[AnonCoward42]

> This is because civil rights are a Western ideology. They certainly didn't come from ISIS' views on women. Nor from Russia and China, who supported them.

How do you come to the conclusion that Russia and China support ISIS?

[trimethylpurine]

The insurgency was armed with Russian and Chinese equipment that was given to Iraq between 2003 and 2009.

You can read about the Iraqi Insurgency for more information.

But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

[AnonCoward42]

They "use the equipment" and actual support are not the same. Did they arm ISIS directly or did the weapons end up there a different way?

> But more generally, US, China, Russia have all been fighting/arming proxy wars over there for around 50 years.

But supporting terrorist groups is not something Russia nor China does on this level.

[trimethylpurine]

Yes, they armed them directly.

Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent. But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

The West represents civil rights. That's just as fact. Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations? Obviously not.

[AnonCoward42]

> Yes, they armed them directly.

Of course I want a source for that.

> Yes they supported terrorist groups. As did the US. No one is innocent.

How are "we" supposed to be better then?

> But the US has always supported democracy and civil rights. That includes civil rights activism deemed "terrorist" by China and Russia.

Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are civil rights activits for the US (sold as "moderate rebels" in Syria by German media at least). Of course they are deemed terrorists in other countries. I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.

> Ask yourself, are people enjoying civil rights in China or Russia living with a quality of life far below Western nations?

I ask myself if I do enjoy civil rights if I hold dissident opinions in western countries. Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries, while it's obvious that we target 3rd world country standards for human rights?

[trimethylpurine]

>Of course I want a source for that.

This makes me feel like you didn't read my replies. If you read even a little bit about the Iraqi Insurgency you wouldn't be asking for a source. It's on Wikipedia, a bunch of sources at the bottom. It's on other encyclopedia pages. Plenty of articles. Etc. I don't believe that you didn't find it.

>How are "we" supposed to be better then?

Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights. When the US helped AQ it was under the premise that they would support civil rights. When they didn't, the West labeled them terrorists.

>I find the civil right activism of the US questionable to say the least.

I see, but ISIS and AQ are deserving of awards in that department? That's laughable. These are groups that televise beheadings, and treat women worse than the West treats animals. And this is glamorized. Is anti civil rights behavior glamorized in the US? Of course not. The very definition of civil rights is at odds with non Western society. And that's true whether or not you believe that the US is committing acts outside those values. The point is, if it's done, then it's done in secret, which is at the least preventing its promotion in society.

>Am I supposed to feel better that it is supposedly worse in other countries...

Obviously. Less worse = better. Why would you want it to be worse? What did you mean by "supposedly?" Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? That's ridiculous. Does the US stone women for adultery? Jail women for showing their body? Amputate limbs for theft? You can't be seriously pushing for that to be called civil rights. Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.

[AnonCoward42]

> It's on Wikipedia [...]

Hitchen's Razor; argument dismissed.

> Who said anything about being better? I said the US has always supported civil rights.

You implied it and you are doing it in your last paragraph again.

> Are you trying to sell me that AQ and ISIS treat women better than the US government treats its citizens? [...]

I am trying to say that you are hanging the bar so low, that you can get away with 3rd world standards (for civil rights). With your question series you are just describing islamic countries and not all 3rd world countries are islamic.

> Those are blatantly in opposition of civil rights. Those 100% are anti Western ideals.

Motte-and-bailey for civil rights and you again try to sell me that we are better. The west is not better and we should stop meddling in internal affairs of foreign countries. I can't blame them for anti-western sentiment.