isis

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 53 of 85 < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >

Stirlingsays 12 Oct 14 12.23am
Quote TUX at 12 Oct 2014 12.18am More homework I guess? I've provided your good self with plenty of homework Tux.....I'll be expecting a reply. The resources comes provided with fact check-able sources......unlike certain other.....er....homework. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 Oct 14 12.23am

Quote TUX at 12 Oct 2014 12.18am

More homework I guess?

I've provided your good self with plenty of homework Tux.....I'll be expecting a reply.

The resources comes provided with fact check-able sources......unlike certain other.....er....homework.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 12 Oct 14 12.58am
Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 10.32pm Quote Stirlingsays at 11 Oct 2014 9.42pm Quote TUX at 11 Oct 2014 9.24pm I'm not blaming NatWest as an example bud, just the private ones that own the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. Dig deeper You mean, dig deeper and find absolutely no evidence at all. No evidence other than the usual paranoid unprovable narratives that some people create because they think that everything......they perceive to be negative, has shadowy malign actors behind it. I initially thought he was wrong too, Stirling. But credit where credit's due,it seems he's right.. "The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946. So it is owned by the government? No. Here is how Wikipedia explains it. In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….” Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.” The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act. In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know. But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business. What would also surprise people is so is the Federal Reserve of America a privately owned bank, and all central banks of the world, including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, which is the Central Banks' clearing house." Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 10.37pm) What may also surprise many people is that the income tax we pay, despite what we're told, does nothing more than pay off the 'loan' to these PRIVATE banks! The public are being robbed. Period.
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 12 Oct 14 12.58am

Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 10.32pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 11 Oct 2014 9.42pm

Quote TUX at 11 Oct 2014 9.24pm

I'm not blaming NatWest as an example bud, just the private ones that own the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.
Dig deeper

You mean, dig deeper and find absolutely no evidence at all.

No evidence other than the usual paranoid unprovable narratives that some people create because they think that everything......they perceive to be negative, has shadowy malign actors behind it.

I initially thought he was wrong too, Stirling. But credit where credit's due,it seems he's right..

"The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946.

So it is owned by the government?

No.

Here is how Wikipedia explains it.

In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.” The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know.

But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business.

What would also surprise people is so is the Federal Reserve of America a privately owned bank, and all central banks of the world, including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, which is the Central Banks' clearing house."

Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 10.37pm)

What may also surprise many people is that the income tax we pay, despite what we're told, does nothing more than pay off the 'loan' to these PRIVATE banks!
The public are being robbed. Period.

Alert a moderator to this post

aquickgame2 Beni = summer,Caribbean = winter 12 Oct 14 1.18am
Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 11.54pm Quote aquickgame2 at 11 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 4.37pm Quote aquickgame2 at 11 Oct 2014 4.27pm Quote Forest Hillbilly at 11 Oct 2014 3.43pm I feel , myself, slightly repulsed that 'the Allies' intervened in Iraq when oil was at stake. We are 'watching' massacres already happened by IS as passive bystanders. Gang rapes, public beheadings and crucifixions have already happened, and all seem about to happen again. It makes me slightly sick to know that people are suffering at the hands if IS, when the Western powers seem well-equipped to deal with the threat. And deal with it absolutely. The West left the power vacuum that IS now controls, and I feel the West has a (moral) responsibility to sort it out. am I wrong ? Too simplistic, perhaps, but who else will 'sort it' ? Completly agree FH but where are all the protesters in the cities of the world,shouting and screaming at the top of their heads as they did with the Israeli conflict in Gaza recently. Didn't take long to find these: [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Edited by Seth (11 Oct 2014 4.41pm) Very good But they are all Kurds protesting,where are the other thousands of people who are not Kurds on the streets So what if they're Kurds? You asked where were the people protesting - I showed you. You say "but they're just Kurds!" I say so what if they are? What's wrong with that? Who are you to demand thousands of "other thousands of people" come out on the streets before it becomes a legitimate protest? Are you out there protesting with the Kurds against ISIS? If not, why not? I am asking,not demanding,(please get it right) where are the thousands of people of different nationalities,minorities,religions,countries around the world that were protesting about the Israeli atrocities against Gaza. Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands. Is there a problem with me asking that. And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem.
Alert a moderator to this post

aquickgame2

Beni = summer,Caribbean = winter 12 Oct 14 1.18am

Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 11.54pm

Quote aquickgame2 at 11 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 4.37pm

Quote aquickgame2 at 11 Oct 2014 4.27pm

Quote Forest Hillbilly at 11 Oct 2014 3.43pm

I feel , myself, slightly repulsed that 'the Allies' intervened in Iraq when oil was at stake.

We are 'watching' massacres already happened by IS as passive bystanders. Gang rapes, public beheadings and crucifixions have already happened, and all seem about to happen again.

It makes me slightly sick to know that people are suffering at the hands if IS, when the Western powers seem well-equipped to deal with the threat. And deal with it absolutely.
The West left the power vacuum that IS now controls, and I feel the West has a (moral) responsibility to sort it out.

am I wrong ? Too simplistic, perhaps, but who else will 'sort it' ?

Completly agree FH but where are all the protesters in the cities of the world,shouting and screaming at the top of their heads as they did with the Israeli conflict in Gaza recently.

Didn't take long to find these:

[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

Edited by Seth (11 Oct 2014 4.41pm)

Very good

But they are all Kurds protesting,where are the other thousands of people who are not Kurds on the streets

So what if they're Kurds? You asked where were the people protesting - I showed you. You say "but they're just Kurds!" I say so what if they are? What's wrong with that? Who are you to demand thousands of "other thousands of people" come out on the streets before it becomes a legitimate protest? Are you out there protesting with the Kurds against ISIS? If not, why not?

I am asking,not demanding,(please get it right) where are the thousands of people of different nationalities,minorities,religions,countries around the world that were protesting about the Israeli atrocities against Gaza.

Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands.

Is there a problem with me asking that.

And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem.

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 12 Oct 14 1.56am
Quote aquickgame2 at 12 Oct 2014 1.18am I am asking,not demanding,(please get it right) where are the thousands of people of different nationalities,minorities,religions,countries around the world that were protesting about the Israeli atrocities against Gaza. Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands. Is there a problem with me asking that. And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem. I honestly don't understand the point you're making. Yes, fewer people have protested against the situation in Kobane than protested about Gaza. So what? There are reasons for that we can debate and I've tried to explain in a previous post, but please explain what difference it makes to the overall situation. In short my answer to your question is: I don't know. But what does it matter how many people are protesting and of what nationality or religion they are? What difference does it make to the situation in Kobane? Edited by Seth (12 Oct 2014 1.59am) "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth

On a pale blue dot 12 Oct 14 1.56am

Quote aquickgame2 at 12 Oct 2014 1.18am

Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands.

Is there a problem with me asking that.

And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem.

I honestly don't understand the point you're making. Yes, fewer people have protested against the situation in Kobane than protested about Gaza. So what? There are reasons for that we can debate and I've tried to explain in a previous post, but please explain what difference it makes to the overall situation.

In short my answer to your question is: I don't know. But what does it matter how many people are protesting and of what nationality or religion they are? What difference does it make to the situation in Kobane?

Edited by Seth (12 Oct 2014 1.59am)

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 14 8.14am
The Kurds should be getting a lot more media attention than they are. Might be something to do with the fact they're quite a lefty bunch...
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 12 Oct 14 8.14am

The Kurds should be getting a lot more media attention than they are. Might be something to do with the fact they're quite a lefty bunch...

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Oct 14 8.48am
Quote Stirlingsays at 11 Oct 2014 11.48pm [ So Bush went to war in Iraq so Cheney could make some money? That's a bit weak legal don't you think? A connection isn't evidence for causation. I don't and have never denied that once the war was decided upon that Bush and co looked to have their friends take up contracts.....Security and arms firms made money....No doubt about it. But oil....Na...If it were they didn't do the contracts properly.....If oil were the real reason for the war then those contracts would have been water or rather oil tight. But be in no doubt.....No twin towers, no war. The Bush doctrine wasn't pre-planned.....The neo cons won their war with Bush for understandable reasons. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2014 11.57pm) ....................................................... Of course the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would not have happened were it not for 9/11 and public support for "fighting back". The thing was Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or salafist jihadism. Rather, it was conveniently lumped in as part of the "war on terror" to get public and international support for invading Iraq. I have shown you quotes from the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank and a senior US military officer that oil was a prime motivating factor re going into Iraq. Are they both deluded? You rely on statistics showing that post the invasion US dominance of the Iraq oil industry has not been what therefore might have been thought. That is in no way inconsistent with what I've argued about the pre-invasion motivation. Yes, the Iraqi government has made substantial revenue from oil post 2003.Yes,many contracts have gone to non-US external contracts. But, many US companies have done very very nicely thank you from the exercise (hence my statistic about the vast amounts made by US oil services company Halliburton), some contracts have gone to US allies who supported the invasion, and a close look at many of the non US external contracts shows major US oil sector company involvement (and thus revenue) at the subcontracting level. Before the war, the entire industry in Iraq was nationalised. If none of the above makes any impression on you, let's leave it with 3 more quotes from those more informed than either you or me. Chuck Hagel, the current United States Secretary of Defense, while speaking at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2008 said: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." In July 2003, the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective". The Polish Government had been a loyal supporter of the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq and by 2005 had 2,500 troops in Iraq. Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 8.48am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Oct 14 8.48am

Quote Stirlingsays at 11 Oct 2014 11.48pm

[

So Bush went to war in Iraq so Cheney could make some money? That's a bit weak legal don't you think? A connection isn't evidence for causation.

I don't and have never denied that once the war was decided upon that Bush and co looked to have their friends take up contracts.....Security and arms firms made money....No doubt about it.

But oil....Na...If it were they didn't do the contracts properly.....If oil were the real reason for the war then those contracts would have been water or rather oil tight.

But be in no doubt.....No twin towers, no war.

The Bush doctrine wasn't pre-planned.....The neo cons won their war with Bush for understandable reasons.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2014 11.57pm)

.......................................................
Of course the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would not have happened were it not for 9/11 and public support for "fighting back". The thing was Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or salafist jihadism. Rather, it was conveniently lumped in as part of the "war on terror" to get public and international support for invading Iraq.

I have shown you quotes from the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank and a senior US military officer that oil was a prime motivating factor re going into Iraq. Are they both deluded?

You rely on statistics showing that post the invasion US dominance of the Iraq oil industry has not been what therefore might have been thought. That is in no way inconsistent with what I've argued about the pre-invasion motivation.

Yes, the Iraqi government has made substantial revenue from oil post 2003.Yes,many contracts have gone to non-US external contracts.

But, many US companies have done very very nicely thank you from the exercise (hence my statistic about the vast amounts made by US oil services company Halliburton), some contracts have gone to US allies who supported the invasion, and a close look at many of the non US external contracts shows major US oil sector company involvement (and thus revenue) at the subcontracting level.

Before the war, the entire industry in Iraq was nationalised.

If none of the above makes any impression on you, let's leave it with 3 more quotes from those more informed than either you or me.

Chuck Hagel, the current United States Secretary of Defense, while speaking at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2008 said: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that."

In July 2003, the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective". The Polish Government had been a loyal supporter of the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq and by 2005 had 2,500 troops in Iraq.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 8.48am)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Oct 14 9.10am
Quote Seth at 12 Oct 2014 12.07am Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 7.49pm Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 6.37pm Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 5.55pm Indeed, Kurds are taking to the streets in Europe (and seemingly being opposed by local salafists in Germany and killed as per norm in Turkey) but for some reason the Stop the War Coalition in London seems less outraged when the war is against the Kurds and the Zarzidis, and those tens of thousands moved by events in Gaza aren't taking to the streets in the same way in London or Paris every week... Doesn't mean events in Gaza aren't awful or that many, including on here, aren't outraged by both events, but nonetheless interesting the lesser reaction among some of those on the streets re Gaza last summer and so outraged by that, when the perpetrators now aren't the devil incarnate Israelis but rather an example of something a little more akin to real genocide. And to those who might say the difference is that ISIS aren't a state, and that we aren't supporting them, those Turkish government cnuts who have been cynically offering support to ISIS and sitting back letting the Kurds get it in the neck (and a long history of brutally repressing their own kurds) , are a state and indeed our own NATO allies... and are (or were as of 2012) listed as a "priority market" by our government arms sales support unit... Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 6.27pm) One reason for the smaller protests may be that Israel has been massacring Palestinians for decades and there are, rightly, well organised and popular movements resisting their aggression. These people can be mobilised quickly when Israel decides to "cut the grass" (murder palestinian men women and children) again. The recent events in Syria and Iraq are a newer phenomenon and do not have organised movements opposing them built up over decades with global networks of activists. Nevertheless there ARE people protesting in support of the Kurds and others threatened by ISIS and denigrating them by comparing them unfavourably with the likes of the Palestinian resistance and its supporters does them no favours whatsoever. I was not denigrating those demonstrating against ISIS in any way. Far from it. But, most of your examples were of Kurds demonstrating against repression of Kurds, rather than those internationally so outraged by human rights abuses by one particular group elsewhere in the Middle East. Personally, I fully support the Kurdish demonstrations in Europe and Turkey, just as I oppose Israel's actions in the occupied territories. Some of what you write explains a part of why. But not fully. The Kurds have been being massacred (in the true sense of the word) for many, many decades,longer than the Israel -Palestine conflict. During the First World War, the Turks ethnically cleansed up to 700,000 Kurds, around half of whom later died. Taking Mr Galloway (Respect) as an example .Israelis are the devil. He won't even share a platform with an Israeli citizen. Yet the regime (Saddam) which killed around 5,000 Kurds (and many more dead in later years from diseases and birth defects etc)with gas, seemed less of a problem...Imagine if 5,000 Palestinians had been killed with gas by the Israelis... puts the term "massacre" into perspective. It's estimated that in Iraq in 1986-89,around 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed by the regime and 2,000 villages destroyed. The phenomenon of repression of the Kurds is far from new, but has never aroused public interest in the same way as the plight of the Palestinians. Blame in part lack of media access, lack of cross-border funding of support networks.. and the elevation by some of the Israelis to a near unique devil incarnate status. Similarly, the potential for the likely outcome of the global spread of salafist jihadism (not necessarily in Iraq admittedly) is not something only arising in the past year...if anyone wanted to look hard enough ...and yes, "we" certainly played our part in incubating the baby... It would be interesting to know the extent to which the main support networks which mobilised so successfully in France and the UK in the summer re Gaza, have been bombarding their supporters with similar outrage re ISIS. After all, human rights and "massacres" are indivisible. Many many good people (such as you) are rightly outraged by Isis and by Israel's actions in Gaza and other human rights abuses world wide. But, I am still left with a weary cynicism about the actual commitment to universal human rights of elements of those who took to the streets so readily against the devil incarnate Israel only weeks ago in France (with spin offs chanting anti-Semitic slogans and vandalising Jewish shops and synagogues)but seem, for some reason, to not abhor in quite the same way, salafist jihadi excesses on a far worse scale. Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 8.27pm) It's a common complaint, which you echo, that because people protest against one thing they think is wrong, it's then a given that they should protest against everything that everybody thinks is wrong. If they don't, the argument goes, then either the thing they were protesting about in the first place is invalid, or they should really be protesting about something else, or they're actually just hiding the fact they hate someone else altogether. Supporters of Israel often say; "you protest about us killing Palestinians, but what about the Iranians/Saudis/Iraqis (delete as applicable) over there, they're killing just as many people as us, and the people they're killing are muslims, but you don't protest about them. Therefore you are anti-Israel." An extension of this, often used to stifle debate is: "If you are anti-Israel then you are anti-Semitic." legal I know you have criticised Israeli policy before on here and you don't support their wars on Gaza and against the Palestinians. But just because there aren't the same level of protests against ISIS as there are against Israel over Gaza doesn't delegitimise the Kurds' and their supporters' aims, not does it spring from some kind of "devil incarnate Israel" mindset which I feel only serves to deflect criticism of Israel's actions, and distract from the actual issue here, which is a murderous death cult on the rise in the middle east which needs to be comprehensively tackled and defeated. Al of which is a fair and valid point, but in the present instance unfortunately does nothing to alter my weary cynicism about why many of those seemingly so motivated ,in France for example just weeks ago, about Gaza seem to be somewhat less motivated by ISIS' far worse abuses and higher death toll (and lets not forget Turkey's on going inaction and until very recently logistical "support" for ISIS against the Kurds). But, hypocrisy is nothing new (and indeed many of us including me can be guilty of it at times) , and neither is people (of all political hues) using morality as and when it suits their own agenda rather than a universal commitment to human rights. And, finally, nothing I've written (or the other posters yesterday along similar lines) can or should be taken as detracting from either the legitimacy of the call for and the need for as much support as the Kurds and Yazidis can get, nor the need to give maximum support to those demonstrating in their favour. Personally, I've supported the Kurdish "cause" since giving free refugee-related advice for a UK based charity in the mid-80's to many Kurds fleeing here from the horrors resulting from the Iran-Iraq war, and their treatment by Turkey (a NATO ally) over many decades gives nothing but cause for shame, yet somehow never inspiring mass public support internationally. Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 9.21am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Oct 14 9.10am

Quote Seth at 12 Oct 2014 12.07am

Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 7.49pm

Quote Seth at 11 Oct 2014 6.37pm

Quote legaleagle at 11 Oct 2014 5.55pm

Indeed, Kurds are taking to the streets in Europe (and seemingly being opposed by local salafists in Germany and killed as per norm in Turkey) but for some reason the Stop the War Coalition in London seems less outraged when the war is against the Kurds and the Zarzidis, and those tens of thousands moved by events in Gaza aren't taking to the streets in the same way in London or Paris every week...

Doesn't mean events in Gaza aren't awful or that many, including on here, aren't outraged by both events, but nonetheless interesting the lesser reaction among some of those on the streets re Gaza last summer and so outraged by that, when the perpetrators now aren't the devil incarnate Israelis but rather an example of something a little more akin to real genocide.

And to those who might say the difference is that ISIS aren't a state, and that we aren't supporting them, those Turkish government cnuts who have been cynically offering support to ISIS and sitting back letting the Kurds get it in the neck (and a long history of brutally repressing their own kurds) , are a state and indeed our own NATO allies... and are (or were as of 2012) listed as a "priority market" by our government arms sales support unit...

Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 6.27pm)

One reason for the smaller protests may be that Israel has been massacring Palestinians for decades and there are, rightly, well organised and popular movements resisting their aggression. These people can be mobilised quickly when Israel decides to "cut the grass" (murder palestinian men women and children) again.

The recent events in Syria and Iraq are a newer phenomenon and do not have organised movements opposing them built up over decades with global networks of activists. Nevertheless there ARE people protesting in support of the Kurds and others threatened by ISIS and denigrating them by comparing them unfavourably with the likes of the Palestinian resistance and its supporters does them no favours whatsoever.

I was not denigrating those demonstrating against ISIS in any way. Far from it. But, most of your examples were of Kurds demonstrating against repression of Kurds, rather than those internationally so outraged by human rights abuses by one particular group elsewhere in the Middle East. Personally, I fully support the Kurdish demonstrations in Europe and Turkey, just as I oppose Israel's actions in the occupied territories.

Some of what you write explains a part of why. But not fully.

The Kurds have been being massacred (in the true sense of the word) for many, many decades,longer than the Israel -Palestine conflict. During the First World War, the Turks ethnically cleansed up to 700,000 Kurds, around half of whom later died.

Taking Mr Galloway (Respect) as an example .Israelis are the devil. He won't even share a platform with an Israeli citizen. Yet the regime (Saddam) which killed around 5,000 Kurds (and many more dead in later years from diseases and birth defects etc)with gas, seemed less of a problem...Imagine if 5,000 Palestinians had been killed with gas by the Israelis... puts the term "massacre" into perspective. It's estimated that in Iraq in 1986-89,around 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed by the regime and 2,000 villages destroyed.

The phenomenon of repression of the Kurds is far from new, but has never aroused public interest in the same way as the plight of the Palestinians. Blame in part lack of media access, lack of cross-border funding of support networks.. and the elevation by some of the Israelis to a near unique devil incarnate status.

Similarly, the potential for the likely outcome of the global spread of salafist jihadism (not necessarily in Iraq admittedly) is not something only arising in the past year...if anyone wanted to look hard enough ...and yes, "we" certainly played our part in incubating the baby...

It would be interesting to know the extent to which the main support networks which mobilised so successfully in France and the UK in the summer re Gaza, have been bombarding their supporters with similar outrage re ISIS. After all, human rights and "massacres" are indivisible.

Many many good people (such as you) are rightly outraged by Isis and by Israel's actions in Gaza and other human rights abuses world wide. But, I am still left with a weary cynicism about the actual commitment to universal human rights of elements of those who took to the streets so readily against the devil incarnate Israel only weeks ago in France (with spin offs chanting anti-Semitic slogans and vandalising Jewish shops and synagogues)but seem, for some reason, to not abhor in quite the same way, salafist jihadi excesses on a far worse scale.

Edited by legaleagle (11 Oct 2014 8.27pm)

It's a common complaint, which you echo, that because people protest against one thing they think is wrong, it's then a given that they should protest against everything that everybody thinks is wrong. If they don't, the argument goes, then either the thing they were protesting about in the first place is invalid, or they should really be protesting about something else, or they're actually just hiding the fact they hate someone else altogether.

Supporters of Israel often say; "you protest about us killing Palestinians, but what about the Iranians/Saudis/Iraqis (delete as applicable) over there, they're killing just as many people as us, and the people they're killing are muslims, but you don't protest about them. Therefore you are anti-Israel." An extension of this, often used to stifle debate is: "If you are anti-Israel then you are anti-Semitic."

legal I know you have criticised Israeli policy before on here and you don't support their wars on Gaza and against the Palestinians. But just because there aren't the same level of protests against ISIS as there are against Israel over Gaza doesn't delegitimise the Kurds' and their supporters' aims, not does it spring from some kind of "devil incarnate Israel" mindset which I feel only serves to deflect criticism of Israel's actions, and distract from the actual issue here, which is a murderous death cult on the rise in the middle east which needs to be comprehensively tackled and defeated.

Al of which is a fair and valid point, but in the present instance unfortunately does nothing to alter my weary cynicism about why many of those seemingly so motivated ,in France for example just weeks ago, about Gaza seem to be somewhat less motivated by ISIS' far worse abuses and higher death toll (and lets not forget Turkey's on going inaction and until very recently logistical "support" for ISIS against the Kurds). But, hypocrisy is nothing new (and indeed many of us including me can be guilty of it at times) , and neither is people (of all political hues) using morality as and when it suits their own agenda rather than a universal commitment to human rights.

And, finally, nothing I've written (or the other posters yesterday along similar lines) can or should be taken as detracting from either the legitimacy of the call for and the need for as much support as the Kurds and Yazidis can get, nor the need to give maximum support to those demonstrating in their favour.

Personally, I've supported the Kurdish "cause" since giving free refugee-related advice for a UK based charity in the mid-80's to many Kurds fleeing here from the horrors resulting from the Iran-Iraq war, and their treatment by Turkey (a NATO ally) over many decades gives nothing but cause for shame, yet somehow never inspiring mass public support internationally.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 9.21am)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Oct 14 10.46am
I'd imagine that the British population isn't keen on being dragged back into a third Iraq war, which looks likely to spill over into the Syrian civil war, and could very well escalate into a three way sectarian civil war in Iraq, between Kurds, Shia and Sunni that drags on for another decade. Where as with Gaza etc the direct consequence to the UK is fairly minimal and directed at a government. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Oct 14 10.46am

I'd imagine that the British population isn't keen on being dragged back into a third Iraq war, which looks likely to spill over into the Syrian civil war, and could very well escalate into a three way sectarian civil war in Iraq, between Kurds, Shia and Sunni that drags on for another decade.

Where as with Gaza etc the direct consequence to the UK is fairly minimal and directed at a government.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 12 Oct 14 12.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Oct 2014 10.46am I'd imagine that the British population isn't keen on being dragged back into a third Iraq war, which looks likely to spill over into the Syrian civil war, and could very well escalate into a three way sectarian civil war in Iraq, between Kurds, Shia and Sunni that drags on for another decade. Where as with Gaza etc the direct consequence to the UK is fairly minimal and directed at a government. I don't disagree. But, nothing to stop pressure being put on the Turkish government to force it out of its stitch up of the Kurds, and some countries in the Gulf for their rather ambiguous attitudes to ISIS ideologically and its sources of funding. I would think the intent/effect of the Gaza demonstrations was as much to influence Israeli policy (and boost support internationally for the Palestinian cause) by very negative PR internationally, as to directly influence British government policy. Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 12.22pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

12 Oct 14 12.15pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Oct 2014 10.46am

Where as with Gaza etc the direct consequence to the UK is fairly minimal and directed at a government.

I don't disagree. But, nothing to stop pressure being put on the Turkish government to force it out of its stitch up of the Kurds, and some countries in the Gulf for their rather ambiguous attitudes to ISIS ideologically and its sources of funding. I would think the intent/effect of the Gaza demonstrations was as much to influence Israeli policy (and boost support internationally for the Palestinian cause) by very negative PR internationally, as to directly influence British government policy.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 12.22pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

aquickgame2 Beni = summer,Caribbean = winter 12 Oct 14 12.35pm
Quote Seth at 12 Oct 2014 1.56am Quote aquickgame2 at 12 Oct 2014 1.18am I am asking,not demanding,(please get it right) where are the thousands of people of different nationalities,minorities,religions,countries around the world that were protesting about the Israeli atrocities against Gaza. Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands. Is there a problem with me asking that. And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem. I honestly don't understand the point you're making. Yes, fewer people have protested against the situation in Kobane than protested about Gaza. So what? There are reasons for that we can debate and I've tried to explain in a previous post, but please explain what difference it makes to the overall situation. In short my answer to your question is: I don't know. But what does it matter how many people are protesting and of what nationality or religion they are? What difference does it make to the situation in Kobane? Edited by Seth (12 Oct 2014 1.59am) Thats why I am asking the question because I don't know either. I am interested to know why not.
Alert a moderator to this post

aquickgame2

Beni = summer,Caribbean = winter 12 Oct 14 12.35pm

Quote Seth at 12 Oct 2014 1.56am

Quote aquickgame2 at 12 Oct 2014 1.18am

Now just the poor Kurdish people who seem to be almost on their own out there protesting and their people are getting slaughtered and god knows what else,so my question still stands.

Is there a problem with me asking that.

And in answer to your question,no I am not out there protesting as I didnt with the Israeli problem.

Edited by Seth (12 Oct 2014 1.59am)

Thats why I am asking the question because I don't know either.

I am interested to know why not.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 12 Oct 14 12.54pm
Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am ....................................................... Of course the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would not have happened were it not for 9/11 and public support for "fighting back". The thing was Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or salafist jihadism. Rather, it was conveniently lumped in as part of the "war on terror" to get public and international support for invading Iraq. I agree with you here.....It was never about 'terror' as such.....It was an opportunity. Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am I have shown you quotes from the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank and a senior US military officer that oil was a prime motivating factor re going into Iraq. Are they both deluded? In short yes....There are plenty more officials who disagreed with that description. But you're not interested in them.....It's highly selective. Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am You rely on statistics showing that post the invasion US dominance of the Iraq oil industry has not been what therefore might have been thought. That is in no way inconsistent with what I've argued about the pre-invasion motivation. No I'm sorry legal but it completely blowns the whole thing out of the water. You are just looking for tit bits to somehow argue against it.....But the logic is essentially very simple. The war cost trillions of dollars. If America went to war in Iraq with the primary motivation being securing its oil it would never have allowed the freedom for these contracts to be negotiated away. You or anyone else can't argue away the logic of that. The war wasn't about oil as the oil hasn't been secured......Oil was only ever a sub plot.....something in the background. The involvement of western companies in subcontracting means litle......Russian and Chinese companies can employ who they like..This would be true for any western companies remaining also...This has no malign meaning and means nothing when related to the main point. Besides where is your evidence for all this 'continued' western involvement? Where are the statistics that America are coining it in? If Bush invaded Iraq so that Haliburton could make money then he would have simply never allowed the Iraqi government the freedom to take the contracts away from them....Your argument just breaks down. Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am Chuck Hagel, the current United States Secretary of Defense, while speaking at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2008 said: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." You put forward a quote from a democrat opposed to Bush's actions as some evidence? That's nonsense. Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." Tes we can. Abizaid wasn't there when these decisions were taken or discussed. One general's opinion matters little.....There are numerous generals involved in the war.....They are generals not politicians. Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am In July 2003, the Polish foreign minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said, "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective". The Polish Government had been a loyal supporter of the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq and by 2005 had 2,500 troops in Iraq. Are you cut and pasting this nonsense legal? There is nothing weird about companies looking to make a buck out of a political development. Like I said you are arguing for a misinformed lost position. Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 8.48am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 Oct 14 12.54pm

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

I agree with you here.....It was never about 'terror' as such.....It was an opportunity.

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

I have shown you quotes from the former head of the Federal Reserve Bank and a senior US military officer that oil was a prime motivating factor re going into Iraq. Are they both deluded?

In short yes....There are plenty more officials who disagreed with that description. But you're not interested in them.....It's highly selective.

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

No I'm sorry legal but it completely blowns the whole thing out of the water. You are just looking for tit bits to somehow argue against it.....But the logic is essentially very simple.

The war cost trillions of dollars. If America went to war in Iraq with the primary motivation being securing its oil it would never have allowed the freedom for these contracts to be negotiated away.

You or anyone else can't argue away the logic of that.

The war wasn't about oil as the oil hasn't been secured......Oil was only ever a sub plot.....something in the background.

The involvement of western companies in subcontracting means litle......Russian and Chinese companies can employ who they like..This would be true for any western companies remaining also...This has no malign meaning and means nothing when related to the main point.

Besides where is your evidence for all this 'continued' western involvement? Where are the statistics that America are coining it in?

If Bush invaded Iraq so that Haliburton could make money then he would have simply never allowed the Iraqi government the freedom to take the contracts away from them....Your argument just breaks down.

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

You put forward a quote from a democrat opposed to Bush's actions as some evidence? That's nonsense.

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

Tes we can. Abizaid wasn't there when these decisions were taken or discussed. One general's opinion matters little.....There are numerous generals involved in the war.....They are generals not politicians.

Quote legaleagle at 12 Oct 2014 8.48am

Are you cut and pasting this nonsense legal?

There is nothing weird about companies looking to make a buck out of a political development.

Like I said you are arguing for a misinformed lost position.

Edited by legaleagle (12 Oct 2014 8.48am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 12 Oct 14 1.07pm
15 and 17 year old want to return to Australia after shacking up with ISIS fighters, getting up the duff and realising it was sh1t because they're female. Oz having none it. Tell you what though these cnuts are getting some action, and that's before the 70 virgins. [Link] Edited by johnfirewall (12 Oct 2014 1.08pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

12 Oct 14 1.07pm

15 and 17 year old want to return to Australia after shacking up with ISIS fighters, getting up the duff and realising it was sh1t because they're female. Oz having none it.

Tell you what though these cnuts are getting some action, and that's before the 70 virgins.

[Link]

Edited by johnfirewall (12 Oct 2014 1.08pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 53 of 85 < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

isis

Site Map

Sponsors