{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/23/2014 12:46:39 AM
16
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that our arming of Syrian rebels allowed ISIS to take control of Iraq. Iraq was weak, they didn't do much with the little we gave them (in terms of securities). We could blame the Iraqi government, but that's essentially [i]our[/i] government that we installed. So yeah, it's certainly our fault, I just wouldn't say it's due to Syria.
English
-
Not necessarily. ISIS can and has strong-armed other militias to take their equipment
-
So one way or another, the US got involved somewhere they shouldn't have?
-
It pretty much is a stretch given that those groups we are arming are either (a) fighting ISIS in Syria or (b) fighting Assad.
-
Edited by b0t: 6/23/2014 1:53:07 AM>Oversimplifying. Again, intention =/= Result.
-
It's not oversimplifying.
-
Uhm, yeah it is. You cannot grasp the complexity of the situation. You assume by giving weapons to terrorist lites, to combat terrorist bigs, will play out exactly as intended, without any unintended consequences.
-
Edited by Mags: 6/23/2014 2:07:04 AMI'm not saying that at all. I am countering his claim that we are supplying ISIS's allies in Syria. We aren't. We are supplying their enemies. I have also conceded to another user that some weapons we supplied to rebel groups could have landed into the hands of ISIS operatives in Syria. You're telling me, a dude who studies these things (and AQ, Syrian Civil War, and the Middle East specifically), that I can't grasp the complexity of the situation? I'm sorry, but no. You can disagree with me all that you want and I'm not going to call you stupid. I may call you wrong, but I'm not going to call you stupid. You have the right to have those beliefs. I expect the same from you. Given that this is my major, my hobby, my passion and what I'm known for around here, I would like to not be called stupid or that I cannot handle the complexity of a situation I study. Thanks.
-
Edited by b0t: 6/23/2014 2:25:34 AM[quote]I'm not saying that at all. I am countering his claim that we are supplying ISIS's allies in Syria. We aren't. We are supplying their enemies. I have also conceded to another user that some weapons we supplied to rebel groups could have landed into the hands of ISIS operatives in Syria. [/quote] Riight. Again, the intention=/=result. And I'm happy you at least acknowledge our weapons are now being used by the radical terrorists. [quote]You're telling me, a dude who studies these things (and AQ, Syrian Civil War, and the Middle East specifically), that I can't grasp the complexity of the situation? I'm sorry, but no. You can disagree with me all that you want and I'm not going to call you stupid. I may call you wrong, but I'm not going to call you stupid. You have the right to have those beliefs. I expect the same from you. Given that this is my major, my hobby, my passion and what I'm known for around here, I would like to not be called stupid or that I cannot handle the complexity of a situation I study. Thanks.[/quote] I'm not calling you stupid. I just think you'll justify your antagonistic war policies to the death, even when said policies have done more harm than good. It's caused more chaos, more destabilization and what have you. Radical Islam have become more emboldened than ever since our involvement, yet no matter what, you'll say, "we need more involvement.". It's cool that it's your passion, but I think it's blinding you from objectively and consciously addressing the results.
-
I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's what actually happened, plainly put. But yeah, it certainly is our fault either way.
