Aaaaand back to the ISIS prop by claiming that Bush lied.
Seriously? You think that saying that the Bush government lied in the run up to the invasion of Iraq is ISIS propaganda? Trying to shift it to Democrats is pretty pathetic given everything you've just said about the leadership in place needing to be held responsible. That Democrats parroted the Republican line doesn't then mean that the Bush government weren't the ones pushing the lies, does it?
Read that statement again Bigs. If a Muslim kills someone for insulting his Prophet, he is practicing the sharia laws, which would be murder/terrorism. Yes, he should be executed, just as a gang member from East LA killing someone in a random shooting should be executed, because I believe in the death penalty.
I don't need to read the statement again. Your point is irrelevant to what he said (not to mention decidedly muddled) - you simply need to read the first line he wrote. It was an abhorrent comment, so you shouldn't waste your time trying to defend it.
Leaders are elected to lead. Obama could have easily convinced the US population to support 10,000 troops in Iraq back in 2010-11 since things were so stable.
We may be weary of war, but war is not weary of us.
We'll never know, but my recollection is that the electorate were desperate for the troops to be pulled out. How would he have sold it to the population if things looked stable? Who knew that the policies brought about by Bush had completely gutted and corrupted the Iraqi military (the outsourcing of supplies for example leading to massive corruption and the huge ghosting of military units), and that faced by a few thousand lightly armed jihadists, that the whole structure would collapse? Apparently not enough people.
Sure you can blame the US for not being able to stop the psychopathic hatred Muslims in Iraq have for each other, but that is a big difference than claiming America personally bombed and killed all those civilians.
US forces were killed and maimed by the thousands trying to keep the primitive Muslims from killing each other.
And tens of thousands of women and children were killed and maimed in an illegal war, sold on the back of multiple lies.
When Bush left office, Iraq was having elections and was much more stable. AQI was driven from the Sunni Triangle and ISIS didn't exist. The wider Middle East was very hopeful with the Arab Spring and even the Iranians were out in the streets protesting against the Mullahs.
Things were so stable, Joe Biden was crowing that Iraq will be Obama's greatest achievement!
Except it wasn't stable, which is why it would have been better for the troops to have remained (isn't hindsight a very convenient thing) and for that agreement not to have been signed (by Bush), but that was clearly not what the US electorate wanted, and with an election coming around do you really think any US leader would have backed out of that agreement? It would have been political suicide.
Again, according to the UN and Wikileaks cables, over 70% (the vast majority) of civilians were killed by Sunni/Shia radicals and the Taliban.
Just a few posts earlier, you are insinuating that America killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.
That is ISIS prop, straight up.
No, it's not. The 100,000 figure is the low end of estimates for the 2003-2006 period. The sectarian violence is largely post 2006, so how are the figures mentioned ISIS propaganda? The numbers aren't even coming from ISIS FFS.
I provided a link a few posts up from the UN and Wikileaks that say Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And go to any site on the topic and you'll see figures ranging from 110,000 or so right up to a million for the period of 2003-2006. Those figures predominantly reflect deaths caused by coalition forces.
When we liberated France, Italy, South Korea, Belgium, Netherlands during WWII........did all the people go on a rampage killing each other like we see in Iraq? Sure there was some revenge killing against the Vichey and Nazi sympathizers, but nothing like the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.
The massive violence, intolerance and backwardness we see in the Muslim/Arab world goes back centuries.
The moderate Muslims refugees fleeing to the West in Europe sure as shit knows who is killing them. Why are they fleeing to the West or France if they believe that France is responsible for exporting violence in the Region as NuttBoxer and Ron Paul dopes allege?
In what way has violence in the Arab world been any worse than in Europe or America over the centuries? I'd say it's been far far worse in Europe for starters.
And you'll find that for a multitude of reasons many of the Arab countries outside of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey aren't letting the Syrians in. Where else do you imagine they would try to go in order to get work, food...? They blame Assad and ISIS for the troubles, but there are also plenty who blame the West for the deaths it's caused and the instability that has developed. That's pretty natural given what has unfolded in the last 12 years.
How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?
They aren't bloody trying very hard or very effectively. That is the point. They have half-cocked policies that seem to be doing nothing but worsening the refugee crisis. They've had no coherent plan for years now. Look at the bloody mess they made of Libya. You can't just bomb away somewhere and then leave the population to pick up the pieces and think that it's all going to work out in the West's favour.
By infantilizing Muslims pretending they have no responsibility for killing each other - plays right into ISIS' hands. Sunnis and Shias hated each other long before the US even fucking existed.
I'm doing no such thing. Of course they hold responsibility for killing each other. That doesn't then somehow push aside the fact that the coalition forces killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children who played no part in the fighting.
Islam will never have its much needed reformation when people like you continue to blame their MASSIVE dysfunction and centuries old sectarian problems on the US.
Except again, I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply stating that the coalition forces were responsible for the deaths of a great many individuals in that region. That is a fact. That Muslims also kill one another for ridiculous sectarian reasons doesn't change that basic fact.
Besides, if you are going to argue that the US is solely responsible for all the deaths by liberating the majority Shias and Kurds from Sunni Baathist rule, than you must also argue that the US (Obama and Hillary) have all the blame for the 1000X worse violence and refugee crisis in the Region for pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppling Libya on the way out of town creating an even bigger void.
Where did I say they were solely responsible? And those troops were pulled out on the back of an agreement reached by Bush, so blame Bush for that if you want to blame anyone. You can also blame Bush for doing absolutely nothing to prevent the descent into sectarian fighting, and in fact his policies - the break up of the army and the Baathists and allowing Nouri al-Maliki to take power - did a great deal to worsen the situation.
It was ISIS/AQI (and former Sunni Baathists) that were blowing up markets, schools and people lining up for government jobs killing 200-300 at a clip. The same Sunni group was blowing up Shia shrines and inviting Iranian-backed Shiite reprisals on Sunnis.
Sunnis were trying to kill there way back into power and US forces were largely protecting the majority Shia population and targeting the worst of the Sunni radicals.
Yes, and what do you think the coalition forces did when they invaded, and then when they battled the insurgency? And most of the 100,000+ figures are for 2003-2006, a period before sectarian violence really took a grip, so the bombings you mention don't really figure in the totals mentioned.
Muslims have killed far more Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Middle East than the US (or Israel) could ever dream of. It is not even close.
To project all those sectarian/religious deaths on the US, Israel, France........West is to ape ISIS propaganda.
That doesn't then somehow negate the huge number of deaths of non-combatants caused by coalition forces. And there are many who lay the subsequent sectarian violence squarely at the door of the US and for pretty good reason.
Why are you aping Islamist propaganda saying the West killed all those Muslims? No wonder there are so many ISIS recruits when we have dopey Leftists like you regurgitating the same propaganda as Saudi funded Imams.
You can't possibly say that. 100,000 dead civilians isn't the propaganda figure, is it? That's one of the lower estimates. No one knows the exact figure, but coalition forces killed a great many people, about that there is no debate. I have a Japanese friend who used to do charity work in Fallujah. I've seen many photos of (the exceptionally high rate) of deformed births as a result of the depleted uranium contaminating the area. That is going on now, and will continue and is just but one example. People in the region see this. They know about it. It shapes opinion and attitudes.
What does that even mean?
And as I said, the destructive power of Islam as you put it is nothing to that of the Christian West if you actually care to look at the situation from a different perspective, something which you are apparently unwilling to do.
This proves what we already know. All religions are capable of violence and destruction, as history has repeatedly shown. Nothing even comes close to the destructive power of Islam, where a handful of jihadis can shut down whole countries.
Seriously? What do you think Iraqis or the Vietnamese might say about the destructive force of US 'Christians?' Or all the countries that could say the same about GB. Perspective.
Roughly 5% of the population over decades since ww2, Now they want to take in another million in one year. That is what's not modest. I'd prefer it to be lower, but it is significantly lower than France. Pretty much all countries hitting 5% are starting to experience problems and there's pushback. Don't let them become another France.
I don't think they should be taking in a 1m refugees either, but like I said, the number of Muslims who are already in Germany and have been for some time isn't 'modest.'
Yes it is. Very fragile. When people in attacked countries react with peace symbols instead of closing their borders and start cultural profiling it is fragile indeed. But there are signs that this is starting to shift, with eastern europe leading the way.
You seem to be ignoring the invasions, bombings, weapon sales, training, mass surveillance...
Small is a relative number, especially for those who lost loved ones. So your plan seems to be to just stand by and wait for more. I'm not sure how you can look into the eyes of future generations, handing them over a ravaged and impoverished Europe.
It's far, far smaller than what has befallen the Middle East. And my plan? I haven't stated a plan. It's not my area of expertise, the same as everyone else on here. ISIS needs to be dealt with, and so do the drivers for radicalization, but that is going to be a long and drawn out process. And it'll take far more than a few nutters to ravage and impoverish Europe. If anything is going to do that, then it'll be the richest in society screwing over the rest of us, not a relatively small bunch of religious nutters.