It seems almost childishly naive to think that the United States, the global superpower, couldn't be the cause of anything in the world.
The Islamic State has already been denounced by the largest names in formal Islam.
When was the last time you marched in the streets against the activities of Jundallah? Are you willingly this stupid or are you forced? I notice that you refuse to admit I was right on #3. And as regards #1 you are as dense as usual. And I also notice you refused to admit I was right on that. And so called denouncements? No surprise an idiot like you would call them that. |
|
|
|
What should be pointed out again and again is how the mainstream Islamic leadership REFUSES to stand up and denounce the extremists. When was the last time you saw a march against Islamic extremists by other Islamics?
And then they wonder why no one thinks much of them.
It seems almost childishly naive to think that the United States, the global superpower, couldn't be the cause of anything in the world. The Islamic State has already been denounced by the largest names in formal Islam. When was the last time you marched in the streets against the activities of Jundallah? America did that twice. Japan unconditionally surrendered. Comparing the IS to the Japanese government is laughable. you really do not study a lot of history do you? Take a good hard look at the composition of the Japanese government (such as it was) during WW2. With attention especially to the Army senior officers who ran most of it. You want fanatics? You got them right there. |
|
|
|
What should be pointed out again and again is how the mainstream Islamic leadership REFUSES to stand up and denounce the extremists. When was the last time you saw a march against Islamic extremists by other Islamics?
And then they wonder why no one thinks much of them.
It seems almost childishly naive to think that the United States, the global superpower, couldn't be the cause of anything in the world. The Islamic State has already been denounced by the largest names in formal Islam. When was the last time you marched in the streets against the activities of Jundallah? America did that twice. Japan unconditionally surrendered. |
|
|
|
|
We don't have any publicly available data that Qatar for example funds the Islamic State. This has been a pretty popular misconception because these countries fund other Islamist militias who may also work with say the Al Nusra Front or even contain Al Qaeda affiliates, but that isn't the same as directly funding the IS. In fact, these countries have been, under US pressure, cracking down fairly hard on financial sources for the Islamic State and even Al Nusra recently. Saudi Arabia might have at one point, it is hard to tell, we don't really have that data unfortunately and it is difficult to distinguish between private funders and those allowed to fund with Saudi government complicity / support.
|
|
|
|
what am i missing here? A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16.
The kidnapping sparked an extensive Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.
"It has been said that it is an Israeli conspiracy, and I say it isn't," Arouri states.
"The al-Qassam's mujahedeen were the ones to carry out [the abduction] in show of support for the prisoners' hunger strike," he adds, referring to Palestinian inmates held in Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.611676What is missing is proof / evidence of the act being ordered by Hamas leadership. We already knew that the people who engaged in it were members of the Al Qassam Brigade in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that they were acting under orders though, especially given the weaker control over Qassam cells in the West Bank (since Hamas' main base of power is in Gaza and abroad in exile) we saw the same operational difficulties and freelancing with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza in 2007 after the Palestinian Authority lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas. this feels like semantics to me. your claim was that hamas didn't claim responsibility, not that hamas was or wasn't involved. It isn't semantics at all. There is a big difference for instance between an IDF soldier engaging in an abuse on his own and an IDF soldier engaging in abuses via direct orders from his chain of command and the Israeli government and much different implications, unless you want to suggest that the Fort Hood shootings were directed by the Obama Administration for example. you keep on talking about who is or isn't responsible for some reason. i never responded to any claim you made about that. i was responding explicitly to the claim you made about what that guy said (and NOT about who is or isn't responsible). that being said, weren't you admonishing someone two posts ago for comparing hamas to a large established beaurocratic government? Right, and he didn't claim that Hamas ordered it. Not semantics; a fact and an important distinction. Yes, in so far as groups like Hamas generally have even less operational control over its field operatives which makes said operatives much more likely to act on their own than members of a more tightly structured and monitored system like a federal government. Which just makes my comparison of the two in this specific case all the more potent since the well structured government has less of an excuse for such rogue acting and yet it happens anyway, so no one should be surprised that it also happens within organizations like the al Qassam Brigade. i feel like im missing something. the dude said quite explicitly that al qassam carried it out (mind you, not that members of al qassam carried it out). now, this might be some weird collective usage of nouns... but on the face of it the quote is the quote. Think of it this way then: there is more than one Al Qassam Brigade (which is actually literally true as well). if i read the wiki page on hamas/al qassam will it explain it? |
|
|
|
what am i missing here? A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16.
The kidnapping sparked an extensive Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.
"It has been said that it is an Israeli conspiracy, and I say it isn't," Arouri states.
"The al-Qassam's mujahedeen were the ones to carry out [the abduction] in show of support for the prisoners' hunger strike," he adds, referring to Palestinian inmates held in Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.611676What is missing is proof / evidence of the act being ordered by Hamas leadership. We already knew that the people who engaged in it were members of the Al Qassam Brigade in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that they were acting under orders though, especially given the weaker control over Qassam cells in the West Bank (since Hamas' main base of power is in Gaza and abroad in exile) we saw the same operational difficulties and freelancing with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza in 2007 after the Palestinian Authority lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas. this feels like semantics to me. your claim was that hamas didn't claim responsibility, not that hamas was or wasn't involved. It isn't semantics at all. There is a big difference for instance between an IDF soldier engaging in an abuse on his own and an IDF soldier engaging in abuses via direct orders from his chain of command and the Israeli government and much different implications, unless you want to suggest that the Fort Hood shootings were directed by the Obama Administration for example. you keep on talking about who is or isn't responsible for some reason. i never responded to any claim you made about that. i was responding explicitly to the claim you made about what that guy said (and NOT about who is or isn't responsible). that being said, weren't you admonishing someone two posts ago for comparing hamas to a large established beaurocratic government? Right, and he didn't claim that Hamas ordered it. Not semantics; a fact and an important distinction. Yes, in so far as groups like Hamas generally have even less operational control over its field operatives which makes said operatives much more likely to act on their own than members of a more tightly structured and monitored system like a federal government. Which just makes my comparison of the two in this specific case all the more potent since the well structured government has less of an excuse for such rogue acting and yet it happens anyway, so no one should be surprised that it also happens within organizations like the al Qassam Brigade. i feel like im missing something. the dude said quite explicitly that al qassam carried it out (mind you, not that members of al qassam carried it out). now, this might be some weird collective usage of nouns... but on the face of it the quote is the quote. |
|
|
|
what am i missing here? A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16.
The kidnapping sparked an extensive Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.
"It has been said that it is an Israeli conspiracy, and I say it isn't," Arouri states.
"The al-Qassam's mujahedeen were the ones to carry out [the abduction] in show of support for the prisoners' hunger strike," he adds, referring to Palestinian inmates held in Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.611676What is missing is proof / evidence of the act being ordered by Hamas leadership. We already knew that the people who engaged in it were members of the Al Qassam Brigade in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that they were acting under orders though, especially given the weaker control over Qassam cells in the West Bank (since Hamas' main base of power is in Gaza and abroad in exile) we saw the same operational difficulties and freelancing with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza in 2007 after the Palestinian Authority lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas. this feels like semantics to me. your claim was that hamas didn't claim responsibility, not that hamas was or wasn't involved. It isn't semantics at all. There is a big difference for instance between an IDF soldier engaging in an abuse on his own and an IDF soldier engaging in abuses via direct orders from his chain of command and the Israeli government and much different implications, unless you want to suggest that the Fort Hood shootings were directed by the Obama Administration for example. you keep on talking about who is or isn't responsible for some reason. i never responded to any claim you made about that. i was responding explicitly to the claim you made about what that guy said (and NOT about who is or isn't responsible). that being said, weren't you admonishing someone two posts ago for comparing hamas to a large established beaurocratic government? |
|
|
|
what am i missing here? A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16.
The kidnapping sparked an extensive Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.
"It has been said that it is an Israeli conspiracy, and I say it isn't," Arouri states.
"The al-Qassam's mujahedeen were the ones to carry out [the abduction] in show of support for the prisoners' hunger strike," he adds, referring to Palestinian inmates held in Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.611676What is missing is proof / evidence of the act being ordered by Hamas leadership. We already knew that the people who engaged in it were members of the Al Qassam Brigade in the West Bank. That doesn't mean that they were acting under orders though, especially given the weaker control over Qassam cells in the West Bank (since Hamas' main base of power is in Gaza and abroad in exile) we saw the same operational difficulties and freelancing with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza in 2007 after the Palestinian Authority lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas. Sometimes you don't need proof or evidence that acts are being done with, at a minimum, the acquiescence of leadership. Take the IRS debacle as a comparative example ,,, |
|
|
|
|
israel's greatest victory against the palestinians over the last 65 years is the propaganda war. they've successfully convinced the western world that this a battle of two equal sides with equal claim to disputed land. Not only that but they've even managed to get people to believe that they are the victims in all of this, it's brilliant really.
|
|
|
|
Something I was thinking about regarding the media aspect of the war...
When Israel capture Palestinian fighters, it is referred to as detainment/arrest and they are called prisoners. When Hamas captures Israeli fighters, it is referred to as grabbing/snatching and they are called victims of kidnapping.
The truth of the matter is the media has robbed palestinians of their legitimacy. They've been turned into the aggressors when anyone with an ounce of independent thought can see it's the other way around. don't tell mover that though. |
|
|
|
Obviously 9/11 and those results is not rememered or carred about? Apparently, you need a reminder - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Qaeda, and we invaded Afghanistan to go after them, not Iraq. I know that the time and effort I took to answer this was a waste, because I'm talking to a guy with the IQ of your average door knob, and I expect nothing but another indecipherable jumble of words in response, but hey - no one can say I didn't answer your questions. |
|
|
|
Better ask the countries that were there. As I stated above (you can look this up), the multi-national force involved in the invasion of Iraq was NOT under the auspices of NATO. |
|
|
|
NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Not really, no. This was "the coalition of the willing" which was mostly the US and Great Britain. NATO as an organization was NOT involved in the decision to invade, and some members of NATO did not participate - in fact, refused to participate. NATO itself had a training mission of 150 advisors involved, but had no part in authorizing, planning or carrying out the mission. |
|
|
|
|
I am sorry to say but I dont think bitcoin will ever replace fiat, is like saying debit cards can replace fiat or any other idea that was out, it will be just another currency to exchange fiat into, just like when you exchange USD into Euro. Maybe in 140 years from now it can happen, but not anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Bush was in office for ten years??? Easy one. This comes under the heading of your weak language skills. Bush was in office for 8 years. The invasion of Iraq was in 2003, and the withdrawal was completed in December of 2011, as per the terms of the withdrawal agreement negotiated between the Iraqi and Bush governments - also around 8 years. 8 years is, as I said, "the better part of 10 years". Do you need further help in understanding this language? |
|
|
|
How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what? I'm not sure what the numbers were when Bush left office, but I'm sure it's information available if we were to look for it. The thing is, the number is irrelevant to the point. The fact is, the agreement for our withdrawal was negotiated under President Bush. It was not COMPLETED until Obama was in office, but it was still negotiated under Bush. As the deadline approached, the Iraqis expressed that they were not ready to take over security in their country (after all that time, they well should have been, but they became entirely too dependent on our forces to do it for them). President Obama tried to negotiate an extension, but the Iraqis were unwilling to allow us to stay under the same terms they'd agreed to before - with an immunity for our personnel from prosecution under Iraqi civil authority. So, with that refusal, the Obama administration continued with the withdrawal. Responsibility for Iraq not being able to defend itself falls exclusively with Iraq - first, because after all that time, they should have been able to put together an Army that wouldn't drop their guns and run the moment someone says "BOO!" in their general direction, and second because they COULD have had us staying on to help them if they hadn't insisted on being able to arrest and jail American servicemen. |
|
|
|
So then, the guy that was the lead of terrorists and thought to be in Iraq is not noticed or understood. How many troops are remainng after Bush left office, then what? Bush was in office for ten years??? NATO had nothng to do with the invade of Iraq? Better ask the countries that were there. Obviously 9/11 and those results is not rememered or carred about?
Not entirely sure what you are asking here (there's those language skills of yours), but let's just talk about those terrorist camps in Iraq prior to our invasion. They were actually there because WE were protecting them. Surprised by that? Well, it's essentially true. We set up these no fly zones and strictly enforced them against the Iraqi government. The thing is, we didn't prepare for the side effect of the Iraqi government (under Saddam Hussein) not being able to mobilize against those terrorist groups - who hated him as much as they did us. Saddam Hussein was NOT supporting Al Qaeda, as was claimed by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion. They hated him, and he hated them. And this was debunked before we invaded. So no, we did not invade Iraq to stop terrorism. And in the 20-20 vision of hind sight (and as many of us who opposed the invasion in the first place predicted) we have created a breeding ground for terrorism. |
|
|
|
You seem to flitter between realpolitik and the issuing of your own opinions. Maybe it's just the nature of communicating over forum boards here and I have been misinterpreting.
I'll boil down my stance here though in a nut shell:
1.) Israel isn't a partner for peace, Abbas in the West Bank is for the Palestinians.
2.) There can be no peace unless Israel is a partner
3.) In order to make Israel a partner the pressure needs to come from external forces since it certainly isn't going to come within Israel given the rise of conservatism domestically and the powerful Ultra-Orthodox lobby.
4.) Thus in order for international pressure to build against Israel and force Israel's hand (something we've seen happen before) a discussion of right and wrong absolutely needs to take place, constantly and in public.
While I don't really disagree with anything there in a sense, I also don't believe Israel will ever be a partner for peace voluntarily. And as long as Hamas or some successor continues to send rockets over and kidnaps/kills people as in the case of those students, no amount of discussion will change minds in the US. Well, maybe in 50 or 75 years, but not in a foreseeable timeline. We don't necessarily disagree on anything except tactics. |
|
|
|
As far as the NPR link goes, after reading it here I see that the source is Saleh al-Arouri; which would mean that the attack did not stem from Hamas leadership in Gaza, but rather more likely through an exile chain operating independently in the West Bank and directed from Turkey (where he lives).
But even here there isn't evidence of it being directed even from Turkey. All he said in his statement was that Al Qassam Brigade members carried it out, which we already knew, it was merely determined that they were operating alone and not under the direction of Hamas (by the Israeli police chief of the area and by independent analysts). While this douche bag is praising them, he did not actually state that he or Hamas in Gaza ordered the attack. Which of course makes the NPR headline a bit misleading.
Who corrected it? Hamas? Nope.And that's the problem. Corrected it? Hamas denied that it carried the attack out from the start. Or do you mean who solved the situation by rescuing the students? That question would seem to imply that you think that Gaza's operational headquarters in Gaza have operational control of the West Bank branch of the attackers or even of the larger West Bank Qassam Brigade branch. It doesn't matter in the least what either one of us thinks. Perception is key, and American perception remains the same or worse. I can't say that I fully agree. I saw much more outrage, particularly among the youth in our country and on social media during this conflict than I did during Operation Cast Lead, or during Operation Pillar of Defense. Now I don't have solid data on it, so who knows. As far as the kidnappings go, it is in Israel's interests to blame the leadership of Hamas for it because it wants to destroy the unity government so that it isn't forced into a peace process that it doesn't want to take part in. Just another example of Netanyahu's administration not being a partner for peace. It's also an example of someone who purports to be a senior Hamas spokesman accepting blame for the kidnappings. Whatever is the truth beyond that remains cloudy to most. |
|
|
|
I don't believe you thought that through. "Are you going to believe all this theory, or your lying eyes?" Or in this case, ears. I'll give an example then: I speak to a lot of Nigerians concerning Boko Haram, they tell me all about how it is a CIA plot to discredit Islam and keep Goodluck Johnathan and southerners in power after the 2015 elections. Now I could just listen to people on the street here and there, or I could file that away, look at larger attitudes through a more rigorous polling methodology, see how they compare, and examine intelligence reports as well as well as my own background knowledge of the situation. Again, you're discussing something other than American opinion/perspective, which is almost totally based on what they see on their favorite news program. And that is what forms opinions for most people. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
