Paris Terror Attacks

[Pax]

and to clarify: No, I don't support the things Ibrahim is posting in this thread.

 

I just think you guys are acting ridiculous regardless of them

Edited November 16, 2015 by Pax

[Rozalia]

Are you guys actually serious?

 

I get that Ibrahim is good at upsetting people, but sitting here advocating the burning of a city with over 200,000 civilians is screwed up regardless of which side it was on. If that ever happened the other way around there would be an international uproar. Not everyone over there, shit, not even a majority of people over there support the cause of ISIS or do any of the !@#$ed up things that a reasonable person would advocate against. It's a massacre of more people than ISIS has killed in total

 

Ya'll need to chill just as much as he does, everybody goes full retard the second he posts.

 

Uh, if you read my post you'd quite easily see I'm merely using his own logic that he used previously. 

[Pax]

Uh, if you read my post you'd quite easily see I'm merely using his own logic that he used previously. 

 

It was mostly directed at Harms, who seems to be advocating for bombing the entire city. In the context, your posts also appeared to be supporting that stance, though that isn't entirely clear.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Pax

[Rozalia]

It was mostly directed at Harms, who seems to be advocating for bombing the entire city. In the context, your posts also appeared to be supporting that stance, though that isn't entirely clear.

 

Or enemy combatants as you'd call them. They're in Raqqa and not killing ISIS so clearly they are all enemy combats, that was your logic to justify ISIS killing museum managers and such wasn't it? Or are you saying the populace there do not support the gallant ISIS?

 

I quite clearly wasn't, merely mentioning that Ibrahim should be all for it as it's perfectly fine when ISIS does it. He isn't okay with it of course and tries to pass it off as "think of the children", but really it's "think of ISIS". 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I seem to bring out peoples true colours like nothing else.    

 

Both John Harms and Rozalia have advocated for genocide: This is not the first time nor will it be the last.

[Pax]

 

Cute. Lunatics dying in Raqqa == civilians dying in Paris.

 

 

This was the post I was primarily referring to, Rozalia. It does seem iffy given the context, but alright.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Civilians have died in Raqqa due to Coalition bombings. That's what happens when you bomb urban centres... you get civilian casualties. 

[Rozalia]

I seem to bring out peoples true colours like nothing else.    

 

Both John Harms and Rozalia have advocated for genocide: This is not the first time nor will it be the last.

 

 

This was the post I was primarily referring to, Rozalia. It does seem iffy given the context, but alright.

 

You seem to have a large misunderstanding here of my statements and just who Ibrahim is actually referring to. He speaks civilians because he has to mask his support in some manner. In the past he has revelled in the deaths of civilians stating they were deserved for being "enemy combatants" or "apostates", and in cases where it was women and children he simply pretended it didn't happen. Based off that I know when he talks of people dying in Raqqa he refers to his idols, ISIS, for he cares for no one else in Raqqa. If he cared about civilians he would have condemned ISIS, but he didn't for they don't matter to him except for when he deceptively tries to get people like you on side. 

 

As such going by the context of just who Ibrahim cares about in Raqqa, I stand by the statement. Lunatics dying in Raqqa is not comparable to civilians dying in Paris. 

[Pax]

I don't support a lot of what Ibrahim posts, as he often posts things that I consider over the line - I just think it's important to note a distinction between advocating for attacks on members of ISIS and attacks on civilians.

 

The discussion of bombing cities like that is still a difficult one (notably that civilian casualties are always likely in such attacks), but it's a very different one in comparison to direct attacks on civilians and I think posts like Harms' are out of place in any situation.

[Spite]

http://goo.gl/mrUHdu

[Rozalia]

http://goo.gl/mrUHdu

 

Who is that in response to exactly?

[Spite]

I just thought I'd leave it there for people to reflect on. After all, nobody wants to accidentally come across as an absolute !@#$ing moron do they.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I don't support a lot of what Ibrahim posts, as he often posts things that I consider over the line - I just think it's important to note a distinction between advocating for attacks on members of ISIS and attacks on civilians.

 

The discussion of bombing cities like that is still a difficult one (notably that civilian casualties are always likely in such attacks), but it's a very different one in comparison to direct attacks on civilians and I think posts like Harms' are out of place in any situation.

Maybe you aren't informed that Raqqa (current capital of ISIS/ISIL) is the largest and most secured stronghold they have. Why shouldn't the French Government bomb it? Most of the attacks are on ISIS POSITIONS in the city, it's not like they're bombing markets like Assad is doing. They're not bombing Hospitals like U.S.A did in Afghanistan. 

 

Now, as you noted civilian casualities, are always going to be the risk, it's warfare, not your walk in the park. I believe it's well worth the risk, I rather have some small amount of casualities, compared to the damage ISIS will do, and is currently doing. Beheadings, throwing people over a cliff, and shooting them isn't justified. You of all people should know this, but then again, you've never been in our arguments to even make an correct judgement. 

[Big Brother]

While the loss of human life is always a tragedy, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion due to the overdose of information we're receiving about it.

 

Compared to the millions of people who have been slaughtered fighting for their respective governments and countries, this is hardly even noticeable. Heart disease and car accidents kill more people than terrorism does. No Western country is actually under any significant threat from any terrorist organization, we're not fighting a war between cultures or civilizations and the vast majority of refugees that come to Europe aren't out to hurt Europeans. We're not in some grand struggle for existence of Western civilization.

 

Attacks like these aren't just meant to kill, they're meant to polarize our societies, to make us see enemies where there are none. Daesh would like nothing more for us to actually buy into the narrative that Muslims are the bad guys and Non-Muslim Westerners are the good guys. If we do what they want, if we buy into that narrative and become bigoted idiots who believe it's okay to mindlessly murder and repress Muslims, that's good for them because then they gain support and strength. They will have a much easier time recruiting Muslims if Muslims are actually being persecuted in the countries they live in simply because you know, persecution tends to piss people off. And when people are pissed off and get their panties all in a bunch (like a lot of people who posted in this thread), they're suddenly a lot more okay with murdering people who aren't actually that much different from themselves.

 

Let's not sink to their level, just keep calm and carry on.

 

@Rozalia

I don't remember if it was this thread or the other one just like this one but whenever you mention immigration to Europe, you make it seem like there are absolutely no rules whatsoever regarding who's actually allowed to remain in the Schengen Area and who isn't. You realize that's not the case, right? You know there's all kinds of conditions and criteria refugees need to meet?

 

Oh and about the whole "refugees should stay and fight" thing, why don't you try having your home turned into a warzone of pure death and destruction before you start giving people crap for attempting to flee places like that. You usually have pretty good opinions but that's some ignorant nonsense right there.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Big Brother

[Rozalia]

While the loss of human life is always a tragedy, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion due to the overdose of information we're receiving about it.

 

Compared to the millions of people who have been slaughtered fighting for their respective governments and countries, this is hardly even noticeable. Heart disease and car accidents kill more people than terrorism do. No Western country is actually under any significant threat from any terrorist organization, we're not fighting a war between cultures or civilizations and the vast majority of refugees that come to Europe aren't out to hurt Europeans. We're not in some grand struggle for existence of Western civilization.

 

Attacks like these aren't just meant to kill, they're meant to polarize our societies, to make us see enemies where there are none. Daesh would like nothing more for us to actually buy into the narrative that Muslims are the bad guys and Non-Muslim Westerners are the good guys. If we do what they want, if we buy into that narrative and become bigoted idiots who believe it's okay to mindlessly murder and repress Muslims, that's good for them because then they gain support and strength. They will have a much easier time recruiting Muslims if Muslims are actually being persecuted in the countries they live in simply because you know, persecution tends to piss people off. And when people are pissed off and get their panties all in a bunch (like a lot of people who posted in this thread), they're suddenly a lot more okay with murdering people who aren't actually that much different from themselves.

 

Let's not sink to their level, just keep calm and carry on.

 

@Rozalia

I don't remember if it was this thread or the other one just like this one but whenever you mention immigration to Europe, you make it seem like there are absolutely no rules whatsoever regarding who's actually allowed to remain in the Schengen Area and who isn't. You realize that's not the case, right? You know there's all kinds of conditions and criteria refugees need to meet?

 

Oh and about the whole "refugees should stay and fight" thing, why don't you try having your home turned into a warzone of pure death and destruction before you start giving people crap for attempting to flee places like that. You usually have pretty good opinions but that's some ignorant nonsense right there.

 

There is liberal values, and then there is the do nothing attitude that the bad men will go away if we keep being nice. It's like the argument against declaring full on war on ISIS and sending in enough forces to crush those lunatics at last, in that it'd legitmise ISIS's state which is what they want and so on which... who cares really? Alright we'll confirm something that exists on the ground already... and then send it into the dustbin of history. 

 

I'm aware of the caveats, but also aware that people are not being checked and that work could have been to keep people in camps like many are. 

 

I don't think not having experienced my home being a war zone matters on if I can or can't have an opinion on the matter, by all accounts it can colour it but nothing more. ISIS is an evil army, no redeeming features whatsoever. Were it strictly political? Yes I can fully understand, but against a genocidal army that will kill all the minorities, enslave people, and whose stated goal is endless war to genocide people elsewhere? That is something you take a stand against. Of course none of this is helped by the west aiding another third army of mostly lunatics to push their regime change, so we can start by getting those guys to surrender to Assad first if we want to get serious with ISIS. 

 

I'll admit I'm inflamed a bit, as I deserve to be. Politicians made the stupid decisions I've (with many others) criticised since the beginning and as always it's getting civilians killed. I am only thankful events in Britain and then America stopped them (and France) bombing Assad full on as ISIS would definitely have full control of Syria if they had, small mercies and all that. 

[Jroc]

But, this is what ISIS wants, they want us to stigmatize Muslims and they want portions of our society to move towards boots on the grounds and to even advocate genocide. Why? Because it would make them martyrs and it would allow for them to kill us on their terms.

 

But, what we cannot let them do, is allow us to dehumanize our fellow earth-lings. Its a pain to see our own die, our allies die, and it should be a pain to see innocent civilians die. They want Muslims to be persecuted and to be hated and mistrusted because this is where extremism grows. 

 

What is the best response to terrorism? Doing what they wanted us to not do. Go out and embrace your fellow man rather he be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Bhuddist, or what have you. We only let the terrorists win, when we have sub-combed to fear. 

[Rozalia]

But, this is what ISIS wants, they want us to stigmatize Muslims and they want portions of our society to move towards boots on the grounds and to even advocate genocide. Why? Because it would make them martyrs and it would allow for them to kill us on their terms.

 

But, what we cannot let them do, is allow us to dehumanize our fellow earth-lings. Its a pain to see our own die, our allies die, and it should be a pain to see innocent civilians die. They want Muslims to be persecuted and to be hated and mistrusted because this is where extremism grows. 

 

What is the best response to terrorism? Doing what they wanted us to not do. Go out and embrace your fellow man rather he be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Bhuddist, or what have you. We only let the terrorists win, when we have sub-combed to fear. 

 

I think the constant jump to genocide is distracting. No one here has called for genocide on Muslims, heck no one has even called for the deporting of Muslims en masse either. 

 

The most "aggressive" thing has been me saying Islam in European countries should be reformed, and that would be a tool to doing exactly as you want. It reduces the chance of people having vile thoughts, and additionally calms down the non followers by making a clear distinctions between the "good" Muslims and the "bad" ones. Currently the "common man" sees no difference between the two, and believes those who aren't calling for X things are simply not voicing their belief (but do believe in it).

 

Basically what I'm saying is they should show, not tell. That is radical, especially in a religion like Islam I know, but better to do something like that then do nothing and help along the worse case scenario for them. Which is certain parties coming to power and then making mass deportation/imprisonment/discrimination/genocide happen. 

[Jroc]

I think the constant jump to genocide is distracting. No one here has called for genocide on Muslims, heck no one has even called for the deporting of Muslims en masse either. 

 

The most "aggressive" thing has been me saying Islam in European countries should be reformed, and that would be a tool to doing exactly as you want. It reduces the chance of people having vile thoughts, and additionally calms down the non followers by making a clear distinctions between the "good" Muslims and the "bad" ones. Currently the "common man" sees no difference between the two, and believes those who aren't calling for X things are simply not voicing their belief (but do believe in it).

 

Basically what I'm saying is they should show, not tell. That is radical, especially in a religion like Islam I know, but better to do something like that then do nothing and help along the worse case scenario for them. Which is certain parties coming to power and then making mass deportation/imprisonment/discrimination/genocide happen. 

 

 

But, Islam is not the problem. Ignorance is, Islam should not have to reform itself, to make us happy. Its a religion of peace and understanding regardless of what Wahabiasts, ISIS, AL-Qadia thinks, they have taken the words of the Quaran and have twisted them. 

 

Most, if not all, Islamic scholars has issued a Fatwa again ISIS.

 

Islam is not the problem, you are the problem by giving credence to the alleged fact that ISIS follows the Quaran, which it doesn't. 

 

Maybe you should stop reading The Atlantic too

Edited November 16, 2015 by Jroc

[Spite]

To be fair you did suggest that reintroducing fascism to Europe was the answer to Islamic extremism. I'd say that was the most "aggressive" thing you've said.

[Rozalia]

But, Islam is not the problem. Ignorance is, Islam should not have to reform itself, to make us happy. Its a religion of peace and understanding regardless of what Wahabiasts, ISIS, AL-Qadia thinks, they have taken the words of the Quaran and have twisted them. 

 

Most, if not all, Islamic scholars has issued a Fatwa again ISIS.

 

Islam is not the problem, you are the problem by giving credence to the fact that ISIS follows the Quaran, which it doesn't. 

 

Maybe you should stop reading The Atlantic too

 

How blasé. 

 

Muslims do not believe in killing homosexuals, apostates, Sharia, so on yes? Then discarding parts of the religion should be no issue. The current mindset is all to do with Islam is true and correct, and that includes the bad parts such as the Hadiths (not to say all of them of course). Saying is not enough, show, don't tell us how divorced they are.  

 

No they follow the Quran, I agree with Ibrahim on that. Hint, it's why they're called fundamentalists. If what you say is true... then Muslim leaders in Europe will have no problem branding the fundamentalist states in the middle east as apostates... what do you think?

 

To be fair you did suggest that reintroducing fascism to Europe was the answer to Islamic extremism. I'd say that was the most "aggressive" thing you've said.

 

I don't remember the exact words I used, but yes ultimately if that is what it takes to solve a problem then I don't shy away from it though fascist doesn't == genocide to be clear. I'd not support the mass killing or deportation of fellow countrymen. It's why I'm suggesting an idea to stop it getting to that point, because it will if things keep going as they are. 

[Jroc]

How blasé. 

 

Muslims do not believe in killing homosexuals, apostates, Sharia, so on yes? Then discarding parts of the religion should be no issue. The current mindset is all to do with Islam is true and correct, and that includes the bad parts such as the Hadiths (not to say all of them of course). Saying is not enough, show, don't tell us how divorced they are.  

 

No they follow the Quran, I agree with Ibrahim on that. Hint, it's why they're called fundamentalists. If what you say is true... then Muslim leaders in Europe will have no problem branding the fundamentalist states in the middle east as apostates... what do you think?

 

 

I don't remember the exact words I used, but yes ultimately if that is what it takes to solve a problem then I don't shy away from it though fascist doesn't == genocide to be clear. I'd not support the mass killing or deportation of fellow countrymen. It's why I'm suggesting an idea to stop it getting to that point, because it will if things keep going as they are. 

 

Maybe you should research before you go talking.

 

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/02/06/3-quranic-verses-that-prove-isis-is-un-islamic/36096

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/you-only-need-to-read-these-passages-from-the-koran-to-realise-that-theres-nothing-islamic-about-the-10056772.html

 

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

 

ISIS is not representative of true Islam nor do they follow its teachings. 

[Big Brother]

There is liberal values, and then there is the do nothing attitude that the bad men will go away if we keep being nice. It's like the argument against declaring full on war on ISIS and sending in enough forces to crush those lunatics at last, in that it'd legitmise ISIS's state which is what they want and so on which... who cares really? Alright we'll confirm something that exists on the ground already... and then send it into the dustbin of history. 

 

I'm aware of the caveats, but also aware that people are not being checked and that work could have been to keep people in camps like many are. 

 

I don't think not having experienced my home being a war zone matters on if I can or can't have an opinion on the matter, by all accounts it can colour it but nothing more. ISIS is an evil army, no redeeming features whatsoever. Were it strictly political? Yes I can fully understand, but against a genocidal army that will kill all the minorities, enslave people, and whose stated goal is endless war to genocide people elsewhere? That is something you take a stand against. Of course none of this is helped by the west aiding another third army of mostly lunatics to push their regime change, so we can start by getting those guys to surrender to Assad first if we want to get serious with ISIS. 

 

I'll admit I'm inflamed a bit, as I deserve to be. Politicians made the stupid decisions I've (with many others) criticised since the beginning and as always it's getting civilians killed. I am only thankful events in Britain and then America stopped them (and France) bombing Assad full on as ISIS would definitely have full control of Syria if they had, small mercies and all that. 

 

I never said we shouldn't do anything. The problem with fighting Daesh on the ground where they are located, is that it's a place where Western military intervention is always perceived negatively. We can't just barge into the Middle East, kill a bunch of people, hustle out and expect everything to be okay. That's exactly how you create a new generation of terrorists, by applying deadly force and nothing else. And as Jroc pointed out, this is exactly what they want us to do, nothing could be more useful for Daesh recruitment purposes than a prolonged Western campaign in Iraq and Syria, which Daesh will undoubtedly present as a new crusade against them. I wish it was as simple as just sending them to the dustbin of history like you said, but it's not, and there won't be an easy solution. We've been messing with the Middle East ever since Britain and France decided to draw their ridiculously arbitrary borders, and it's going to take more than bombs and bullets to mend the situation.

 

"I'm aware of the caveats, but also aware that people are not being checked and that work could have been to keep people in camps like many are."

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "that work could have been to keep people in camps like many are". Sure some people aren't getting checked but that's not an issue connected to lack of.. protocol or rules, it's more an issue connected to lack of resources and capacity.

 

And actually, I do think whether or not you've experienced having your home turned into a warzone matters. You cannot possibly grasp what that is like, what those people feel and think, what they have been through and least of all what their motivations are. It's completely ludicrous to genuinely believe that the refugees would be better off in their homeland taking a stand, and equally ludicrous to blame someone for wanting to leave a god damn warzone. Do you have any idea how many of the refugees are women or single underage boys and girls who have been separated from their parents? Are they supposed to take up arms and make a stand against Assad's aircraft and Daesh's armored vehicles? What about the people who straight up can't or don't know how to fight (which is usually the case with civilian refugees)? What about the people who just don't want to fight a war (because war is awful)? Do you really blame them for not wanting to go through that? I don't. No one should. It's not reasonable to judge people for not wanting to suffer and die.

 

You cannot grasp their situation, you cannot even begin to put yourself in their footsteps, so don't pretend you know what is best for them and their families.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Big Brother

[Rozalia]

Maybe you should research before you go talking.

 

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/02/06/3-quranic-verses-that-prove-isis-is-un-islamic/36096

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/you-only-need-to-read-these-passages-from-the-koran-to-realise-that-theres-nothing-islamic-about-the-10056772.html

 

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

 

ISIS is not representative of true Islam nor do they follow its teachings. 

 

Islam is more then the Quran, try again. Unless you're saying Muslims in Europe are all Quranist of course, but I doubt it. 

 

I never said we shouldn't do anything. The problem with fighting Daesh on the ground where they are located, is that it's a place where Western military intervention is always perceived negatively. We can't just barge into the Middle East, kill a bunch of people, hustle out and expect everything to be okay. That's exactly how you create a new generation of terrorists, by applying deadly force and nothing else. And as Jroc pointed out, this is exactly what they want us to do, nothing could be more useful for Daesh recruitment purposes than a prolonged Western campaign in Iraq and Syria, which Daesh will undoubtedly present as a new crusade against them. I wish it was as simple as just sending them to the dustbin of history like you said, but it's not, and there won't be an easy solution. We've been messing with the Middle East ever since Britain and France decided to draw their ridiculously arbitrary borders, and it's going to take more than bombs and bullets to mend the situation.

 

Iraq people were against. Happened. Afghanistan people were against. Happened. Libya people were against. Happened. Syria people were against. Thankfully the worst was averted, but they still support those "moderates".

I knew all those moves were wrong and would cause stuff like this, but with taking out ISIS? I see no problem there, you go in, help Assad/Kurds/you get the picture. Let Assad/Kurds establish their state fully (once again in Assad's case) and there you go, bobs your uncle. They'll serve as a bulwark against anymore such fanatical uprisings, something they would have done if the west hadn't helped ISIS rise up in the first place.

 

Russia is already there and willing. If America didn't keep trying to salvage their investment in their own group of fanatics in Syria all this would have been over with already. 

 

Not sure what you mean by "that work could have been to keep people in camps like many are". Sure some people aren't getting checked but that's not an issue connected to lack of.. protocol or rules, it's more an issue connected to lack of resources and capacity.

 

And actually, I do think whether or not you've experienced having your home turned into a warzone matters. You cannot possibly grasp what that is like, what those people feel and think, what they have been through and least of all what their motivations are. It's completely ludicrous to genuinely believe that the refugees would be better off in their homeland taking a stand, and equally ludicrous to blame someone for wanting to leave a god damn warzone. Do you have any idea how many of the refugees are women or single underage boys and girls who have been separated from their parents? Are they supposed to take up arms and make a stand against Assad's aircraft and Daesh's armored vehicles? What about the people who straight up can't or don't know how to fight (which is usually the case with civilian refugees)? What about the people who just don't want to fight a war (because war is awful)? Do you really blame them for not wanting to go through that? I don't. No one should. It's not reasonable to judge people for not wanting to suffer and die.

 

You cannot grasp their situation, you cannot even begin to put yourself in their footsteps, so don't pretend you know what is best for them and their families.

 

Are you saying Russia/China/Britain should have just surrendered in the world war and let the Axis win? After all, no need to fight, you can just run. 

 

I see a lot more men than women and children in images/videos/reports not that I think the gender has much to do with it, the women should be fighting too as I don't discriminate. When the Germans advanced forward more and more in their conquest, Russian women didn't all flee, they fought. Just an example for you. I've seen reports of Kurdish women fighting for example which is a good example of such a thing too. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

To be fair you did suggest that reintroducing fascism to Europe was the answer to Islamic extremism. I'd say that was the most "aggressive" thing you've said.

No one here is stating they want "Fascism to return to Europe" you're just jumping to conclusions.

 

As much as I want Fascism in Europe once again, no one here is implying it.

 

Now onto genocide, you're just assuming that, due to some people stating that early in this thread.

 

I have yet to call on genocide of any minority in the world. 

[Big Brother]

Iraq people were against. Happened. Afghanistan people were against. Happened. Libya people were against. Happened. Syria people were against. Thankfully the worst was averted, but they still support those "moderates".

I knew all those moves were wrong and would cause stuff like this, but with taking out ISIS? I see no problem there, you go in, help Assad/Kurds/you get the picture. Let Assad/Kurds establish their state fully (once again in Assad's case) and there you go, bobs your uncle. They'll serve as a bulwark against anymore such fanatical uprisings, something they would have done if the west hadn't helped ISIS rise up in the first place.

 

Russia is already there and willing. If America didn't keep trying to salvage their investment in their own group of fanatics in Syria all this would have been over with already.

 

Here's the thing; just because you don't see a problem with it, doesn't mean other people won't. You know just as well as I that Western military intervention in the Middle East has always led to animosity and more problems. And see, if people like Assad are such effective bulwarks against fanatical uprisings, how did the current ongoing uprising come into place to begin with? How did the situation get this bad? The answer is right there, it's because Assad isn't a good leader to have and because people like him aren't effective bulwarks against any kind of uprising, in fact people like him usually provoke uprisings.

 

Are you saying Russia/China/Britain should have just surrendered in the world war and let the Axis win? After all, no need to fight, you can just run. 

 

I see a lot more men than women and children in images/videos/reports not that I think the gender has much to do with it, the women should be fighting too as I don't discriminate. When the Germans advanced forward more and more in their conquest, Russian women didn't all flee, they fought. Just an example for you. I've seen reports of Kurdish women fighting for example which is a good example of such a thing too.

 

 

Dude that's a false equivalence and I don't know why you think World War II is the same as the Syrian Civil War (which is basically just a giant government conducted massacre).

 

World War II was a war by nation-states between nation-states. What's going on in Syria, whether you call it a civil war or systematic mass murder (the ruling minority Alawite party is pretty much massacring everyone Non-Alawite not working for them), is not the same.

 

Russia, China and Britain all had standing armies (armies that weren't fighting their own population), they all had civilian populations who lived and worked untouched by the war and they weren't fighting themselves in civil wars. And your example is only half right, when the Germans advanced quite a few people actually supported them (especially Ukrainians and the Baltic peoples), but that's besides the point. I guarantee you that plenty of women, men and children have fled every war that has ever happened, including World War II. If you think that literally every single woman in the Soviet Union fought and that none of them fled, then think again.

 

But yet again, this shouldn't really matter, because you really just can't blame someone for not wanting to spend their lives struggling in a demolished country where their basic needs are barely met, if at all, fighting ruthless enemies on all sides.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Big Brother