I’m aware of that; felt it was rather conspicuously absent from the post I was replying to, but didn’t want to go into the whole explanation myself.
There is also the possibility that there are others who are intent on adding to this “clash of civilisations”
While the link below is from a Ukranian source I would not dismiss it out of hand just for that reason.
A former FSB member alleges that the Muslim Terrorists are, to some extent, an instrument of Russian foreign policy.
There may be more players in this game than seem immediately obvious.
So which Islamic governments are we at war with, pray tell?
I don’t presume to speak for magellan01, but I would say that we are at war with ISIS, and that they qualify as an Islamic government.
It seems a little odd to describe a conflict with a “government” that didn’t exist 18 months ago as “inevitable.” Or to describe it as “Islam” since every actual Muslim state agrees that it doesn’t represent Islam, that it’s horrible, and that it has to go.
I think conflict with ISIS assuming it’s existence was inevitable. The question I’m trying to understand is whether the existence of ISIS or something like it was inevitable, or could it have been avoideded. As for ISIS not being Islamic, we can’t just pretend they aren’t. ISIS is just as Islamic as Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition were Catholic. Just because the local parish priest or your average Catholic or even the Pope disavowe the Inquisition, that doesn’t make it any less Catholic. Similarly, no matter how many Muslims disavowe ISIS, that doesn’t make them any less Islamic.
Of course it could have been avoided. We would have avoided it by not invading Iraq.
The Spanish Inquisition was explicitly authorized by the Pope, so that’s not a very good counter-example. Let’s try a better one: is the Christian Identity movement actually Christian? If not, what’s the difference?
I would say that yes, the Christian Identity movement is Christian. The biggest difference is a quantitative one. ISIS is not nearly as disavowed by fellow Muslims as Christian Identity is by other Christians. If it was disavowed to that degree, ISIS would never have been able to become as powerful as they currently are.
If the Christian Identity movement is Christian, then the civilizations of the West are incompatible with Christianity - at least based on your/magellan’s line of reasoning.
Why, pray tell, are you restricting the conflict to “governments”? In order to force the argument to a legal definition of war? Nope.
Christian Identity folks haven’t had the same opportunity. The civil war in Syria and the weak, corrupt post-invasion Iraqi government provided a power vacuum and a supply of fighters and strategists.
If, say, Montana was torn apart by a civil war between a dictator and rebel groups, and Idaho was conquered and misruled by Great Britain, then you could see a Christian Identity white ethnostate try to fill the vacuum.
Just like not doing X would have resulted in the WTC not being bombed. Twice. Yeah, right.
But if you’re looking for things that would have stopped ISIS from forming you should think about the weakling Obama pulling troops out of Iraq to the extent that he did. And save the “Oh, but that was what Iraq wanted.” They were simply bargaining. And if Obama actually wanted troops there, you think he’s such a weakling and bad negotiator that he couldn’t have found a way to bargain with Iraq? Wow, you must have an even lower opinion of his abilities than I do. So, hey, maybe you are right after all.
It’s also what America wanted, and one of the things Obama ran on in 2008. You may remember that he won. So really you are blaming 75% of Americans who wanted the ground troops out of there. So are you part of the “Blame America First” crowd now?
No, I’m part of the Our President Should Have a Backbone and Be a Leader Crowd.
Are you part of the pro-ISIS formation crowd?
Save your roll eyes and condescension for someone who deserves it. You’re calling Obama a weakling because he did what he promised to do when he ran for president once he was elected, and which was something that that 75% of Americans wanted, and which Iraq itself wanted (you don’t get to dismiss facts of history because you don’t like them). Go ahead and blame 75% of America for pulling the ground troops out of Iraq then and own that.
You have a warped idea of history caused by your Obama hate. Its really not any more complicated than that.
Funny how you don’t blame the ones who started our little adventure in Iraq which created the entire mess in the first place, but you blame the one who got us out of that clusterfuck. Would we be in this situation if GWB never decided to invade Iraq? Do you think invading Iraq after 9/11 was a good idea? Does ISIS exist today, where it is today, without that invasion?
I would definitely consider Australia and New Zealand part of the West as well.
“The West” have been interfering in that part of the world for at least 100 years.
T.E.Lawrence and “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” might be a good read…
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m no fan go G, Bush and never voted for the man. Undeniably, we’d be much, much better off if we never went into Iraq. But that became a moot point the moment Obama took office. He new what he was signing up for. And while it might have made sense to be of the opinion that the troops should lead when he was speechifying on the campaign trail, he had plenty of time acquaint himself with reality before he decided that taking the troops out of Iraq was one of his campaign promises he felt like keeping. As far as the 75% number, that’s why I said you need a leader, not a weakling trying to win a popularity contest.
So, sorry to ruin your fantasy and have you understand that it is, in fact, “more complicated than that”.
Because somebody used the term “civilizations of the West and of Islam.” If it’s not governments, but some random militants, then clearly there is nothing incompatible about our “civilizations,” is there?
You’re welcome to try again.
So in your opinion, failing to follow through on a campaign promise that you were elected to do, and ignoring the will of 75% of the country is an example of good leadership? This seems reasonable to you? I have a hard time believing that you really hold this opinion, sorry.
And I’m the one living in a fantasy? That’s rich. You are the one that evidently holds 75% of the country responsible for the rise of ISIS, rather than the party that started the unnecessary war of choice that led to the actual creation of ISIS. That ship had already sailed by the time Obama was elected. What happened to the party of “personal responsibility”? How come they are not ever actually responsible for the things they do? The true fantasy going on in this conversation is your fantasy that Obama is responsible for the things that his predecessor fucked up. Again, your hatred is making you blind to basic historical fact. I can’t help you with that I’m afraid.