jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (28 posts)

Here is a one sentence explanation as to how ISIS was formed.

  1. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 2 years ago

    This is a quote from a Lebanese writer Karl Sharro and his one sentence explanation of why ISIS came about. It is a little long winded but I think he covers it pretty well.
    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12772852.jpg

    1. colorfulone profile image85
      colorfuloneposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In a nut shell Karl Sharro explained it very well. 
      Although, it be a rather large nut shell I think.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I thought it was spot on myself. When are ever going to learn to butt out?

        1. Live to Learn profile image79
          Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You do realize that when you post a thread on an internet forum you are inviting people to butt in?

          Either way; I do see how he arrived from point A to the end. But, it does ignore a lot in order to follow that path to the end. I do think populations are responsible for their own course in history. Much of the West has proven that the populations not only want peace, but demand it. Those who want peace know that to maintain it the society has to attempt to ensure a state of being where freedom and happiness for all individuals is an obtainable goal. These societies appear to work diligently to have meaningful conversations on what a society must do to ensure that state of being. We embrace (slowly, at times) diversity. We celebrate (for the majority) the ability of each to follow their own path when it does not inhibit the path of others.

          Any society which consistently demands strict adherence to a narrow set of beliefs and a uniform lifestyle and teaches its young that those who do not adhere to these values are not worthy of life will create enough discord to breed violent intent. How they act on that violent intent varies from country to country.

          Are there stumbling blocks which have been created for these societies? Sure.

          Is that an excuse to evolve in the manner they have? I'm not so sure about that.

          Do any of these stumbling blocks result in valid reasons to export their violent intent within the border of other nations? I do not see any valid reason to come to that conclusion.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I always invite comment and conversation and I would agree with you but for that pesky little detail of the intervention of the west in the setting up of the region and the desire for the ever increasing demand for energy with the end of the second industrial revolution and the increase of the Bessemer steel process.

            The other problematic occurrence was the formation of the Zionist State which created a big problem with the west even to today.

            As far as the unrest bred by dictatorial rule or theocratic violence the writing is on the wall as the influence from the west and its' support of these Mullahs and dictators is the main reason. Generation upon generation of young men have been repressed and abused by the shadow governments tyrannical methods.

            1. Live to Learn profile image79
              Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              But, generations of young men have done nothing to alleviate the problem. Many have actively exacerbated it.

              People are responsible for their own actions and their own fates. Blaming others is pointless if the only outcome is that you don't take any responsibility for your actions.

              History is history. We can't change it. Nor, should we blame it for not fixing our own problems. If we use the sins of the past to develop a hatred we project into the future we become the sins of the past.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Easy for you to say sitting safe and comfortable where opportunity abounds. You haven't walked a mile in their shoes so you nor I have any idea what it is like to live in an impoverished state of anarchy and war. I have lived outside the US and it always blows me away when we as Americans force our ideas of acceptable on others when we have no idea what we are talking about. Notice I included myself as I have not lived in the Middle East. I have had family members live there and they have told me how very little we Americans know or even relate to the people and the situation over there.

                1. Live to Learn profile image79
                  Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I've lived on three continents thus far. I'm not attempting to force my views on anyone in any country. I am simply stating what I will not do; which is listen to whiny blame games.

                  I used to be like you. Then I realized that having those opinions put me in a position of looking down on others.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And as typical you wish to absolve yourself of blame. So American it wreaks. LOL. American foreign policy went from a high point of standing for freedom to conquest using the military to retrieve and defend economic advances for the corporate hegemony. If you once thought like me why did it change to the idea that placing responsibility where it lies is looking down on anybody.

                2. GA Anderson profile image82
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "... it always blows me away when we as Americans force our ideas of acceptable on others when we have no idea what we are talking about."

                  That sounds like the point I was making about your posted "one-sentence" explanation. That was the lead-off, the starting-gun for the rest of the sentence, but your quote doesn't sound like you agree with it.

                  GA

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Our ideas were not the first line of action. The British were the decision makers of the first spoils of the Ottoman Empires demise. We came in afterwards and installed our little cottage dictators because dealing with a democracy is a pain as evidenced in the first free election in Iraq. Al-Maliki was our plant and lo and behold he was elected. What does that say in response to how it was set up? He was a slap in the face to the theocrats. It was never going to work as it was a made up country.

        2. colorfulone profile image85
          colorfuloneposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The US seems to have an imperialistic mind set.

          The Yellow Brick Road: the Federal Reserve (which isn't a federal agency at all) creates money out of thin air.  The Fed says it isn't privately owned, but it is. The Fed says it is a none-profit organization but it is not.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-t … erve/10489

          The US created Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

          ISIS serves a need for the United States while the defense contractors gain even more wealth.

          Since 2012 it is legal for the US to spread propaganda to its own citizens. It is no wonder to me that nothing makes logical-sense coming from the WH these days.

          I'm just thinking out loud here, trying to put pieces together. Time for a walk in the woods...

    2. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Can I have some cheese and a little mustard to go with that baloney?

      "...failure of the postcolonial elites to create genuine democratic societies and foster a sense of national unity..."

      We can do that? Take a tribal people, (like Iraq), force them to embrace an "everyone is equal" democratic form of government, (like Iraq), and, make them believe that yesterday they were tribal, but today they are a a national unit, (like Iraq)? (Iraq is only the most recent example to cite. History provides more examples of these types of efforts)

      There are more slices in the package of that paragraph/sentence, but when you start with unrealistic idealistic proclamations, what follows is usually more of the same.

      GA

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        With the break up of the Ottoman Empire and the Balfour Declaration the area was divided contrary to the agreements with the local authority. The split up was in conflict with The Sheriff of Mecca and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence in favor of the Zionist State of Israel. So from the very beginning the promises and cooperation between the people in the region and the British was one of lies and broken promises. Hardly a baloney sandwich.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You must have mixed up responses. My baloney reference was pointed at a specific quote. But even so...

          Do you think the `victor' nations involved could have done what the quote I referenced said they should have done. Would the populaces of the regions have accepted what the quote proposed? Did the victor nations have postcolonial responsibilities to the defeated empire?

          You are welcome to engage another thread about the error of the distribution, (another Israel discussion), but that was not the object of my response. So have at it. I still hold my original thought.

          GA

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Then let me know specifically what wording it was that you reference as you see it has much wording to it.

            Yes I do believe if the area was organized as it was before the break up there is a good possibility that a democratic nation could have been organized much like Turkey. The Kurds the Shia and the Sunni were all grouped together in an alliance that would never have worked. This is not only of our doing but that of the British as well. The three way split is what is being talked about now.

            1. mrpopo profile image77
              mrpopoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "Then let me know specifically what wording it was that you reference as you see it has much wording to it."

              He, uh, quoted it. Right here:

              ...failure of the postcolonial elites to create genuine democratic societies and foster a sense of national unity...

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If that is what you are referring to then it is as simple an answer as The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and the best one Al-Maliki in Iraq who created a total Shia cabinet among the many plants based on American Middle East Policy. Did you not get the gist of the sentence? Once again we have a selective amnesia. The latest terrorist attack in San Bernardino has been preliminarily attributed to the terrorists feelings towards Israel which is a large recipient of aid from the US. The US has meddled in this mess for the last 60 plus years and continues to this day yet we blame everything on the others. Is it terrorism that we stay involved? Think about our monetary system and the petro dollar from Saudi Arabia.

 
working