It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: muckleduck
we put saddam in power in the first place,
Maybe so, that doesn't mean we had to help him stay in power considering his killing of thousands of Kurds and abuses of civil liberties etc.
Strange that isn't it - people complain about our governments actions etc - and rightly so - yet many of the same now seem perfectly willing to accept and condone Saddam's extremes against his own people.
He was an evil dictator and deserved what he got - the Iraqi people didn't deserve what they got afterwards.....but those hatreds were long and deep rooted - maybe 'our' incompetence and arrogance allowed those hatreds to breed, but they aren't 'our' fault they existed.
most iraqsi will argue that iraq was much more stable under his reign,
Guess all those thousands he gassed didn't quite see it that way nor did the thousands who got the knock on the door during the night off his secret police and were never seen again would see it that way too.
....only when he started trading in gold instead of dollars did his problems begin.
True....if you mean his problems with 'the west'.
He had plenty of problems domestically and within the region.
tony blair is the peace envoy to the middle east now, and obama a nobel peace prize, i feel like im living in some sort of nightmare lol
Yeah, the double standards and hypocrisy have no bounds.
oh youve been there have you?
But they're far from a "much stronger" than we believe.
From Isis to Aum Shinrikyo, the way language works can distort reality. We must be vigilant in reading between the lines. A member loyal to the ISIL waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa ‘With the evolution of Islamic State, we have a neat case study in the power of proper nouns.’
“The whole language is a machine for making falsehoods,” says the main character in Iris Murdoch’s first novel, Under the Net. His view is that the words we use trap us into seeing the world in a certain way. Orwell believed the same: if there’s no name for it, you can’t really think about it. Conversely, a name can be created for something that doesn’t really exist.
Linguists have argued for decades about the strength of this effect: the consensus is that language guides, rather than determines, thought. It can set up habits, no more. But habits can be tenacious.
Hey, Bill Maher: There Is No Such Thing as “Islamic Extremism”... When it comes to violence carried out by Muslims, our societal grab bag of expressions offers only slight variations of the same flavor. There’s “Islamic extremism,” “militant Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “radical Islam” among others. These phrases are intended to distinguish the peaceful majority from the violent minority yet they carve up an entire world religion into imagined categories that reinforce American and European politics. They also lend themselves to subjective analyses, whereby those who deploy them are suddenly in a position of measuring the degree to which Islam factors into extremism, militancy, terrorism, or radicalism.
Like the “Islamic world,” there is no such thing as “militant Islam” or “radical Islam”; there’s just Islam.
As far as our meetings with the ISIL fighters were concerned, the discussions were very hard. I have read the Quran many times in German translation, and I always asked them about the value of mercy in Islam. I didn't see any mercy in their behaviour. Something that I don't understand at all is the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers... They also will kill Muslim democrats because they believe that non-ISIL-Muslims put the laws of human beings above the commandments of God.
These were very difficult discussions, especially when they were talking about the number of people who they are willing to kill. They were talking about hundreds of millions. They were enthusiastic about it, and I just cannot understand that.
Al Jazeera: What did you come back with that you can pass on?
Todenhofer: I had three strong impressions of ISIL. The first one was that ISIL is much stronger than we think. They have conquered an area which is bigger than Great Britain. Every day, hundreds of new enthusiastic fighters are arriving. There is an incredible enthusiasm that I have never seen in any other war zones that I have been to.
Secondly, the brutality of their intended religious cleansing is on another level. And thirdly, I think the strategy of the western countries regarding the Muslim world is completely wrong. With our bombardment, we have never been successful. We have not been successful in Afghanistan; we have not been successful in Iraq. The bombardments are a terror-breeding programme. We had much fewer terrorists before 2001 and these bombardments, which killed hundreds of thousands of people have created terrorists and increased terrorism.
Al Jazeera: How would you suggest to best counter them?
Todenhofer: We have to treat them [the Muslim world] a fair way, to see them as equal; inside Western countries and societies, Muslims have to be considered as compatriots. Secondly, we should stop our bombardments, we have nothing to gain from bombarding in the Arab world; it is not ours. Thirdly, I think only Sunni Iraqis can defeat the ISIL. They have done this once before. In 2007, they fought them down, but then ISIL was much weaker. But this is the only possibility and way forward.
But the Sunnis in Iraq are discriminated against and excluded from society and that is a big mistake made by the old and the new Iraqi government. As long as these Sunnis are not integrated, they will not fight against ISIL, but if the Iraqi government and if the American government would arrange the integration of the Sunni Iraqis in the Iraqi society ... then they would be ready to fight ISIL.
So I say western countries will not defeat ISIL. Only Arabs, only Sunni Iraqis, can defeat them. But this is a long way away.