers.

No wonder the world hates us.

Then douchebags in this country go to church and pat each other in the back about how we are the shining beacon of freedom around the world.

Bullshit. The US kills for its geopolitical interests in a scale that is impossible to match by anyone in the world.

In the eyes of many in the world, we are the bloodthirsty murderers and that view is often warranted, no matter how you want to justify the suffering we cause around the world.

I know this will turn upside down your Pollyannaish view of the world. Suck it dumbasses.

You are totally clueless. ISIS IS a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers. I guess you have missed that in the news for the past 6 months.
Even the Pope has said that force is acceptable when a group of monsters is causing genocide.
You were probably just a young child when al qaeda attacked us with our own airplanes. This group is far, far worse.
Grow up, read the news (or watch it if you don’t know how to read yet), and learn something about these killers.

No one is arguing that there aren't bloodthirsty murderers among the ISIS group.

I am arguing, that you aren't that different from these bloodthirsty murderers dumbass.

Your mother must love your language.
I don’t go around beheading others for their religious beliefs. I don’t line up all the men from a village and execute them. I don’t rape women, behead children, and take others as slaves. Get a clue. These terrorists are ruthless and don’t give a damn about human life.
Yes, I want these monsters dead so they can no longer carry out their evil. That does not make ME a blood thirty murderer. It makes me one who is concerned for the life of the innocents that THESE barbarians care nothing about.

You don't seem at all concerned about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died in the Iraq war. A war that was fought for a reason that turned out to be false. We invaded a country that didn't attack us and killed up to over a million people there.

If you don't give a shit about that, then yes, I feel that you a no different than a bloodthirsty murderer.

In essence, you are saying, yeah, we as a country did this. And we don't give a shit.

I am done with you. Go play your video games. You are young, naive, and you don’t know how to stay on topic.
Whatever you do - DO NOT JOIN THE ARMED FORCES. Our brave military does not need someone like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the Iraq war. One American journalist dies and ISIS is a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers.

No wonder the world hates us.

Then douchebags in this country go to church and pat each other in the back about how we are the shining beacon of freedom around the world.

Bullshit. The US kills for its geopolitical interests in a scale that is impossible to match by anyone in the world.

In the eyes of many in the world, we are the bloodthirsty murderers and that view is often warranted, no matter how you want to justify the suffering we cause around the world.

I know this will turn upside down your Pollyannaish view of the world. Suck it dumbasses.

You are totally clueless. ISIS IS a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers. I guess you have missed that in the news for the past 6 months.
Even the Pope has said that force is acceptable when a group of monsters is causing genocide.
You were probably just a young child when al qaeda attacked us with our own airplanes. This group is far, far worse.
Grow up, read the news (or watch it if you don’t know how to read yet), and learn something about these killers.

No one is arguing that there aren't bloodthirsty murderers among the ISIS group.

I am arguing, that you aren't that different from these bloodthirsty murderers dumbass.

Your mother must love your language.
I don’t go around beheading others for their religious beliefs. I don’t line up all the men from a village and execute them. I don’t rape women, behead children, and take others as slaves. Get a clue. These terrorists are ruthless and don’t give a damn about human life.
Yes, I want these monsters dead so they can no longer carry out their evil. That does not make ME a blood thirty murderer. It makes me one who is concerned for the life of the innocents that THESE barbarians care nothing about.

You don't seem at all concerned about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died in the Iraq war. A war that was fought for a reason that turned out to be false. We invaded a country that didn't attack us and killed up to over a million people there.

If you don't give a shit about that, then yes, I feel that you a no different than a bloodthirsty murderer.

In essence, you are saying, yeah, we as a country did this. And we don't give a shit.

I am done with you. Go play your video games. You are young, naive, and you don’t know how to stay on topic.
Whatever you do - DO NOT JOIN THE ARMED FORCES. Our brave military does not need someone like you.

Spare me your fake-assed patriotism.

[Anonymous]

I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

+1 Well said. However, be prepared for a blasting from some on the liberal left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

I think this is one of the more reasonable responses, given the mob of nutjobs that have descend on this thread. Having said that I find it very disturbing that the main issue of this thread is dealt with so coldly.

Mainly it's that there is no empathy for the hundreds of thousands and perhaps over a million Iraqis killed, even while saying that the war was a mistake. This capacity to dismiss that many Iraqi deaths while the popular media is in an uproar about every US individual individual casualty in this ongoing conflict is the cognitive dissonance that the poster in the first page refers to.

We care so much about our own, but dismiss those who aren't our own no matter how high the bodies pile up. Even when we had a direct hand in that pile of bodies.

[Anonymous]

^^ This US casualty, Foley, has made the ISIS threat more “real” to Americans. ISIS has been murdering thousands now for some time. Unfortunately, not much of the media has taken note until now. It is about time people are waking up to this threat.

[Anonymous]

Bush had it right . Kill them in their sandbox . Keep them busy trying to stay alive with no time to attack us here. That is the wise strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ This US casualty, Foley, has made the ISIS threat more “real” to Americans. ISIS has been murdering thousands now for some time. Unfortunately, not much of the media has taken note until now. It is about time people are waking up to this threat.

I'm pretty sure everyone noticing on this thread has been noticing for a while. It's true the media does not pick it up quickly unless there is a face they can put on it. Yazidi women! Foley! that doesn't make it any less horrible and better they trumpet it now than never. These are atrocities of epic proportion. Genocide. violence on women and children and innocent men no doubt trying to defend them or not wanting to give up their own faith. Killing a journalist is like killing a red cross worker--there is a right to people in certain occupations to safe passage. No. Enough. We have been postponing this reckoning for a long time. There are many folks who need to choose a side. The Iraqi govt., Assad, the Saudis. You are either for progress or for death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

I think this is one of the more reasonable responses, given the mob of nutjobs that have descend on this thread. Having said that I find it very disturbing that the main issue of this thread is dealt with so coldly.

Mainly it's that there is no empathy for the hundreds of thousands and perhaps over a million Iraqis killed, even while saying that the war was a mistake. This capacity to dismiss that many Iraqi deaths while the popular media is in an uproar about every US individual individual casualty in this ongoing conflict is the cognitive dissonance that the poster in the first page refers to.

We care so much about our own, but dismiss those who aren't our own no matter how high the bodies pile up. Even when we had a direct hand in that pile of bodies.

Well said both of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bush had it right . Kill them in their sandbox . Keep them busy trying to stay alive with no time to attack us here. That is the wise strategy.

That people like this exist is really dispiriting.

I think this sufficiently demonstrates that ISIS does not have a monopoly on bloodthirsty murderers.

We have plenty of them among us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bush had it right . Kill them in their sandbox . Keep them busy trying to stay alive with no time to attack us here. That is the wise strategy.

That people like this exist is really dispiriting.

I think this sufficiently demonstrates that ISIS does not have a monopoly on bloodthirsty murderers.

We have plenty of them among us.

Are you one of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

I try not to comment on typos, but I'm wondering whether this twist on 20/20 was intentional. If so, does it mean having a blurry idea of history, or a view that is equally likely to be wrong or right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ummmm... Did we not kill hundreds do thousands of Iraqi civilians on the false pretext of WMDs?

The poster said in the context of discussing ISIS that we don't do anything until there's a dead American, but we struck ISIS before they killed Foley. That's what my response had to do with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Half the people in ISIS seem to be middle class kids from England and Australia, raised on rap music. Should we blame rap music?

I'd love to see your source on that.

Not addressing the raised on rap music obviously, but I am watching NBC Nightly News and they just reported that ISIS has between 7,000 and 12,000 foreign fighters, including hundreds from Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think, after America was SAVAGELY and PITILESSLY ATTACKED on 9/11, we made some hard choices. Based on what we knew at the time and Saddams cagey behavior and refusal to abide by agreements of HIS DEFEAT which led us to strongly suspect WMDs and our continued vulnerability, we attacked. Saddam now appears almost quaint in his role of 'brutal dictator', and we now know his cagey behavior was due to fear that Iran would see him as weak, and I agree -- we needed far better analysis from our CIA. We were let down a lot by our intelligence gathering at that time period, which I would guess was a systems thing-not due to lacking capable men and women doing the hard work. Many of us hoped that Iraqis would rise up as say, Eastern Europe did when freed from the Russian boot, dance in the street and carry on. We were naïve, and learned that Saddam was holding together with his iron fist groups of people who basically hated each other. Still, the Kurds are DEFINITELY better off and quite good role models. and we were making political process with the rest of the country. Then our President jumped at the opportunity to up and leave with nothing to support a continued transformation to greater stability and progress as a healthy nation. Simultaneously, we did not support moderate resistance to Assad. ISIS filed the vacuum in both countries. No, I do not feel badly for what we did in Iraq overall given that we did not have the benefit of 50/50 hindsight. Given what has transpired since, I feel badly for what we DIDN'T do to support the country as the facts on the ground evolved.

I try not to comment on typos, but I'm wondering whether this twist on 20/20 was intentional. If so, does it mean having a blurry idea of history, or a view that is equally likely to be wrong or right?

I typically botch idioms...but I like your interpretation