Discussion in 'The War Room' started by liquidfire, Jun 21, 2014.
No I haven't, but thanks i'll definitely take a look.
Why delete: "scholars have repeatedly shown that this is myth"
What incident and evidence, please?
I deleted it because it was repetitive of my opening sentence (saying this was myth), and also made little grammatical sense when repeated in that second paragraph.
At any rate, you can just read that Wiki link I included in my post, but if you would like it cut-and-pasted:
"Disease as a potential weapon against Native Americans
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
But as I say, the broader problem is that smallpox spread like wildfire throughout North and South America from the moment the Spanish first set foot there. It spread amongst allies, it spread amongst enemies, it spread amongst labor forces to the despair of the Spanish, it spread no matter what anybody did.
Much of the reason the African slave trade became so huge was because Indian populations died too quickly from disease. Turning to Africans as the labor force wasn't because the Europeans wanted to be nice to the Indians, it's because .... horribly enough ... the Indians kept dying at impossible rates. It was an unspeakable horror, but in large part it resulted from the evolution of "super diseases" in the Eurasian land mass, diseases that the Indians had zero defense against.
Similarly, syphilis spread like wildfire among Europeans. This wasn't because Indians were attempting to plague Europe. It's because when you mix two populations that have been isolated for tens of thousands of years, while undergoing dramatic changes and explosive growth, disease is gonna disease. Jared Diamond explains rather capably in Guns, Germs, and Steel why Eurasian diseases proved far deadlier than American diseases.
Not only is there no evidence to suggest that these colossal plagues were engineered, there's no evidence that people even knew enough about disease at the time to engineer them.
Sykes-Picot Agreement doesn't explain the backwardness and brutality of the Sunni society. What excuse do the Islamist fundamentalist have that are not from Syria/Iraq?
I'm interested how they were proved false considering there were 3 letters to Amherst by his minions stating they provided Aboriginals with blankets and other provisions during a peace talk meeting during the Siege/Pontiac's Rebellion. They allegedly did this without Amherst's orders and this direction:
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." — Jeffery Amherst
Was given after Amherst's minions had already done so
That wiki article gives links to academic articles on the subject, and they are pretty widely available on the web, I've read them before.
Ultimately I think it's possible that there was intentional disease spread in a couple incidents, though there isn't good evidence of it that I've seen; Amherst is as close as anybody's been able to dredge up. But the problem is that such incidents were a drop in the bucket compared to the centuries of history of disease, which spread like wildfire no matter what anybody did and regardless of their intent (just as it had spread in Europe, no less).
Just in. Al-Maliki is finally doing right thing, reportedly stepping down.
Well that's good. I didn't think he would put up a fight. The military build up in Baghdad was just a precaution / show of force.
I wonder what will happen to the Isis around Irag and Seria.
Can the Iraq armies destroy them to insignificant levels? Only the Jahadist will comfortable to live near the ISILs
oh liquid fire should love this lol
I agree about the documentary being fascinating. What I gathered from watching it was that most of the Sunni population looked to be genuinely supporting and agreeing with most of the procedures ISIS are bringing in. However, the part where VICE News were talking to prisoners of the Islamic State I don't think is credible at all, as them people where almost certainly pressured/intimidated into saying that stuff.
But, yeah all round I found it to be a very interesting mini documentary.
Some of liquidfire's super pickups in actions
The intentional misspelling of words is, I find, a lot like small dogs - by which I mean not as cute as a lot people seem to think and the more you see it, the more you realize it's actually pretty fucking annoying.
What do you mean by ISILs? Do yo mean ISIL? As in ISIS, the terrorist group also known as ISIL? You see, I'm confused, because you already referred to them as ISIS. If so, pick one name and stick with it.
and it's not "the ISIS" or "the ISIL". It's just ISIS or ISIL. No "the" required. I've checked some of your other posts and you seem to have no problem with English when you want to so this seems to be intentional on your part.
As far as answering your actual question, as they stand right now, the Iraqi Army doesn't seem to be able to beat ISIS - but the issue seems to be as much about morale as anything else.
If there was a more inclusive Iraqi government and military, I think Sunni and Shias forces, along with the Kurdish Peshmerga and some U.S./U.K. operational and intel assistance, could take ISIS.
Al-Baghdadi's time is running out anyway, as it is. There's a U.S. drone bomb or Iraqi airforce bomb with his name on it. It's really just a matter of time. The bigger issue is dealing with more organized ISIS and ISIS-allied forces, such as those being assisted by ex-Baathist military.
Why would saying/writing "the ISIS/the ISIS's" be incorrect? Would that not be the exact same as saying "the USA/the USA's"?
I think it's a little grammatically superfluous. It depends on how it's being used. If you're talking about for instance the stationing of troops on a border, most people would say:
U.S. troops are stationed on a border
ISIS militants are stationed on a border.
I guess, you could say "The U.S. troops are stationed on a border." or "The ISIS militants are stationed on a border." I don't think it's necessary though, but on second look, as a subject rather than a direct object, I guess it's O.K. But if the abbreviation is the direct object (the noun things are happening to e.g. "I wonder what would happen to the ISIS") then it looks and sounds very weird.
It's understood in abbreviations that articles and prepositions are often meant without having to be said. "The" is a little different and depends on how the abbreviated proper noun is being used but in the context he/she used it, it was unnecessary. When people say U.S./US or U.S.A./USA, it's understood that "the United States (of America)" is what is meant. Likewise when someone says ISIS, it's understood that what is meant is "the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham". With ISIL it's obvious that what is meant is "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".
With that said, saying:
"I wonder what would happen to the ISIS.." is really saying: "I wonder what would happen to the the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria...."
"I wonder what would happen to ISIS..." is enough.
I thought the same thing about the Palestinians. On YouTube videos they look whiter than how they are portrayed on US media.
I'm glad you guys brought this up because as we all know what color people's hair, eyes, and skin are is so much more an important criterium in how we should analyze and feel about what's happening to people than the things themselves actually being done to people.
Good direction to take the discussion in.
It was merely an off topic comment I made. It was not an indication of bias when discussing this subject, but just an off topic comment. I did not know where else to include it.
Separate names with a comma.