European views on ISIL

All Greens are wise and good - just ask 'em - but when the wise and good do nothing evil prospers. I'm voting for those women of the Kurdish PKK. To me the Greens are the Ostrich Party. They are wise and good - but while the women of the PKK are fighting to protect their sisters from rape the members of the Ostrich Party are proudly pontificating while sticking their heads in the sand.

I feel like I'm missing some context about the Australian Green Party here.

Amarië wrote:A kickass 19 year old muslim woman initiated a protest against ISIS/IS/ISIL and their supporters in Norway in Oslo this Monday. About 5000 showed up and she held a flaming speech. Naturally, sadly. she was called all sorts of things and threatened, but she says is only makes her stronger and more convinced that she is doing the right thing. Awesome.

Eldorion wrote:I feel like I'm missing some context about the Australian Green Party here.

I am having a personal hatefest with the Australian Greens at the moment in  relation to ISIL - so I thought I'd blurt it out here.

Not once have I heard the Australian Greens even mention the women (and girls) being raped, or the beheadings of innocent men and women and children killed, the hundreds of thousands displaced. But they have been vociferous in Australia taking any stand - indeed, even saying anything against the evil that is occurring in ISIL. They don't appear to a have a view other than criticise anything anyone comes up with of a negative persuasion towards ISIL.  When the good do nothing, evil prospers. Just like I said.

If the Greens came out and said, "Oh dear, ISIL is doing some rather unpleasant things, but it's not our problem." At least, that would be a position of sorts. (Or maybe even: "Ït's a cultural thing and we shouldn't be paternalistic and go telling them how to treat their own." )

That's a shame. I think the beating of the war drums here in America has gotten to a dangerous point, but clearly ISIS is a terrible organization and I'm glad that the US is helping to try to stop them.

Needs to be International - but it needs to be!

Actually, I'm bringing myself up to speed on the Kurds. Very diverse in their religions and non-religions. Maybe a newmade Kurdistan could be a model of Middle Eastern Deomcracy given a chance. They deserve a home State more than Israel did back in the day.

Prefer direct contact - so less risk of 'collateral damage'.  Give the girls more firepower to do the job themselves. Hopefully cameras too so they can post pictures of triumphant female victors with the dead rabid dogs they've put down. Name every male killed by a female and post their photos I say.

1. Fight islamic militants in the middle east.

2. Post photos of dead combatants to social media.

3. ????????

4. Profit.

I think you might be exaggerating the size and significance of the female Kurds fighters, Orwell. Also, ISIS has armed female members too, although they're more of a religious police force than a front line unit.

Give 'em more guns and enlist more. Problem solved.

Bttw Eldo, I'm probably reading the same books, print media and watching the same news and you tube videos you are. As a general rule I do not like to exaggerate. I must say, only the Kurds and the Israelis have such prominent female fighters in the region. Their 'size' in relative terms is huge. Their significance can't really be exaggerated in the current scheme of things either. Perhap you and I have a diffrent take on what might be meant by 'size' and 'significance'.


"I think you might be exaggerating the size and significance of the female Kurds fighters, Orwell." Rather pompous of you! {({I have taught you well. }}}

I am a Jew so it terrifies me. ut not only foe my people but all of the Muslims I dearly love. They are not always as free as I am to say no I am not going to support you or acknowledge your violence and inhumanity. They have large families who live else where. It is frightening to them also.
I have a dear dear Muslim friend who, because his mother chose to marry someone they objected to, was thrown out with his siblings and mother and I cannot remember what happened to the father.
My friend had to help support the family since now they were not well off and all the family shunned them. My dear friend had to work in a horrible place since very young and it was so toxic that he had to have a major organ removed to save him.
He put up with a lot a lot of abuse from scary groups just to get along and not have him and his family exterminated. They have untold money and in Canada already there are various charities that are tax free, only they are not charities, they fund them and the al Queda and no one is willing to stop it. Life is very complicated and you want to watch your mouth so you don't kill your family and you express what you are told to express from the male members of the family, period, since they are the head. So a lot of people that seem to be on their side really are not it seems and others don't know the facts, it is about scratching one anothers backs and power and money. It is so scarey , but then so is the Italian Mafia and the triads, and so many. It is hard for a person to stay out of it all--they marry into it and don't have a clue because they have been used to freedom of speech, or they buy into it and don't realize they might be next. So many give up because there is no negotiating for the sake of making things right with them. I hear you Julia.

David H wrote:Yes, but the Shah was not well loved.  I've been told that within limits there's more democratic freedom under the Ayatollah than there ever was under the Shah. Though the Ayatollah doesn't seem to be well loved, he's seems to be accepted as a necessary part of a coalition to keep civil order.  Looking at some of the other failed states in the region, I see their point.

The Shah was not well loved by the men who thought shariah and men being the total head , both spiritually and economically since antiquity was the only way. They hated, and I agree, the sleaziness, although the Muslim girls and women I have met all said they have been raped by relatives, one by her dentist and so on without any recrimination. But the losing control over women and girls was unthinkable, they , very many, think of them as owned b y them and whether they live or die is determined by the father and brother and male relatives. The Shah was very western, loved the culture and was very much a James Bond kind of guy. That outraged and horrified the vey strict population. It would only take a generation or so to ruin all they believed in. The Ayatollah was a frightening person in my opinion . And the Imams, a lot of them. But some fathers are being very kind and trust their daughters to forge ahead for their people.
I can only go by what is whispered over and over.

Orwell wrote:Give 'em more guns and enlist more. Problem solved.

As a general rule I do not like to exaggerate.

Uh ... okay.

I must say, only the Kurds and the Israelis have such prominent female fighters in the region.

As far as I know, this is true.

theres Hobbit sense and then theres Ozzy sense, pretty much the same thing but with added BBQ sauce.

Just so, Ms Figg.

Orwell said: "Btw Eldo, I'm probably reading the same books, print media and watching the same news and you tube videos you are. As a general rule I do not like to exaggerate. I must say, only the Kurds and the Israelis have such prominent female fighters in the region. Their 'size' in relative terms is huge. Their significance can't really be exaggerated in the current scheme of things either. Perhap you and I have a diffrent take on what might be meant by 'size' and 'significance'."

My goodness Eldo - you make an ambiguous remark about me not liking to exaggerate (unless when joking, of course) but largely ignor the guts of my comment! Yes, to: "I must say, only the Kurds and the Israelis have such prominent female fighters in the region." You answer: "As far as I know, this is true." But does that mean you understand my original point about 'size' and 'significance?

Nobody understands your posts, Orwell

I assume you mean that you think a Kurdish victory will be better for women in the Middle East?  I don't see how anyone can disagree, although it will take more than just that to help Shia and Sunni women as well as Kurdish ones.  And it's worth remembering that there are plenty of women who support Islamism and Sharia, too, such as the ones fighting for IS that I mentioned. Obviously I think they're wrong, but it's a reminder not to get too caught up in liberation narratives (IMHO).

An extroadinary idea just occurred to me, Eldo. Read what I write, respond to what I write, and stop assuming.

I'm not a born debater - I once was but was born again. I've got over the I 'believe this you believe that black and white' politicisizing of everything so many of you guys seem bent to. I prefer to examine what someone says and question it on it's merits - the merits of what is said and not what I assume about a person or from the standpoint of my own standardized views on life (you know, Leftish, Rightish, Religionish). This is perhaps why folk here don't really ever address the guts of what I say and often ignor my points or assume something about my points that are at variance to what I'm actually saying. What is needed - if I may be so bold (and possibly pompous ) is that more of you indulge in what we called Critical Thinking when I was growing up when reading my posts. Actually, thik about what I say and not just react. If you don't understand my point, say so, and I'll try to rephrase my comments.

Perhaps examining evidence and keeping my thoughts related to the available evidence (facts) is what I've been trained to do (don't want to charge or jail the wrong people do we! ) but at heart it is merely Critical Thinking.

I know my tendancy to farce probably makes people here confuse what I'm getting at at times, maybe evn believe I don't study the political, historical or psychological I occasioanlly comment about very closely, but that would not pertain to the facts.

I would also add something from Clive James - which I can't remember directly enough to quote word for word but goes something like: "Humour is commonsense sent dancing."  Some as say commonsense doesn't exist or can't be explained, but we all have our views I guess. Mine is, commonsense and critical thinking should be bedfellows.

I guess you will read thie foregoing and say, "Oh well, as usual I have no idea what Orwell is getting at. Somethng esoteric? Something absurd? Something superficial? Something that is flippant and never thought through?" Oh well... I don't often engage in these serious chats for good reason. Yes, this post wanders a bit, but it all relates. Here to help!

Orwell wrote:An extroadinary idea just occurred to me, Eldo. Read what I write, respond to what I write, and stop assuming.

You've been criticizing my use of the words "size" and "significance" and insulting me for the last two pages of this thread, but you haven't actually, y'know, bothered to clarify the points on which you feel misrepresented.  If you can write six paragraphs complaining about how misunderstood you are on here, surely you could take half that space to try and help people understand you better. Have a little sympathy for us mere mortals, would you?

I guess you will read thie foregoing and say, "Oh well, as usual I have no idea what Orwell is getting at. Somethng esoteric? Something absurd? Something superficial? Something that is flippant and never thought through?" Oh well...

I've had enough discussions with you to recognize when you're being thoughtful and sincere, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to understand your meaning.  That's inevitably going to happen from time to time in conversation, but the typical response is to re-explain or elaborate so that communication can improve and the discussion can move forward.

"You've been criticizing my use of the words "size" and "significance" and insulting me for the last two pages of this thread,..."

I've been insulting you for two pages? Read your comment about my over estimation about women that started this vivid discussion. You had no idea what I meant and so I clarified. You had a view and of course I could easily have taken it as you isulting me (going by how you've internalized what I've said   ) but I didn't actually become offended, just clarified what I meant from my end of things.

You made an ambiguous remark about my claim to try not to exaggerate. This is not to say I never do. (See, I do have sympathy for you mere mortals! How could you ever think I don't?) If you think I tend to exaggerate - and I'm still not sure that's the point of your ambiguous remark! - I will need some proof of that. I don't think exaggeration is my usual tendancy at all - though even Immortals can get things wrong once in awhile - look at Feanor as one example. If I have questioned your response to my original self-assessment, I see no problem in me seeking to clarify.

Perhaps you need to go back and see that there are no dliberate insults, though there are what I see as observations I've made, which you have taken as insults perhaps. You can claify things, or correct me if you believe you need to, but I won't take any attempt by you in itself as an insult. Consider that sometimes you may appear as an Immortal too - and remember that if I make comments in the same vain as you do, you are free to be either insulted or be challenged to rebut my 'observations' (or both, I guess. )

This is the Big Bad Serious Thread. We're bound to have these conflcts. I have clearly offended you. For me, I am merely annoyed at times how people run off into Assumptions Land with some of the things I say, without even understanding my point or the thrust or intelllectual history of what I'm saying. If I decide to be riled just now about it, well, I thought that's what you debating types like! I'm not against debates per se, it's just now and then I think it would be nice to actually pay full attention to what folk are saying.

I've read back through my posts and by your reasoning, I think I've probably insulted you again, Eldo. Yipes!

Oh, I'll let you boys sort it out.

You still seem not to see the irony in complaining about people assuming things rather than understanding your arguments, while simultaneously posting multiple mini-essays full of complaining that do nothing to shed light on the arguments that people are missing the point of.

I agreed with your earlier "clarification" that the Kurds and Israelis are the only forces in the Middle East that (AFAIK) have significance female combat units.  You seemed upset that I didn't fully grasp the implications of this fact (cf. >this post<).  This is a subjective impression on my part, by the way, not an assumption about your true emotional state.  So how about explaining how it relates to your original point, instead of writing another mini-essay complaining about how no one understands you?  If you're truly "not against debates", that would seem to be the best way to engage in one if there was a mis-communication.