Jump to content

ISIS Declares Islamic State.


monty16

Recommended Posts

Wow, way to waste tax payer money on your nonsense delusions. Don't you think CSIS has better things to do?

It is only a waste if nothing worth pursuing is found. And I assume CSIS has a better view of what their role is than you do. They have been quite vigilant in the use of the Internet by subversives in Canada and do appreciate any assistance they can get from citizens.

Besides, why worry if there is nothing to hide? ;)

Edited by Big Guy

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW - Why are Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman, Eritrea, Dubai et al not sending troops to stop this 20,000 army that intends to take over the world? ISIS would certainly have to take them over before invading Canada.

1. It's cheaper to just let the West do it. Why would these countries need to get involved when they can just get the West to do their bidding? Saudi Arabia tried heavily for the US to invade Syria 1-2 years ago. Why do you think they rejected their UN security council seat a year ago after the West didn't do Saudi Arabia's bidding since Putin politically out-maneuvered the West?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-rejects-security-council-seat.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2. Countries that are Shia (Bahrain, Iran) might not help the situation if they fight ISIS since it might just increase religious tensions.

3. Some governments in some countries are sympathetic to the cause of ISIS. In particular, the ruling party of Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

4. Any regional Sunni country that does try to fight against ISIS runs a significant risk of creating terrorism and revolt at home. This would be especially concerning for authoritarian governments since many authoritarian governments have been overthrown in that region of the world recently (Lybia, twice in Egypt, Syrian civil war, Bahrain protests, Iraq, Tunisia, etc.). Even a country such as Saudi Arabia, despite their extreme conservatism, is thought of by many extremists as not being 'islamic' enough. The Saudi Arabia monarchy wants to hang on to power and trying to fight ISIS would be a huge risk for them, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy gevalt someone's using an English to Arabic translator...trust me Bug Guy its as nonsensical in Arabic as when you said it in English.

Ali? Yah I get it. Muhammed Ali of course.

Glad you got it Rude. Makes me feel a lot better.

Spent a few hours between football games reading, watching and listening to various responses to the latest Obama declaration to destroy ISIS. From what I could gather, the USA planning an air attack against what it thinks is ISIS in what is Iraq with no commitment from anyone (excluding of course that West-created crack Iraqi military machine whose wheels fell of and disappeared at the first contact) in ground support. If that attack was at all successful, it is anticipated by all, that ISIS would retreat temporarily into Syria.

Any bombing in the sovereign state of Syria would be a declaration of war by the USA against Syria and their allies – Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas. The USA could bomb in Syria if it had the OK, support and cooperation of Syria (and its allies – Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas).

I can see Israel going along with new “cooperative” and even sending ground troops to assist. :rolleyes:

And Harper wants to get us involved into that fiasco?

Good grief!!

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you got it Rude. Makes me feel a lot better.

Spent a few hours between football games reading, watching and listening to various responses to the latest Obama declaration to destroy ISIS. From what I could gather, the USA planning an air attack against what it thinks is ISIS in what is Iraq with no commitment from anyone (excluding of course that West-created crack Iraqi military machine whose wheels fell of and disappeared at the first contact) in ground support. If that attack was at all successful, it is anticipated by all, that ISIS would retreat temporarily into Syria.

Any bombing in the sovereign state of Syria would be a declaration of war by the USA against Syria and their allies – Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas. The USA could bomb in Syria if it had the OK, support and cooperation of Syria (and its allies – Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas).

I can see Israel going along with new “cooperative” and even sending ground troops to assist. :rolleyes:

And Harper wants to get us involved into that fiasco?

Good grief!!

Could be one of the first right things Harper has had the cajones to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be one of the first right things Harper has had the cajones to do.

What kind of cajones does anybody need to put other people into danger? Getting involved in a conflict is one of the easiest things a leader can do. If this Harper does it without a debate in parliament I hope that his son Ben (who is now 18years old) is one of the first to go. That would prove just how committed our PM is to this expedition.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of cajones does anybody need to put other people into danger? Getting involved in a conflict is one of the easiest things a leader can do. If this Harper does it without a debate in parliament I hope that his son Ben (who is now 18years old) is one of the first to go. That would prove just how committed our PM is to this expedition.

I'm not a big fan of Harper's but aside from that, how it works is he is the leader and someone has to be the leader and make decisions. You can't stear the ship and man the oars at the same time. At 18 yrs. Ben would be far too inexperienced to be part of the team that has been sent. He will need to clean a few latrines first if he enters the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of Harper's but aside from that, how it works is he is the leader and someone has to be the leader and make decisions. You can't stear the ship and man the oars at the same time. At 18 yrs. Ben would be far too inexperienced to be part of the team that has been sent. He will need to clean a few latrines first if he enters the military.

We obviously disagree greatly on what kind of military involvement Canada should have in the ISIS crisis. I think any involvement would be a mistake that will cost lives and money with no discernible benefits to Canada. You appear to disagree.

Only time will tell. I hope you are right.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We obviously disagree greatly on what kind of military involvement Canada should have in the ISIS crisis. I think any involvement would be a mistake that will cost lives and money with no discernible benefits to Canada. You appear to disagree.

Only time will tell. I hope you are right.

I hope I am too but I don't think there is much doubt ISIS needs to be stopped. Naval gazing won't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....If this Harper does it without a debate in parliament I hope that his son Ben (who is now 18years old) is one of the first to go. That would prove just how committed our PM is to this expedition.

Meh....PM Chretien didn't entertain any debate in Parliament before illegally bombing Serbia in 1999.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh....PM Chretien didn't entertain any debate in Parliament before illegally bombing Serbia in 1999.

Wasn't illegal at all. If it was, what were you guys doing there? I guess you are still trying to slither out of that Bush_Cheney war crimes thingy over Iraq. Which of course was illegal.

Edited by On Guard for Thee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dre I did not blame or even suggest Obama created the Sunni-Shiite civil war. Stop misstating what I said and trying to create a new meaning.

Better yet stick to trying to pedal your own opinions. Do not pose as if you restated what I said.

What I stated and I will state again is that the creation of ISIS not the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis or the centuries of infighting between Muslims as you wrongfully stated I said, . is a direct creation as a result of a policy of Obama and Erdogan. I was talking about the creation and evolution of the group known as ISIS not anything else and yes both Obama and Errdogan are directly responsible for its financing, training and original operations.

The two deliberately prevented aid from the original Sunnis fighting Assad and chose instead to side with the Muslim Brotherhood's choice, ISIS, which is in fact nothing more then an assortment of terror cells of Sunni extremists left over from the Iraq war including Al Quaeda its no.1 source of manpower. These are not Syrians but non Syrians.

Any idiot realizes the internal violence not just between Sunnis and Shiites, but between Shiites, between Sunnis, and between either Sunnis and Shiites with non Muslims has been going on since Islam evolved and began preaching that anyone who did not follow Muhammed's teachings was an infidel going to hell and not worthy of equal rights with Muslims.

Run along Dre and apologize for Hamas.

When Obama decided to support the Muslim Brotherhood and Erdogan and finance ISIS he triggered a chain reaction of empowerment among radical Sunni extremists instead of the Muslim utopia he and Erdogan envisioned.

Muslim extremist groups in the Middle East are a myriad of thousands of extremist cells, each with its own self appointed leader quoting the Koran. some have formed ISIS. The multiple cells in ISIS are a loose confederation with no central command.

They are coalitions that come together and separate non stop continually mutating in structure and size.

The only common pattern of ideology that has emerged in this maze of Muslim extremist rhetoric is a shared hatred of anything Western in value and the belief that the world must be ruled by a Muslim dhumma, one Muslim caliphate or state run my an Islamic council of clergymen following Sharia law. How that sharia law is to be interpreted differs between the sects but what they all agree on is that women are inferior, anyone non Muslim is inferior (a dhimmi or khafir) and thnon Muslims should pay a dhimmi tax to be allowed to live as non Muslims. They also believe all Jews, not just so called "Zionist" Jews are infidel who lie and follow the wrong son of Abraham and need to be cleansed off the planet.

The ideology is presented each day in the media, and in the speeches, statements, articles, and declarations of these groups.

Dre you have no clue what a Muslim extremist is let alone the origins of Islam. I doubt you even met a Muslim let alone a Jew.

You certainly never lived with either.

Run along Dre you can't figure out the stars aren't where you think they are when you gaze upon the horizon.

By the way Dre those are called figs and dates.

Genius. They are not wolves...Canaan Dogs.

Another genius who thinks he knows the desert.

My my! Look at all the bleating and wretching in there!

The reason ISIS exists and has been able to thrive and take territory is really simple... Theres 20 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria that have almost no real political power. ISIS has been building strength under the "Alqeada" banner since the invasion of Iraq, and became its own group in February. It gained a lot of power when the strife in Syria became a full on sectarian conflict and attracted volunteers from around the world. This is why they became prominent so fast. And the reason for their gains in Iraq is as I said before. Sunnis have given up on a central government in Iraq dominated by Shia and backed by Iran and the US.

Im sure you shake your fist at Mr Obama every time a raindrop hits you. Partisan hackery can be fun. But ISIS started in Iraq under the AQ banner, not in Syria, and they are the direct result of the decision to overthrow the baathists, and the sectarian war in Iraq that followed.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dre it would seem simple to you. Its all simple. You have it all figured out.

Here is your latest problems-you are presenting theories I have never discussed or disagreed with as if I have.

Say now you might want to check the direction of the wind before you start pissing.

Certai disenfranchised Sunni in Iraq are part of the constellation of terror cells that have formed ISIS.

I have never stated otherwise. No one has. However the actual evolution of ISIS to the cohesive structure it is including its name only evolve once Erdogan and Obama financed it and organized it into a more cohesive unit to attack Syria.

the only bleating and wretching once again comes from you complete with the exclamation marks and alpha male routine.

Grrr bark bark. Lol. Someone get me the fly swatter,

Edited by Rue

I come to you to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dre it would seem simple to you. Its all simple. You have it all figured out and in your need to try continue to act like an alpha male you once again raise issues I never disagreed with. Run along and pee on a tree son.

Nice try.... You said...

ISIS came about because of Obama's misreading of Syria

Its just flat out false, and I explained why. In your defense, I guess if I made a statement that stupid I would run away from it to.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No is not false and your brain which can't flex but is rigid and can only see black and white or as you refer to as seeing things simply, try remove what I said out of context. ISIS did come about because of Obama's misreading of Syria. Had he acted sooner to support the opposition, instead of creating a vacuum whereby Sunnis were being slaughtered in Syria and had he and Erdogan not organized and funded ISIS in Turkey, ISIS would not have come about and instead all the splinter Sunni groups in Iraq would have remained in Iraq focused on Iraq.

You are once again showing your brain can not flex and can only see things in rigid black and white postulations.

Run along before your frontal lobe explodes with possibilities of shades of grey between the black and white. POOOOOOOOOOOOOF

I come to you to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My my! Look at all the bleating and wretching in there!

Ever read your own posts?? DAMN, thought I was responding to Rue. My apologies dre.

The reason ISIS exists and has been able to thrive and take territory is really simple... Theres 20 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria that have almost no real political power. ISIS has been building strength under the "Alqeada" banner since the invasion of Iraq, and became its own group in February. It gained a lot of power when the strife in Syria became a full on sectarian conflict and attracted volunteers from around the world. This is why they became prominent so fast. And the reason for their gains in Iraq is as I said before. Sunnis have given up on a central government in Iraq dominated by Shia and backed by Iran and the US.

That is interesting, backed by Iran AND the USA? I guess Iran is not so much of a bad guy after all. Or is the USA not exactly the shining beacon of freedom it claims to be? A complete security void after the US invasion also contributed to the rise of more extremists like ISIS. But some still want to blame the Iraqis for not getting their sh#t together. They are caught in the middle (east) between opposing factions backed by foreign entities.

Im sure you shake your fist at Mr Obama every time a raindrop hits you. Partisan hackery can be fun. But ISIS started in Iraq under the AQ banner, not in Syria, and they are the direct result of the decision to overthrow the baathists, and the sectarian war in Iraq that followed.

Um, if recent history is correct, it was the US who disposed of the Baathists. Hussein was a Baathist, correct?

Edited by GostHacked

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Run along before your frontal lobe explodes with possibilities of shades of grey between the black and white. POOOOOOOOOOOOOF

Ahhh yes! Shades of grey! Is THAT what you call it when you make bogus claims you cant back up in order attack your favorite political boogeyman (obama) because hes not pro-israel enough for you? Neato!

Shades of brown is more like it. Maybe your little POOOF noise was you having a little accident? :lol:

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting, backed by Iran AND the USA? I guess Iran is not so much of a bad guy after all. Or is the USA not exactly the shining beacon of freedom it claims to be? A complete security void after the US invasion also contributed to the rise of more extremists like ISIS.

By the same token, the moral and ethical void the west created by not sanctioning joining the US, has pretty much set the stage for other super-duper powers in the world to start acting like shining beacons.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason ISIS exists and has been able to thrive and take territory is really simple... Theres 20 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq and Syria that have almost no real political power... But ISIS started in Iraq under the AQ banner, not in Syria, and they are the direct result of the decision to overthrow the baathists, and the sectarian war in Iraq that followed.

Claiming that ISIS is a direct result of overthrowing baathists is absurd. The baathists are Arab Nationalists. ISIS are anti-nationalists. They have basically zero ideology in common. Baathism isn't even a Sunni movement. In Syria, the baathist movement is dominated by Alawites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party_%28Syrian-dominated_faction%29

ISIS did come about because of Obama's misreading of Syria. Had he acted sooner to support the opposition, instead of creating a vacuum whereby Sunnis were being slaughtered in Syria and had he and Erdogan not organized and funded ISIS in Turkey, ISIS would not have come about and instead all the splinter Sunni groups in Iraq would have remained in Iraq focused on Iraq.

I agree that Obama mishandled the situation, but I don't agree that is came about because Obama misread Syria, nor do I think 'supporting the opposition' to the extent that certain republicans such as John McCain would have done would have helped the situation either.

The biggest problem is that there isn't really a clear divide between 'moderate rebels' and 'extremist rebels'. Even groups like the Free Syrian army had plenty of Islamists, and many rebels constantly change factions. Any help to the moderate rebels will indirectly help the extremist rebels. Any invasion would help give the extremist rebels more recruits because they could use certain parts of the Quran to claim that the kuffar crusaders are invading their lands so it is the duty of all muslims to help them.

It's a really messy situation. Certainly many things have contributed to the situation, including: decades of funding of Wahabbism by Saudi Arabia and other gulf state oil, reignition of anti-western Islamist groups due to September 11, 2001, George Bush and Tony Blair invading Iraq under false pretenses, the naive beliefs by George Bush and Tony Blair that the Iraqis think 'just like Westerners' and would welcome their liberators, Barrack Obama's naive beliefs in cultural relativism and muslims being 'oppressed' which explained actions such as his speak in Cairo in 2009 and his willingness to align with Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Cameron wanting to fund rebels in Syria as well as invade Syria, etc.

Really, the only realistic way to deal with the Islamists in Syria is to make peace with Assad and make the moderate rebels make peace with Assad. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen because Obama will look bad if he does that since he has made all these 'Red Lines' about Assad. Also, the republican 'hawks' constantly telling Obama 'war, war, war' don't help either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama doesn't have to deal with all the Islamists anymore than Canada does. He can continue to take military action in Iraq to protect U.S. and allied interests while gathering intelligence and degrading ISIS with proxies inside Syria. There will be more talk of a "coalition of the willing" sans UNSC resolution and wider international support. Mr. Obama will get to walk a mile in Dubya's shoes.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming that ISIS is a direct result of overthrowing baathists is absurd. The baathists are Arab Nationalists. ISIS are anti-nationalists. They have basically zero ideology in common. Baathism isn't even a Sunni movement. In Syria, the baathist movement is dominated by Alawites.

No its not absurd, its a documented objective fact.

ISIS was born in the post-invasion sectarian struggle in Iraq. No invasion = No Sunni Insurgency = No AQ in Iraq = No ISIS.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its not absurd, its a documented objective fact.

ISIS was born in the post-invasion sectarian struggle in Iraq. No invasion = No Sunni Insurgency = No AQ in Iraq = No ISIS.

If that is how you allocate blame, then maybe ISIS is 100% the fault of the Black Hand. Since if they never tried to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, then WW1 would have never happened so the Ottoman empire would not have fallen and Iraq would not have existed to get invaded by George Bush.

Or maybe it is 100% the fault of Gengis Khan for completely messing up the entire world in the 13th century and changing the path of history.

Or maybe it is 100% Prophet Mohammed's fault for starting Islam in the 7th century in the first place.

How you assign blame is absurd.

Some fault goes to George Bush and Tony Blair for their invasion and mishandling of Iraq, sure. But some fault also goes to Obama, Cameron, Harper and others for their mishandling of the Arab Spring, overthrow of Morsi, and the Syrian civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,820
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • nibu earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...