Terrorist attack on Tunisian tourist resort, one gunman still being pursued, at least 27 people kill - Polidicks

[img]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/13B07/production/_83874608_tunisia.jpg[/img] [url]http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33287978[/url] [quote]At least 27 people have been killed, including foreigners, in an attack on a beach near two tourist hotels in the Tunisian resort town of Sousse, according to the interior ministry. Officials say one gunman has been shot dead and another is being pursued. Sousse is a popular tourist destination. Tunisia has been on high alert since March when militants killed 22 people, mainly foreign tourists, in an attack on a museum in the capital Tunis. The interior ministry told the BBC "a terrorist attack" was ongoing.[/quote]

I just seen a Travel ad for Tunisia this morning and thought it looked like a nice place to visit since it's calmed down. How wrong I was.

[QUOTE=Mabus;48055973]I just seen a Travel ad for Tunisia this morning and thought it looked like a nice place to visit since it's calmed down. How wrong I was.[/QUOTE] Exactly why they targeted a tourist resort, they want Tunisia's economy to crumble so they can exploit it for their own ends

My best mate is on holiday in Tunisia with his girlfriend right now, fucking hell. edit: just spoke with him, he's 100 miles away so they're safe. He's a fucking massive dude though, sure he can just take them on bare-handed.

What it was like: [img]http://i.imgur.com/5DG5oJv.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/FpYeOZJ.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/qiLJuhZ.png[/img]

Everything that's happening is directly consequence of western involvement in Arabian spring. Hope they enjoy their "democracy". :^) Tunisia from ~2010 and today's Tunisia are 2 different worlds.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057086]Everything that's happening is directly consequence of western involvement in Arabian spring. Hope they enjoy their "democracy". :^) Tunisia from ~2010 and today's Tunisia are 2 different worlds.[/QUOTE] Did you know that the west is not responsible for most terrorist attacks? Some may blame us for their actions but at the end of the day, they chose to massacre innocent people who had nothing to do with these politics. Instead of denouncing other countries, maybe we should use things like this to unite against terrorists?

[QUOTE=Mabus;48055973]I just seen a Travel ad for Tunisia this morning and thought it looked like a nice place to visit since it's calmed down. How wrong I was.[/QUOTE] Just 2 days ago, I saw a bus with ads about vacationing in Tunisia and thought "man I'd have to be rich to go there... say, where is Tunisia exactly? would it be prone to terrorist attacks?" Guess I just got my answer...

[QUOTE=MissZoey;48057213]Did you know that the west is not responsible for most terrorist attacks? Some may blame us for their actions but at the end of the day, they chose to massacre innocent people who had nothing to do with these politics. Instead of denouncing other countries, maybe we should use things like this to unite against terrorists?[/QUOTE] Rofl and when you do that you get branded as Islamophobe because the people that committed these acts are not "true muslims". :^) Facepunch is like prime example of where far-left sheltered adolescents suck each other off and claim moral superiority. Just today there have been atrocities committed in Syria, Kuwait, Tunisa and France which have religious motive. It's fucking hilarious how for example I'd have bigger chances to emigrate to Sweden if I went to ISIS and raped and killed innocent people then applied rather than submitting application directly as a Serb. These are all news articles from today (Daily mail, I know, but you can search for the other sources if you want): [img]http://i.imgur.com/IdyIR7B.png[/img] BBC version: [img]http://i.imgur.com/l1CRtGj.jpg[/img] Yahoo! : IS kills 146 civilians in assault on Syria's Kobane. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/kills-120-civilians-syrias-kobane-monitor-085247739.html[/url] Beheading, explosion at factory in France. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/1-beheaded-attack-explosion-french-gas-factory-094910576.html[/url] IS affiliate hits Shiite mosque in Kuwait, killing 25 people. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/bomb-strikes-shiite-mosque-kuwait-104702162.html[/url] Gun attack kills at least 28, including Europeans, at Tunisian beachside hotel. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/tourist-hotel-tunisias-sousse-attacked-security-source-113803076.html[/url] Up until 2011, situation in Arab world was calming down, tourism flourished in Tunisia and Egypt and was developing in Libya, Syria and Algeria, countries were stable until someone decided that people should stand up against all undemocratic regimes even if that meant falling into civil wars and general political chaos/power vacuum in their countries. And here we are now, with Syria in the bloodiest war since Iran-Iraq one from the 80's, Libya which after civil war turned from strongest African economy into third world shithole divided in 4-5 groups and ridden with radical Islam and terrorism in general, Tunisia's state being on the brink of the collapse, Egypt in chaos with General Sisi who is trying to settle down everything, Iraq being in worse state than during American war. Islamists have placed their roots in basically every single Arab country, even tho pre Arab spring they only had significant presence in Iraq and Sinai peninsula. And generally speaking the whole Arab world is thrown into instability which will likely continue for decades to come. I'm really getting tired of Europe and west in the general ignoring the huge elephant in the room and still trying to be blindingly liberal. I mean whatever, the result of refusal to face the problem let to the huge rise of right-wing parties. Even I who started out as a pretty liberal guy (and like extremly-far left tier if we take in consideration that this is Balkans) am starting to transition to a right winger on some problems.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057086]Everything that's happening is directly consequence of western involvement in Arabian spring. Hope they enjoy their "democracy". :^) Tunisia from ~2010 and today's Tunisia are 2 different worlds.[/QUOTE] Yeah Tunisia in 2010 was an authoritarian dictatorship whereas today it's a liberal democracy, I think a majority of Tunisians are enjoying that pretty hard How did the West even interfere in Tunisia, virtually no one was even paying attention to what later became known as the Arab Spring until after Ben Ali was overthrown

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057086]Everything that's happening is directly consequence of western involvement in Arabian spring. Hope they enjoy their "democracy". :^) Tunisia from ~2010 and today's Tunisia are 2 different worlds.[/QUOTE] WOULD YOU LITERALLY STOP YOUR RUSSIAN DICKWAVING.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057388]Rofl and when you do that you get branded as Islamophobe because the people that committed these acts are not "true muslims". :^) Facepunch is like prime example of where far-left sheltered adolescents suck each other off and claim moral superiority. Just today there have been atrocities committed in Syria, Kuwait, Tunisa and France which have religious motive. It's fucking hilarious how for example I'd have bigger chances to emigrate to Sweden if I went to ISIS and raped and killed innocent people then applied rather than submitting application directly as a Serb. These are all news articles from today (Daily mail, I know, but you can search for the other sources if you want): [img]http://i.imgur.com/IdyIR7B.png[/img] BBC version: [img]http://i.imgur.com/l1CRtGj.jpg[/img] Yahoo! : IS kills 146 civilians in assault on Syria's Kobane. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/kills-120-civilians-syrias-kobane-monitor-085247739.html[/url] Beheading, explosion at factory in France. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/1-beheaded-attack-explosion-french-gas-factory-094910576.html[/url] IS affiliate hits Shiite mosque in Kuwait, killing 25 people. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/bomb-strikes-shiite-mosque-kuwait-104702162.html[/url] Gun attack kills at least 28, including Europeans, at Tunisian beachside hotel. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/tourist-hotel-tunisias-sousse-attacked-security-source-113803076.html[/url] Up until 2011, situation in Arab world was calming down, tourism flourished in Tunisia and Egypt and was developing in Libya, Syria and Algeria, countries were stable until someone decided that people should stand up against all undemocratic regimes even if that meant falling into civil wars and general political chaos/power vacuum in their countries. And here we are now, with Syria in the bloodiest war since Iran-Iraq one from the 80's, Libya which after civil war turned from strongest African economy into third world shithole divided in 4-5 groups and ridden with radical Islam and terrorism in general, Tunisia's state being on the brink of the collapse, Egypt in chaos with General Sisi who is trying to settle down everything, Iraq being in worse state than during American war. Islamists have placed their roots in basically every single Arab country, even tho pre Arab spring they only had significant presence in Iraq and Sinai peninsula. And generally speaking the whole Arab world is thrown into instability which will likely continue for decades to come. I'm really getting tired of Europe and west in the general ignoring the huge elephant in the room and still trying to be blindingly liberal. I mean whatever, the result of refusal to face the problem let to the huge rise of right-wing parties. Even I who started out as a pretty liberal guy (and like extremly-far left tier if we take in consideration that this is Balkans) am starting to transition to a right winger on some problems.[/QUOTE] People who do this AREN'T true Muslims though. I'm friends with a lot of people of the Islamic faith and NONE of them approve the actions of any terrorist organisation that claim to be Muslim. All of them know that this is clearly against the Qur'an. You aren't even supposed to be violent during Ramadan. You cannot blame the West for the actions of these, in all senses, monsters. The West intervened in some of the places you mentioned and that was AFTER the wars had broken out and shit had hit the fan. Besides that, I think that you just threw up a strawman.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48057443]WOULD YOU LITERALLY STOP YOUR RUSSIAN DICKWAVING.[/QUOTE] Where the [B]fuck[/B] did I mention Russia??? I'm not even from Russia you uneducated fool. You're literally living proof of how many of you are actually blinded with "you're either with us or against us" mentality in SH and just proving my point. [QUOTE=MissZoey;48057476]People who do this AREN'T true Muslims though. I'm friends with a lot of people of the Islamic faith and NONE of them approve the actions of any terrorist organisation that claim to be Muslim. All of them know that this is clearly against the Qur'an. You aren't even supposed to be violent during Ramadan. You cannot blame the West for the actions of these, in all senses, monsters. The West intervened in some of the places you mentioned and that was AFTER the wars had broken out and shit had hit the fan. Besides that, I think that you just threw up a strawman.[/QUOTE] And what separates a true muslim from a non-true muslim? If significant population of muslims support this, then are they really in the wrong according to their religion? Not to mention that they are actually literally following the sayings of their holy book, we can thank the western world being few centuries ahead in cultural sense for not having public hangings around here. I have muslim friends as well but the way they act is basically like a non-true muslim (and same with most of my christian friends) aka they prefer modern day values more than old Islamic ones and are basically muslim due to family tradition. I'll post several polls in a bit.

[QUOTE=smurfy;48057427]How did the West even interfere in Tunisia, virtually no one was even paying attention to what later became known as the Arab Spring until after Ben Ali was overthrown[/QUOTE] I didn't know what he meant at first too, but I guess he blames the West because the chaos spilling from over Lybia's borders.

Accusing bias while being bias isn't exactly a good argument, but okay

-nvm i'm tripping i misread your post. sorry-

[QUOTE=Ownederd;48057539]i *might* be going out on a limb, but you're a walking example of the type of people that seriously buy into putin's cult of personality[/QUOTE] You are, since I couldn't care less about Russia (not in a bad sense). The bigger problem is actually the west using divide and conquer tactics on the rest of the world and literally manipulating our political elite in front of everyone's eyes and everyone knows they are doing it but nobody can do anything about it, along with blatant refusal of anyone living in the west that there are really bad and fucked up aspects about it and that anything said against them is just bias. I can easily post examples even from previous week if needed for that, but that is not a discussion for this thread tho so I will stick to the Islam debate. I mean I can kinda understand them, chances are if I lived in top 1% of the world in some first world country I'd act and claim like everything is fine and dandy here as well and generally not give a shit what my govt does (and focus more on the other governments) as long as I'm comfy. Here are some polls: [quote] 40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam. [url]http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03[/url] Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. [url]http://cnsnews.com/node/53865[/url] (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009) Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html[/url] [url]http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf[/url] Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed [url]http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf[/url] Motivaction Survey (2014): 80% of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with Holy War against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. [url]http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/11/young-dutch-turks-radical-views-worry-mps-call-for-more-research.php/[/url] 83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers 78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates [url]http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/[/url] World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country [url]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf[/url] Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 58% of Jordanian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 36% of Indonesian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 82% of Pakistanis favor floggings and amputation 65% of Nigerian Muslims favor floggings and amputation [url]http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/[/url] Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers 56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers [url]http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/[/url] Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land [url]http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/seventy-two-percent-of-indonesians-favor-shariah-law-pew-forum/[/url] Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft. [url]http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf[/url] Pew Research (2013): According to an interpretation of this study, approximately 45% of Sharia supporters surveyed disagreed with the idea that Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. [url]http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf[/url] Economist (Pew 2013): 74% who favor Islamic law in Egypt say it should apply to non-Muslims as well. [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/04/daily-chart-20?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/Shariadolikeit[/url] Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam 51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam [url]http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/[/url][/quote] Are all of these people non-true muslims?

It's not grounds for you to declare everyone who's part of it a monster

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057585]stuff and content about polls[/QUOTE] i retract my previous statement since i wildly misread things at first, but it's thinly-veiled islamophobia to assume anyone who is part of arab spring movement is a backwards, anti-western reactionary

[QUOTE=smurfy;48056096]Exactly why they targeted a tourist resort, they want Tunisia's economy to crumble so they can exploit it for their own ends[/QUOTE] Well, killing 27 tourists will do the trick I think

[QUOTE=Tacooo;48057679]Well, killing 27 tourists will do the trick I think[/QUOTE] *37 tourists :( [url]http://bbc.in/1NlVzqJ[/url]

Killing innocent defenseless people on a beach (INCLUDING children), fucking cowards.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48057086]Everything that's happening is directly consequence of western involvement in Arabian spring. Hope they enjoy their "democracy". :^) Tunisia from ~2010 and today's Tunisia are 2 different worlds.[/QUOTE] The United States just had a terrorist attack in a church. Are they "enjoying their "democracy" :^)"?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;48059781]The United States just had a terrorist attack in a church. Are they "enjoying their "democracy" :^)"?[/QUOTE] Lmao your post is so retarded that I don't even know what to say. First of, US did not have it's government toppled nor did it have foreign intervention on it's territory under the guise of "protecting democracy" and second of all that attack wasn't religiously motivated at all but it's kinda cute how you tried to link it up just because it happened in the church.

Nah I think he's just making fun of your obnoxious posting style.

spirit_breaker is a serbian nationalist and a putin apologist, just ignore him.

The US is inching closer and closer towards all out war in the middle east again and the sad thing is that the only thing that will put us over the edge is the United States being directly attacked. It's sad, but war is inevitable at this point. I think we need to backtrack. In iraq, we deposed a seculat, brutal dictator and replaced him with a somewhat functional democracy. I don't agree with a lot of the sentiment behind what spirit_breaker is saying, but I do think that the notion that any of these countries are prepared for a parliamentarian system or anything more than a total dictatorship or autocracy is exactly what is leading us into these situations. If we put boots down on the ground, and if we topple ISIS (my estimate is 1-3 months before ISIS is hiding in caves and back to guerilla warfare), then I think the very first thing we need to do is install the most brutal, secular, and populist dictator we possibly can. A man who feeds the poor, but will kill every last person who dissents without even a mock trial. A new Saddam Hussein. And then I think we need more Bashar Al-Assads, and more Muammar Gaddafis. The only people who can keep these animals at bay are secular Ba'athists. Toppling the Ba'ath regimes was the single biggest mistake of the 21st century and I think people will recognize that 50 years from now, we could have prevented 50 years of problems if we had allowed the Ba'athists to continue their reign over the Arab peninsula. edit: Just to be clear, I don't agree with spirit_breaker that the problem is inherent to islam. I think that any kind of radical religious movement with as much money behind it as wahabiism would have equally disastrous results. With people pouring in from all over western europe, including young arabs who have no heritage in Iraq, ISIS Has become a 21st century crusade for the Islamic world. This is akin to the several attempts by the Christians to retake Constantinople from the Muslims. Ultimately, if we want to play captain hindsight here, we can go all the way back and say that the breakup of the ottoman empire is what led to these disasters. Cutting the arabian peninsula into tiny pieces to try to disorganize any former states that want to make a power grab for western europe is what led to all this.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48061875] And then I think we need more Bashar Al-Assads, and more Muammar Gaddafis. The only people who can keep these animals at bay are secular Ba'athists.[/QUOTE] I'll take "Never actually read up on mid-east history" for 500, Alex. The ba'athists were what caused this whole mess in the first place, since they constantly put a boot to the throat of progress or peacemaking in any way through horrific persecution and seemingly ritualistic slaughter. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] The insurgency after Saddam Hussein was not the direct cause of him not being in power or because there wasn't authoritarianism in Iraq, it was because there were 30+ years of internal religious, ethnic, cultural and political divides that were allowed to fester under one of the most brutal regimes in world history. It was further enflamed by the presence of Al-Qaeda who felt that the regimes of those like Saddam and Assad were detrimental and [I]also felt the Saudis were too.[/I] Thinking that if you just slaughter innocents, gas civilians, murder protestors and reporters and refuse people the right to live as they wish is going to bring peace is an absolutely idiotic precedent and is an unhealthy way to think about how the world works. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] Reposting this. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47884576](Please note: This is not something to "shut you down" or anything like that, but instead just expanding on your point) Alright, let's hash this out. Up until Desert Storm in '90, the Baath party in Iraq was the strongest opposition in the region to the expanding Iran. The Baath party in Syria, however secular as it was, still saw the Iranians as an opportunity to put themselves above the Iraqis in the region. Back in the mid 60s, there was a pretty major split between the Syrian Baathists and Iraqi Baathists. Not going to get into the nitty gritty of who wanted what, but essentially it was another case of Neo-Socialist infighting. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam basically used the conflict to not only garner support for his side of the Baath party, but to also show that Iran couldn't poke-and-prod with the Middle East anymore. Of course, there wasn't just a political motive, but we'll get to that in a second. Saddam's real focus in the Iran-Iraq war was to secure the eastern side of the Shatt al-Arab, or where the Tigris and Euphrates meet. Securing this area would provide Iraq with huge amounts of fresh water and the availability to irrigate huge farming projects. Iran and Iraq had shared the region since the latter's inception, but with the belligerent Saddam in power, he needed to not only prove his manliness, but also get his nation on top. Now, the religious side is a tricky one. As you know by now if you've been following anything with ISIS, the majority of Iraq's population is Shia, which is the minority of the two Islamic sects. We have to take a step back before the Iran-Iraq war to get a handle on Saddam's religious views/treatment. Saddam, like many Iraqi leaders before him, was Sunni. Though running on the Baath ticket, Saddam pandered to the various Sunni clans/tribes in Iraq, but with much less of a religious reason and more of a political one. To garner the support of the minorities was to gain key allies when it came to running the country, and he set up members of these Sunni groups into positions of power (Note: most of them coming from his clan/clans loyal to his). With this pandering to Sunni groups and appointing them to power, this clearly pissed off the Syrians, who preferred a neutral stance on religion, but also made the Saudis and Jordanians happy. With Iran being the only major Shia power, and Iraq bordering it with a Sunni-minded leader, the various Arab states jumped at the chance to support Saddam in the coming Iran-Iraq war. With the Iran-Iraq war not really getting anywhere, and huge losses being taken on both sides, the Arab states started to get worried. Even though Iraq was being funded and supplied by nations all over the world (US and UK included), Saddam was unable to make any major advances. By 1988, both sides were totally exhausted, and the ceasefire was signed. Iraq was in serious debt, and its economy and population were crippled after countless lives and billions of dollars were spent on essentially a pointless war. Now Saddam hit a roadblock. The Saudis and Kuwaitis wanted their money back. Saddam couldn't exactly pay them back so quickly. Enter the beginning of Desert Shield and eventually Desert Storm. Most of us know the story from this point forward, with Iraq invading Kuwait, the US-led Coalition kicking them out, and then huge sanctions put on Iraq by the end of March '91. Here's where Osama bin Laden comes in. Osama, as you know, had been back and forth throughout the Middle-East and North Africa since the midpoint of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama supported the Mujahideen (or, well, the more radicalized sections of it anyways) and took part in the combat. Osama was downright furious with the arrival of the Coalition in Saudi Arabia, as Osama had originally planned to pledge a region-wide Jihad against Saddam Hussein. Yes, you read that right, a [I]Jihad[/I] against Iraq. The reason behind the Saudis refusal to allow for Jihad isn't really well known, but the usual agreed-upon region is that causing a religious conflict was not in their interests, and the Saudis doubted Osama's ability to wage war. Skipping a few years ahead, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Osama was finally able to make his move. Supporting various al-Qaeda aligned groups (al-Qaeda never really had a foothold in Iraq, but was instead just a cadre of Osama-friendly insurgent groups), Osama was able to get a radicalized, Anti-Western ball rolling. In his early years of waging his insurgent/terror campaign against the west, Osama was pushing for the West (US mainly) to leave the Middle-East and Muslim world as a whole to its own devices. But the real push that Osama had was to remove "false Muslims" from the region. This list included Saddam, the Baathists of Syria and, you guessed it, the Saudis. Of course, over time, this view mutated into a worldwide Jihad against Western values and non-Islamic views, but at its core, Osama wanted a strong, independent, conservative-minded Middle-East that could stand up to foreign intervention. Now, at the start of the Syrian Civil war, this whole timeline starts to get fuzzy, as all of our details aren't exactly on point. ISIS was born from one of those al-Qaeda friendly insurgent groups in Iraq, and managed to hitch a ride on the wave of Islamism in Syria once the anti-Assad parties began infighting. ISIS rides on the coat-tails of Islamic extremism, and many of that extremism comes from the lack of progress from secular governments in, you guessed it: Baathist countries. al-Baghdadi's rhetoric is filled to the brim with some of the same reasoning that Osama had for the 'global jihad', but still sits on the idea of "false Muslims". With the Shia government doing next to nothing to try and rebuild Iraq, ISIS was very easily able to sway Sunni minority groups into the fold. As Godwin as it seems, there are a lot of connections to be made from the rise of ISIS to the rise of something like the Nazi party: Poor transition government, lack of economic progress, racial/cultural oppression and the power vacuum of a post-invasion nation. We cannot pinpoint whose fault it was that created ISIS. You can blame just about everyone except Tuvalu, essentially. The people we can blame are the people who allowed ISIS to get to the blitzkrieg-esque momentum that they have today, which would be the Shia government of Iraq. I'm not trying to lift the blame off of the Coalition and put it on someone else. Nobody knew the consequences of '03 at the time, and even if we did, we'd still be hard pressed not to invade. TL;DR: The place is a mess not because of one group or another, but because groups cannot get along properly, and probably never will.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48061886]I'll take "Never actually read up on mid-east history" for 500, Alex. The ba'athists were what caused this whole mess in the first place, since they constantly put a boot to the throat of progress or peacemaking in any way through horrific persecution and seemingly ritualistic slaughter. [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] The insurgency after Saddam Hussein was not the direct cause of him not being in power or because there wasn't authoritarianism in Iraq, it was because there were 30+ years of internal religious, ethnic, cultural and political divides that were allowed to fester under one of the most brutal regimes in world history. It was further enflamed by the presence of Al-Qaeda who felt that the regimes of those like Saddam and Assad were detrimental and [I]also felt the Saudis were too.[/I] Thinking that if you just slaughter innocents, gas civilians, murder protestors and reporters and refuse people the right to live as they wish is going to bring peace is an absolutely idiotic precedent and is an unhealthy way to think about how the world works.[/QUOTE] The Baath party was as good as the soviets at keeping down rebellion. I'd take a secular dictatorship contained within the arabian peninsula than a religious movement that shows no signs of stopping at iraqi borders, killing anyone considered haram. These islamists won't be satisfied with Iraq, or Syria. They won't be satisfied until the entire world over obeys the caliphate; until Iran no longer exists, mecca is demolished, israel has been wiped off the face of the earth, every christian, jew, homosexual, and non-wahabi muslim is dead. don't assume all countries are the same. Not everyone wants to have a western, secular life of being able to work a decent job and being able to vote and own property. The Arabian peninsula is not liberal, and it's not european. The rebels don't want freedom, they want to be in power and nothing more. You can't educate them, you can't reason with them, you can't give them what they want and hope they realize that there are more important things in life than Allah. You can only oppress them. Maybe when the Arabian peninsula has reached a stage in economic development when they arrive at western liberal ideas of democracy and secularism on their own, they can be trusted with a democracy. Until then, the only thing that works with third world countries is third world dictators. I'd like to point out that while that serb guy up there was trying to say all muslims are violent, his statistics can't be argued with; most of the arabian peninsula is extremely right wing. They're radicals. [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] sure go ahead and rate someone dumb because you disagree with them (note: theres a big red x for "disagree")

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;48060154]Lmao your post is so retarded that I don't even know what to say. First of, US did not have it's government toppled nor did it have foreign intervention on it's territory under the guise of "protecting democracy" and second of all that attack wasn't religiously motivated at all but it's kinda cute how you tried to link it up just because it happened in the church.[/QUOTE] Terrorism is a violent act against a non-combatant populace with the intent to further any political, religious, or [I]ethnic[/I] agenda through the fear it causes.