Jump to content

War Against ISIL


Big Guy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bullshit, give us all a source that without out can doubt pin piont the west engagement in the middle east to the raise of this terrorist group

Every source available will tell you that. Just google "ISIS". ISIS is the name ISI gave itself after it officially announced its expansion into Syria. It was created by the Mujahideen Shura Council in 2006 and was made up of Iraqi insurgents and foreigners that came to fight in Iraq. In general terms it was referred to as Alqeada In Iraq. Same guys.

So yeah... without the invasion of Iraq, they simply would not exist, and since Sunnis held power during Saddams reign there certainly would have been no reason for Sunnis to start sacking Iraqi cities.

So yes... This is classic blowback from that policy. The coalition of the stupid took power away from the Sunnis and gave it to Iranian backed Shia and the sunnis in Iraq dont want any part of the central government... enter ISIS.

What your saying is we need the sadams in the world to hold these peckerwoods at bay.

These peckerwoods are merely a symptom. The real problem is that you have 20+ million sunnis in Iraq and Syria that are forced to live under governments they want no part of... governments dominated by a rival sect of Islam. You could kill every single member of ISIL today and that problem would still exist and other radical groups would emerge to take their place.

I forgot your a canadian that makes it a past time to blame the US for everything ongoing in the world....and these terrorist pukes shoulder none of the blame

Blah blah blah.

you also agree it's all right to use military force to take what you want

I never said anything like that. The reality is though that the conditions in Iraq and Syria make violence a forgone conclusion. Whether its "all right" or not is besides the point.

And the reality is, that you are a perfect example of why we always get things wrong over there. You have an emotional reaction to this group (understandable, they are assholes), and your solution is "lets go kill em". The problem is you want to do this without even having a clue as to who these people are, why they exist, or what would fill the void left if you DID kill them all, and what the real result would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked Hudson that Big Guy not talk about the Israeli military because to even suggest it would get into an overt alliance with other Muslim nations in a coalition to fight ISIS is assinine. If Israel was stupid enough to do that overtly it would provide a pretext from which Hezbollah and Iran would then attack Israel.Not only that but if Shiites or any Muslims who are Sunni and against ISIS saw Israel attacking ISIS they would probably turn on Israel.

Now let's cut to the chase shall we Hudson Jones or whoever it is at the disinformation desk today. A conventional armed force can not defeat terrorists or for that matter guerilla operations. You can not take a large slow moving armed force that needs logistic support and defeat small quick moving units of terrorists. At best your conventional force gets hunkered down in zones of control and outside those narrow areas of control its chaos..

The world has learned that to deal with terrorists you use small, specialized commando units backed by precision pin point limited air strikes.

When and where did the world learn this?

You expect people to read your long winded posts but are unable to read others, and instead, put words in their mouths. I have said all along that bringing in a military is not going to solve anything.

Now you want to pull that stunt and try suggest I am insensitive against Muslims and only care about Israel? Lol. right. Not that you noticed but get something clear, I hate everyone. Boo.

The very reason I am against a ground force and large mobile ground operations is precisely because all it does is kill innocent civilians and turns them to ISIS not against it.

That is why I stated the only strategy that works is small commando units doing specific containment strategies supported by pin point air attacks on ISIL . Once ISIL moves into residential areas, they will use civilians as shields and air attacks will only kill civilians.

I agree with most of what you say in regards to ground force, but I reject using any type of attack.

Hamas, ISIS, Al Quaeda, can only exist if it has civilians to hide behind. Terrorists like any vermin can not survive out in the open.

I don't like Hamas but I can't sit here while you try to muddy the water and pulling a Bibi by claiming that Hamas is the same as ISIS. It is dishonest to suggest this. Hamas is a group who is engaged in defending Palestinians. Some of their tactics, especially in the past, were obviously terrorist attacks, but they are NOT ISIS. They are not the aggressor. If you take the meaning of terrorism, the IDF can easily be considered a terrorist organization.

You refer to Zionism as a cancer to be wiped out but never will you use that analogy about Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism.Not you.

Zionism is a cancer. I have, on several occasions, have said that other cancerous ideologies like Wahabism/Salafism are also dangerous to the world. So you, once again, were yelling so loud and typing so much, that you ended up putting words in my mouth.

You are the first to say the US should not interfere in Muslim affairs then are the first to whine because I argue the West ultimately can not interfere and the Muslim world must come to grips with its own problems. Which one is it Hudson Jones? Is it insensitive to say Muslims must resolve their own issues? Hmm? Or are you now suddenly a champion of US intervention on the ground. Give it a rest with your selective contradictions.

You are playing the paranoid victim again. I have stayed consistent with what I believe in. U.S. should not be going into Iraq again. It will be counterproductive. Believe it or not, I agree with most of what you say about how to engage this group. Except for the part of sending commandos in. No need for that either.

Here is an article which touches on what I believe and what you seem to agree with:

As a strategy to disrupt the growth of Isis, I suggest focusing on four arenas:

How to make Isis fall on its own sword

Degrade and destroy? The west should try to disrupt the canny militants into self-destruction, because bombs will only backfire

  • Counter the narrative in online Isis recruitment videos – including professionally made videos and amateur battle selfies – to avoid, as best as possible, the deliberate propaganda targeting of desperate and disaffected youth. This would rapidly prevent the recruitment of regional and western members.
  • Set clear, temporary borders in the region, publicly. This would discourage Isis from taking certain territory where humanitarian crises might be created, or humanitarian efforts impeded.
  • Establish an international moratorium on the payment of ransom for hostages, and work in the region to prevent Isis from stealing and taxing historical artifacts and valuable treasures as sources of income, and especially from taking over the oil reserves and refineries in Bayji, Iraq. This would disrupt and prevent Isis from maintaining stable and reliable sources of income.
  • Let Isis succeed in setting up a failed “state” – in a contained area and over a long enough period of time to prove itself unpopular and unable to govern. This might begin to discredit the leadership and ideology of Isis for good.
Edited by Hudson Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Counter the narrative in online Isis recruitment videos – including professionally made videos and amateur battle selfies – to avoid, as best as possible, the deliberate propaganda targeting of desperate and disaffected youth. This would rapidly prevent the recruitment of regional and western members.

Countering the narrative would be fine to do, if the governments were competent enough to do it. Unfortunately, you have people like David Cameron around who think that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam and that ISIS are not muslims.

There is too much political correctness for the governments to be effective at doing this.

Set clear, temporary borders in the region, publicly. This would discourage Isis from taking certain territory where humanitarian crises might be created, or humanitarian efforts impeded.

You can't just unilaterally declare temporary borders and expect them to hold. How would you get ISIS, the Syrian government, the Iraqi government, the Kurds, the Turks, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Egyptians and various other groups to agree with it?

What might be possible is that if a stale mate drags on long enough (ISIS can't make gains in non-Sunni lands, ISIS's enemies can't make gains in Sunni lands) then it might be possible to get all the parties to agree to a ceasefire, with lines drawn roughly on sectarian lines / lines of military control. Though you would have to have the conflict to drag on for months if not years to accomplish this, then you would have to get the idiot absolute-moralist western politicians to somehow agree to a ceasefire with Abu Bakr Al Baghdad.

The other problem, is doing this might give the perception that the international community is rewarding terrorism, which is a dangerous precedent.

work in the region to prevent Isis from stealing and taxing historical artifacts

How would you prevent this if ISIS controls Sunni lands? Also, why would you want to since it makes ISIS less population?

Let Isis succeed in setting up a failed “state” – in a contained area and over a long enough period of time to prove itself unpopular and unable to govern. This might begin to discredit the leadership and ideology of Isis for good.

1. This would give the perception of rewarding terrorism.

2. The premise that it will become unpopular over time is flawed. If anyone descents they will be labelled an apostate and killed. Furthermore, religion is particularly good at appeasing the masses and convincing them to follow their government regardless of how ineffective the government is. You will also have various radical Islamist foreigners coming to the new caliphate to try to increase its success. And as a last resort, the caliphate can always blame the west & other countries for its lack of success due to trade barriers and hostility.

3. Not going to happen. Too many parties, particularly the Saudis, will not allow this to occur.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/09/australia-makes-raids-foil-violent-acts-201491834852407966.html

Australian authorities have carried out its largest ever "counter-terrorism" raids, detaining 15 people to stop an alleged plot by supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to carry out "demonstration killings" in public. A pre-dawn operation was carried out on Thursday across Sydney and Brisbane by more than 800 officers acting on some 25 search warrants.

There don't seem to be details on how these plans were revealed to the authorities. Perhaps internet and phone surveillance is paying off now ? Just a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't sufficient reason to act. You also have to determine if your planned course of action is the best option.

Are you saying the current land mass under ISIS control , via captured military equipment is not sufficient to act ? do you think that they are finsihed with grabing territory ? or they will continue ? do you think that this action posses a threat to IRAQ or Syria stability ? or for that matter is it good for the stabilty of the region..... And what of the the problem with inter national law, or the Genva conventions which forbid any one group, or nation from using force to make a policitical statement such as siezing more territory or siezing control over territory that is already recongized as a nation itself. IE IRAQ or Sryia. If those are not sufficient enough then it raises the question why even have these laws on the books, if they are not to be enforced or had consquences attached to them....

No, that will not stop the perpetual violence. You have to deal with the problem of where these 'fringe fruit cakes', as you call them, are coming from. Perhaps it has something to do with decades of funding of terrorism and wahabbism by the gulf states.

I agree, some what that there needs to be more thought put into this problem, however like i have said before, if there is no reaction to these groups they will srpout up in greater numbers, there needs to be a number of checks and balences which are already in place....such as the reaction to ISIS . US aircraft are pounding them where ever they find them, trying to contain the spread of not only their military forces but to their idealogy.

It is not good for anyone, except maybe the Sunni Radicals themselves. But that doesn't mean that your suggestion course of action is the best.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, are you suggesting diplomatic talks ? and if so what do you have to offer that is going to make this go away.....we don't have the power to give them a nation without IRAQ and Syria permission do you think that will happen.....i don't think so....so what is the other options....and while you ponder that they will continue to cleanse the areas and people will die....

Of course they don't want to get involved and want Western countries to do their bidding for them. However, if the west doesn't invade Sunni lands, arms the Kurds, and stops funding the 'rebels' in Syria, then ISIS will have only one direction to spread: south. The gulf states will have to deal with ISIS eventually, or they will get overthrown. This is especially true since large segments of the population of Saudi Arabia are just as radical as ISIS and have been funding ISIS.

Let our gulf state "allies" deal with it. If they deal with it then it is much harder for ISIS to gain recruits since they cannot label their opponents as 'crusaders' or 'kuffar'.

your putting alot of of responsabiltiy on the Kurds, and who is to say that is the right decision.....who is to say they will not be consumed by the ISIS threat.....or is that the line you are drawing in the sand, one that will spur you into action....And what of the southern states, what if they to get over thrown, one after another and the region gets so unstabized that it draws other nations into the fray....now you have the whole region inflames....and a much larger problem to solve.....

As for them gaining recruits via the crusaders.....they will gain recruits all the same, the west will be painted as the monster, and it will have the same effect....everyone forgets that most of these nations are dirt poor, education levels are not the same as the west, it is easy to whip them into a frenzy if done correctly, through religion, through governmental interference.....

That was 20 years ago. Things have changed. Saudi Arabia has a trillion dollar economy and is one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world (they have the 4th highest spending, after USA, China and Russia).

So did Sadam, and yet where is he right now....where is his mighty army....who can not contol even ISIS right now.....

And where did these 'twisted people' come from? No where? Did radical Islam just pop out of nowhere? Does it has something to do with the West sending the gulf states trillions in oil money over the past few decades, and the fact that those gulf states have spread Wahabbism across the globe and made Islam overall more radical than it was say 50 years ago?

Is it just a coincidence that 15 out of 19 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and 2 were from the UAE. Is it just a coincidence that Osama Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian and was a strict adherent to Wahhabism?

Radical iSlam is not a new topic , Islam has always had it's radical elements.....just with different disguises and masks....but it has always been that way....not because we kicked Sadams ass, or got involved with this country or another.....and certainly not because the west purchases oil off of them, when the entire world is dependant on that oil supply....not just the west....it is not our fault because the dictators or kings fail to distribute that wealth properly....i'd like to hear that explained actually how did that thought take form....

On one hand you paint the west as the bad guys, then go on to blame Saudi Arabia, and it's new religion....i'm getting confused....who's fault is it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/09/australia-makes-raids-foil-violent-acts-201491834852407966.html

There don't seem to be details on how these plans were revealed to the authorities. Perhaps internet and phone surveillance is paying off now ? Just a suggestion.

Good for the Australians! I am glad to see that they have a good security system.

The timing is interesting. Four days ago, Australia was the first country to commit troops to the ISIL expedition folly. This was not received well with lots of criticism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11095111/Australia-becomes-first-country-to-commit-troops-to-US-coalition-fighting-Isil-death-cult.html

To-day, the headlines are describe;

"Police said they thwarted a plot to carry out beheadings in Australia by supporters of the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group by detaining 15 people and raiding more than a dozen properties across Sydney on Thursday. The raids involving 800 federal and state police officers — the largest in the country's history — came in response to intelligence that ISIS in the Middle East was calling on Australian supporters to kill, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said."

Now it appears that only 6 are detained and one was found with weapons.

If one was a little sceptical, without negating the process, the timing is very beneficial for those supporting troops into Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the west decided to fund these Islamists in Syria to wage a proxy war against Russia in the first place.

Oh wait, maybe before then. Perhaps when Obama and other western leaders decided to unconditionally support Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood instead of Secular groups during the Arab Spring in an effort to fill various governments with pro-Western Islamists.

Or, maybe it was way before that. The west did fund Alqueda to fight a proxy war against the Russians back in the 80s. Maybe the west never had high moral standards to begin with. Perhaps we should raise our standards. Maybe we could start by not funding Islamist radicals that want to take over the world.

And yet you support funding and arming the the Kurds, which we have no idea on how that will work out either. so what is it , stop arming groups around the globe or pick and choose.

Not sure what conflict your talking about, in regards to Syria, and the Russians, as Syria has always been under Russian infuence....

Alqueda was not even an organization in the 80's, and certainly not engaged with the Russians,

Perhaps we should raise our standards....but what impact will that have on todays problems we have , do you think that the Muslims will stop and take notice....this late in the game.

Is that why the 'rebels' don't want to run against Assad and have an election? Assad may not be the most popular guy, but to say he doesn't have significant support from Syrians is untrue.

Do you really think it would be that easy, Assad would step down because that is what his people wants.....is that why he has used his aircraft and armour for....Or is it if you want to remove a dictator it has to be by force.....this is really reality 101, he's in power because he wants to be , and is not ready to step down....I think you overestamate his power and support at this time....I'm not saying he has none, but if he had the majority this conflict would be over by now...

Muslims aren't a 'nationality'. Muslims are a religious group of people.

I get that, i took a short cut could have listed all the Arab / muslim countrys in one basket....

Of course they want world domination. They believe it is prophesized in the Quran that they are destined to take over the world and establish Islam and Sharia everywhere.

Another reason to do nothing....and why is it we need these pecker woods again.....are they adding to the stablization of the region, are they not breaking inter national law and the conventions, are they not killing thousands for the only reason of their not like them....

No it won't. ISIS isn't a threat that can be defeated by military force. Furthermore, the West isn't as all-powerful as the western media would have us believe.

Any force can be defeated through the use of force....where does the taliban seat of power rest today....not in Afghanistan....Well perhaps you can provide a link that says the West is not the most powerful military force on the planet....then explain how ISIS is doing again'st western air power....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....who's fault is it...

Personally, I am not interested on whose fault it is unless it effects future developments.

There appear to be two camps as to the effectiveness of military involvement. One side believes that a military war will weaken ISIL and make the situation better while the other side feels that military action, while having some effect on ISIS numbers, will only create more hate against the West and make the situation worse.

Any military action in that region, especially when places like Mosul at a population of 2 million come into play, create thousands of deaths in "collateral damage". We have used the excuse that "we have to kill some of you so we can give the rest of you some freedom" is just not working.

We are trying to fight Sunnis in Sunni territory. Some people on this board feel that the Sunnis will reject their Muslim Sunni brothers and embrace the infidel invaders. I do not think so. Already, reports from the region indicate that the civilians in the area accept ISIS as their brothers who are releasing them from the Shia suppressors in Baghdad. The ISIS army is growing.

I can see no reason that any military action by the West in Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria will make things any better for the people in the area.

It appears that some people on this board feel that the people in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya et al are in better living conditions than before the West went in looking for those non-existent WMD and revenge for 9/11. I am one of those who disagrees.

I also believe that this military action will make the situation more unstable, more people dying for no reason, more money spent unwisely and more body bags coming back to North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every source available will tell you that. Just google "ISIS". ISIS is the name ISI gave itself after it officially announced its expansion into Syria. It was created by the Mujahideen Shura Council in 2006 and was made up of Iraqi insurgents and foreigners that came to fight in Iraq. In general terms it was referred to as Alqeada In Iraq. Same guys.

So yeah... without the invasion of Iraq, they simply would not exist, and since Sunnis held power during Saddams reign there certainly would have been no reason for Sunnis to start sacking Iraqi cities.

So yes... This is classic blowback from that policy. The coalition of the stupid took power away from the Sunnis and gave it to Iranian backed Shia and the sunnis in Iraq dont want any part of the central government... enter ISIS.

So your your saying the invasion was a stupid idea, without any cause,that Iraq would be better off with Sadam in charge ? i'm sure there are a few people that would disagree, Your also saying that life was grand and wonderful under sadam and all his subjects were happy and content....you also apply that the Sunnis were not planning anything until after the invasion...do you have proof of any of this.....or is this just your opinion.....

These peckerwoods are merely a symptom. The real problem is that you have 20+ million sunnis in Iraq and Syria that are forced to live under governments they want no part of... governments dominated by a rival sect of Islam. You could kill every single member of ISIL today and that problem would still exist and other radical groups would emerge to take their place.

I get that a power vaccuum was created, along with that more issues however the invasion had limited objectives, one to remove Sadam and his supporters from power...to do that one had to dimantle his military .....that was done, next was to offer the IRAQI citizen a chance at installing a government that would work for all....last time i checked that was done through elections was it not.....So the people spoke....now you have people who are not happy, but that does not give them the right to take what they think is theirs through force does it.....

I never said anything like that. The reality is though that the conditions in Iraq and Syria make violence a forgone conclusion. Whether its "all right" or not is besides the point.

And the reality is, that you are a perfect example of why we always get things wrong over there. You have an emotional reaction to this group (understandable, they are assholes), and your solution is "lets go kill em". The problem is you want to do this without even having a clue as to who these people are, why they exist, or what would fill the void left if you DID kill them all, and what the real result would be.

You may not of said it directly but you sure implied it....You are again'st any military action by the west to stop this, you know that nobody else is going to do it....If military action is not going to solve anything "WHAT WILL".

As for is it all right or not ....it is the entire piont....if there is no consquences for this type of action then why not let Russia swallow up what it wants, why not let any country take what it wants....as long as it does not directly reflect or effect you.....Is that what your saying because thats the gisat i get from your postings....

My solution is not to Kill them all, it is to stop they from further killing, to show the world there are consquences of using military force to take what is not yours. And your right i don't need to understand them....what they are doing is wrong period . and the world should not be sitting around waiting to see if it develpoes into something bigger.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis was not created by any council. Dre as usual is utterly wrong.

ISIL or ISIS came about when it splintered off from Al Quaeda under Badr and joined with Al Nusra. It split because of a dispute over the leader of Al Quaeda who was Jordanian and Badr (Baghdadi) who was Iraqi. Badr felt it made no sense to attack Assad when his own people in Iraq were being wiped out by Malicki the Shiite puppet of Iran placed in power by the US. The US first trained ISIS to attack Assad and then less than 9 months later placed Malicki in a position to wipe out Sunnis, the very same Sunnis the US and Turkey wanted to attack Assad.

As usual Dre like Big Guy spews nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense, Bilge.

The council referred to were a bunch of warlords who would meet. They did not form ISIS. Absolute bull.

Next this bilge that the West created Muslim extremism is just that.

This crock that Muslims did not have extremist fundamentalists and were not attacking each other and engaged in a Sunni-Shiite civil war until the West came along is precisely the result of a bunch of idiots whose sole source of knowledge comes from Wikepedia.

Muslim on Muslim violence, Muslim terrorism and extremism existed for centuries and since the inception of Islam. This bilge its only a result of the "West" a coded reference to the US and Israel is past assinine.

This attempt to revise and recreate history to blame the failure of Islamic society to evolve on the West is something I would expect from people who have zero clue as to the terrorists they apologize and make excuses for.

Dre expert on Muslim society. Genius. Sheer genius.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isis was not created by any council. Dre as usual is utterly wrong.

ISIL or ISIS came about when it splintered off from Al Quaeda under Badr and joined with Al Nusra. It split because of a dispute over the leader of Al Quaeda who was Jordanian and Badr (Baghdadi) who was Iraqi. Badr felt it made no sense to attack Assad when his own people in Iraq were being wiped out by Malicki the Shiite puppet of Iran placed in power by the US. The US first trained ISIS to attack Assad and then less than 9 months later placed Malicki in a position to wipe out Sunnis, the very same Sunnis the US and Turkey wanted to attack Assad.

As usual Dre like Big Guy spews nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense, Bilge.

The council referred to were a bunch of warlords who would meet. They did not form ISIS. Absolute bull.

Next this bilge that the West created Muslim extremism is just that.

This crock that Muslims did not have extremist fundamentalists and were not attacking each other and engaged in a Sunni-Shiite civil war until the West came along is precisely the result of a bunch of idiots whose sole source of knowledge comes from Wikepedia.

Muslim on Muslim violence, Muslim terrorism and extremism existed for centuries and since the inception of Islam. This bilge its only a result of the "West" a coded reference to the US and Israel is past assinine.

This attempt to revise and recreate history to blame the failure of Islamic society to evolve on the West is something I would expect from people who have zero clue as to the terrorists they apologize and make excuses for.

Dre expert on Muslim society. Genius. Sheer genius.

More bleating and wretching.

The origin of ISIL is EXACTLY as I described. ISIL is/was ISI. ISI formally announced its expansion into Syria after the war started and added an L to its name. The group, its leader, and its goal to establish a Sunni state had already been around for years at that point.

You can repeat the same crap 50 million times if you want, but it wont make it true.

Wiki has it basically right and EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE with real commentary about the origins of this group will say the exact same thing. And that what makes your continued bleating and wretching, and silly attempts to blame this on Obama even funnier. None of the information I have given you is even contentious. None of the statements I have made are even contraversial. Every single thing I have told you is 100% true, factual, documented, and accepted by every single source that has studied or provides commentary on the origins of this group.

The Islamic State, also widely known as ISIS, ISIL and Daʿesh[71], originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) (/ˈsɪ/) shortly afterwards.[72] At its height it enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.[73][74][75][76] However, the violent attempts by the Islamic State of Iraq to govern its territory led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups in around 2008 which helped to propel the Awakening movement and a temporary decline in the group.[72][77]

As ISIS, the group grew significantly under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, gaining support in Iraq as a result of alleged economic and political discrimination against Iraqi Sunnis. Then, after entering the Syrian Civil War, it established a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo.[78] In June 2014, it had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq.[79] It has claimed responsibility for attacks on government and military targets and for attacks that killed thousands of civilians.[80] In August 2014, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that the number of fighters in the group had increased to 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq,[18] while the CIA estimated in September 2014 that in both countries it had between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.[20] ISIS had close links to al-Qaeda until February 2014 when, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group, reportedly for its brutality and "notorious intractability".

Since its formation in early 1999, as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ), the group has had a number of different names, including some that other groups use for it.[10][72]

In October 2004, JTJ's founder and leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[72]swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the name of the group to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers", more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).[10][84] Although the group has never called itself "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", this name has frequently been used to describe it through its various incarnations.[12]

In January 2006, AQI merged with several smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an umbrella organization called the "Mujahideen Shura Council". This was claimed to be little more than a media exercise and an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[85] Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, after which the group direction shifted again.

On 12 October 2006, the Mujahideen Shura Council joined four more insurgent factions and the representatives of a number of Iraqi Arab tribes, and together they swore the traditional Arab oath of allegiance known as Ḥilf al-Muṭayyabīn ("Oath of the Scented Ones").[b][86][87] During the ceremony, the participants swore to free Iraq's Sunnis from what they described as Shia and foreign oppression, and to further the name of Allah and restore Islam to glory.[c][86]

On 13 October 2006, the establishment of the Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah, "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) was announced.[10][88] A cabinet was formed and Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi became ISI's figurehead emir, with the real power residing with the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[89] The declaration was met with hostile criticism, not only from ISI's jihadist rivals in Iraq, but from leading jihadist ideologues outside the country.[90] Al-Baghdadi and al-Masri were both killed in a US–Iraqi operation in April 2010. The next leader of the ISI was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the current leader of ISIS.

On 8 April 2013, having expanded into Syria, the group adopted the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also known as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham."[91][92][93] The name is abbreviated as ISIL or alternately ISIS. The final "S" in the acronym ISIS stems from the Arabic word Shām (or Shaam), which in the context of global jihad—as in Jund al-Sham, for example—refers to the Levant or Greater Syria.[94][95] ISIS was also known as al-Dawlah ("the State"), or al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State"). These are short-forms of the name "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" in Arabic.[96]

The name "Daʿesh" (pronounced "Daʔesh" and transliterated as "Dāʿesh") is used particularly by ISIS's detractors such as those in Syria. The term based on the Arabic letters, Dāl, ʾAlif, ʿAyn and Šīn(Shin), which form the acronym (داعش) of the Arabic name translated as, "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham).[97][98] The group considers the term derogatory and reportedly uses flogging as a punishment for people who use the acronym in ISIS-controlled areas.[99][100]

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.[98] The debate over which acronym should be used to designate the group, ISIL or ISIS, has been discussed by several commentators.[95][96]

On 29 June 2014, the establishment of a new caliphate was announced, and the group formally changed its name to the "Islamic State" (IS).[5][101][102][d]

In late August 2014, a leading Islamic authority Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", because of the militant group's un-Islamic character.[

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not of said it directly but you sure implied it....You are again'st any military action by the west to stop this, you know that nobody else is going to do it....If military action is not going to solve anything "WHAT WILL".

Nothing will solve it beyond the people in Iraq and Syria sorting this out for themselves. This is a sectarian civil war, and the reality is nothing we do is going to make things any better and it could quite possibly make things worse.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing will solve it beyond the people in Iraq and Syria sorting this out for themselves. This is a sectarian civil war, and the reality is nothing we do is going to make things any better and it could quite possibly make things worse.

The Iraq government (American made) has asked for help. The Syrian government has not. For anybody to bomb a sovereign nation is an act of war against its government. Who has requested that the USA or any coalition bomb anything in Syria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying the current land mass under ISIS control , via captured military equipment is not sufficient to act ?

It is not sufficient reason and justification to act in the way you suggest.

do you think that they are finished with grabbing territory?

Of course they aren't done. They want to take over the world. Do you not read what I write?

And what of the the problem with inter national law, or the Genva conventions which forbid any one group, or nation from using force to make a policitical statement such as siezing more territory or siezing control over territory that is already recongized as a nation itself.

ISIS hasn't broken inter national law or the Geneva convention. Do you know why? 1. ISIS isn't recognized as an independent country or nation state. 2. ISIS has never signed or ratified the Geneva convention.

There is no risk of setting an international precedent for breaking international law or the Geneva convention since ISIS never agreed to it in the first place.

If those are not sufficient enough then it raises the question why even have these laws on the books, if they are not to be enforced or had consquences attached to them....

Of course it isn't sufficient. You have to show that your planned course of action is the best one. What is so wrong about fully thinking through your actions before doing them?

if there is no reaction to these groups they will srpout up in greater numbers

Of course there should be a reaction. Arming the Kurds, assisting the Iraqi government, not recognizing ISIS, and getting our gulf state 'allies' to deal with them in Sunni territory is a reaction.

However, trying to send western troops to take back control of the Sunni-majority territory is what will make ISIS sprout up in greater numbers since they can use that + sections of the Quran to claim that the crusaders are invading, so it is the duty of all muslims to assist them.

US aircraft are pounding them where ever they find them, trying to contain the spread of not only their military forces but to their idealogy.

You can't stop the spread of their ideology with weapons and military force. And it's not just the ideology of ISIS that is the problem. It is all forms of violent islamism and wahabbism.

and if so what do you have to offer that is going to make this go away.....we don't have the power to give them a nation without IRAQ and Syria permission do you think that will happen.

I already made suggestions. Why don't you go read what I wrote in this thread? Is that so hard?

your putting alot of of responsabiltiy on the Kurds, and who is to say that is the right decision.....

The Kurds are not a religious group, the are an ethnic group that consists of a large number of religions including Shia Islam, Sufism, Sunni Islam, Yarsanism, Yazidism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity. They don't want to take over the world. They don't want to establish sharia law. They don't want to kill people that do not believe as they do. They aren't going to commit terrorism attacks in the west or use the weapons against us. They are moderate. If there is one group the West can absolutely align with, that is the Kurds.

.And what of the southern states, what if they to get over thrown, one after another and the region gets so unstabized that it draws other nations into the fray....now you have the whole region inflames....and a much larger problem to solve.....

They won't get thrown over. These are some of the most militarily powerful countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is the 4th most powerful country militarily in the world.

As for them gaining recruits via the crusaders.....they will gain recruits all the same, the west will be painted as the monster, and it will have the same effect...

No, it really won't have the same effect. Why don't you read the Quran if you don't believe me.

everyone forgets that most of these nations are dirt poor, education levels are not the same as the west, it is easy to whip them into a frenzy if done correctly, through religion, through governmental interference....

This statement is very untrue and is a product of outdated Eurocentrism.

A large number (3000+) of ISIS come from Western countries like Canada, Australia, USA and Western Europe. These people are not coming from 'dirt poor countries'.

The gulf states like the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are some of the richest countries in the world. Qatar is richer than Canada on a per capita basis, where as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have a comparable level of income.

Turkey isn't exactly poor. They have the same GDP per capita as Greece. Turkey has done very well economically the past decade.

Syria and Iraq aren't exactly dirt poor either; at least not before all the violence. Syria has a life expectancy of 75 years and a comparable GDP per capita as Ukraine. Iraq is almost twice as rich per capita as Ukraine.

But I guess you want any excuse to not correctly identify the biggest root of the problem: Wahabbism and Islamism. The issue is religion. Poverty plays a role, but is in no way the main cause.

So did Sadam, and yet where is he right now....where is his mighty army....who can not contol even ISIS right now...

You are seriously militarily equating Iraq 23 years ago with Saudi Arabia today? Over two decades of economic growth tend to change the balance of power across the world significantly. Plus Saudi Arabia + gulf state allies with all there oil money are far more powerful than Iraq.

In the gulf war, Iraq was facing Kuwait, USA, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Egypt, Syria, plus 24 other countries. If all these countries (minus Saudi Arabia) were at war with Saudi Arabia, then obviously Saudi Arabia would lose. But ISIS is exactly as powerful as all these countries.

If you think that Saudi Arabia will fall to ISIS since Iraq fell to Kuwait, USA, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Egypt, Syria plus 24 other countries, then your perception of distribution of global military power is seriously flawed.

Radical iSlam is not a new topic , Islam has always had it's radical elements.....just with different disguises and masks....but it has always been that way...

Wahabbism started 2 centuries ago. The gulf states only started significant oil development after WW2, and it has only been in recent decades that the gulf states have been able to use that money to fund Wahabbism. Plus it takes a while for the world-wide Wahabbi funding and brainwashing to take affect. The events since 9-11 have greatly contributed to the increase in Islamic extremism as well.

On one hand you paint the west as the bad guys, then go on to blame Saudi Arabia, and it's new religion....i'm getting confused....who's fault is it...

I'm not painting the west as the bad guys. I'm painting the west as the stupid and ignorant idiots that keep making stupid decisions that don't improve the situation. And then these idiots are puzzled as to why they are in the situation they are in.

"Gee, let's fund Islamists in Syria to engage in a proxy war against Russia! Omg, Islamists have no taken over the region. How unexpected!"

As for the fault. The fault lies with many parties as the situation is very complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you support funding and arming the the Kurds, which we have no idea on how that will work out either. so what is it , stop arming groups around the globe or pick and choose..

You are trying to set up a false dichotomy here. It's not about always arming groups vs never arming groups. It's not about pure isolationism vs pure interventionism. It's about making the best choice on a case by case basis. You can 'sometimes' choose to arm groups, and you can sometimes not.

The Kurds are the one group we can absolutely trust an align with in the region (unless you include the Israelis, but they want to stay out of the conflict for obvious reasons). We can also side with the secular turks (who aren't in power, unfortunately) and the secular Egyptians (unfortunately, that option was burned by Obama in his stupid decision to align with the Muslim Brotherhood).

Not sure what conflict your talking about, in regards to Syria, and the Russians, as Syria has always been under Russian infuence....

The recent civil war in Syria following the Arab spring. Where the West decided to unconditionally support the 'rebels'.

Alqueda was not even an organization in the 80's, and certainly not engaged with the Russians,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Perhaps we should raise our standards....but what impact will that have on todays problems we have , do you think that the Muslims will stop and take notice....this late in the game.

It's not about an immediate impact today, it's about it's affect in the future. What will the world look like in a decade or two? Decisions made today affect that.

Do you really think it would be that easy, Assad would step down because that is what his people wants.....

If there were an election where he loses, I think that is a strong possibility. Though a lot depends on the conditions leading up to such an election and how the civil war is resolved. Of course resolving a civil war and having an election is a bit difficult when most of the rebels aren't interested in democracy and want to establish Sharia by force.

Or is it if you want to remove a dictator it has to be by force.....this is really reality 101, he's in power because he wants to be , and is not ready to step down....

I think you've been brainwashed too much by the Western mainstream media. It never was a black and white situation of the evil authoritarian government vs the peaceful democracy advocates. There was never a 'good' side in this conflict. The moral absolutism by Obama, Harper and Cameron have led to very poor decisions regarding this conflict.

I'm not saying he has none, but if he had the majority this conflict would be over by now...

Oh, he doesn't have a majority (at least not at the beginning of the conflict), but nether does anyone else. The rebels were never a homogenous group. At the very least, you have to think that there are 3 major groups: Syrian government and their supporters, Moderate rebels, Islamist rebels. But even this is very untrue and there is no clear distinction between moderate rebels and Islamist rebels. Rather, there is a continuum of rebels from very moderate to very extreme.

I think the moderate rebels + the Syrian government combined have the majority of the support in this conflict. Which is why the only way to resolve this conflict and avoid having the Islamists take over is to have the Syrian government + the moderate rebels come to a peace agreement where they will eventually hold elections.

Any force can be defeated through the use of force...

And ISIS isn't just a 'military force', which is why you can't defeat ISIS by military force alone.

An.where does the taliban seat of power rest today....not in Afghanistan..

'The taliban', 'Al queda' and 'ISIS' are not separate entities. They all have the common goal of wanting to establish a global caliphate where everyone must adhere to Sharia. The problem is islamofacism and going in to a country and spending a decade plus trillions of dollars to remove one of these Islamist Terrorist organizations will not solve the problem. If you destroy one and a new Islamist Terrorist organization is created in it's place or props up elsewhere, then you won't get anywhere.

Well perhaps you can provide a link that says the West is not the most powerful military force on the planet...

I never said the West isn't the most powerful military force on the planet. Just that it isn't as powerful as it was in the past and the balance of power is quickly changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are trying to fight Sunnis in Sunni territory. Some people on this board feel that the Sunnis will reject their Muslim Sunni brothers and embrace the infidel invaders. I do not think so.

This is exactly the reason why our Sunni 'allies' like Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia need to deal with this problem.

It appears that some people on this board feel that the people in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya et al are in better living conditions than before the West went in looking for those non-existent WMD and revenge for 9/11. I am one of those who disagrees.

Afghanistan undoubtedly has better living conditions than under the Taliban and is better off due to the invasion.

Libya... is a bit hard to determine right now.

Iraq and Syria are worse off though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dre the information you quote shows your lack of understanding of what ISIS is. Now you quote without thought posing ISIS as A; Quaeda.

You came on this forum and have continued to make false statements as to the origins of ISIS.

Your contention they were created by a council and have been around for years is false and your repeated attempt to bluff your way through pretending to know what ISIS is speaks for itself.

To start with ISIS as I stated broke away from Al-Quaeda in Iraq.

Al Quaeda continues to operate in Iraq fighting the Shiites (backed by Iran and Hezbollah in Iraq.)

Al Quaeda has distanced itself from ISIS but fights the same Shiites. Al Quaeda’s Syrian Branch is Al Nusra.

ISIS fights the Shiites (backed by Iran and Hezbollah) primarily in Iraq and secondarily in Syria and has an informal relationship with Al Nusra and Al Quaeda not to fight either and ally with both in fights against Shiites in either country.

Al Nusra in Syria and Al Quaeda in Iraq remain distinct from ISIS but have sometimes coordinated attacks.

The Free Syrian Army who went to war originally with Assad originally sought assistance from Erdogan of Turkey and then the US.
Erdogan and Obama both support the Muslim Brotherhood (Sunni) of Egypt, the parent organization that created Hamas. Hamas’ Muslim Brotherhood cell that ran it was overthrown by a Syrian cell of Sunnis, but is solely funded and equipped by Iran and Hezbollah and so will not align itself with ISIS or fight Assad or Hezbollah.

ISIS has entered Gaza now and has made noises it wants to replace Hamas as the Gaza leader of the Palestinians and absorb them into its war against Shiites and eventually against Israel and Egypt. Syria and Iraq first, Egypt, Jordan and Israel after that.
ISIS has made it clear its priorities are to take back Syria and Iraq, then Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Israel and form one large Sunni caliphate which then will absorb all the other Arab League nations, then eventually Iran, then the world.

It envisions a one world government run by a dummah in one Muslim state. Its not nationalist. Its belief in a one world Muslim caliphate run by a dummah (religious council) is a Sharia Law-fundamentalist Muslim belief. Its technically not nationalist. It sees only one nation, or in fact no nations at all just a Muslim world run by a Muslim council.

The origins of ISIS contrary to Dre’s false statements can be traced to Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, the self-proclaimed caliph, known now as Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi who comes from Samarra in Iraq and is of course Sunni.

During the American occupation of Iraq, Badri sometimes referred to as Badr without the “i) at the end of his name was in fact arrested by the US forces in Iraq but released as a low security threat after six months.

After his release he joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was then lead by a Jordanian, Abu Musab al Zarqawi who also wants to take over Jordan, not just Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Israel and then the rest of the Middle East and then eventually world.
Badri believed it made no sense to be attacking Shiites in Syria while looking a blind eye to Maliki a Shiite puppet placed by Obama and Erdogan into Iraq to placate Iran.

Badri said, why the hell are we fighting Shiites in Syria when are fellow country men are being slaughtered by Maliki.
Badri felt he needed to unite Sunnis in Iraq to fight Maliki and Shiites in Iraq and then helping Al Nusra in Syria.
Obama placed Maliki in as puppet leader of Iraq and he began slaughtering Sunnis in Iraq when the US withdrew in December of 2011.

Badri rallied the Sunnis in Iraq and felt Al Quaeda was more concerned with fighting Assad in Syria then Maliki in Iraq and so his people split from Al Quaeda and became known as ISIS but they are in fact a wide network of Sunnis from many family klans and include Sunni extremists from Sudan, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Dahomey, Chad, Niger, Pakistan, the Philippines, Europe, the US, Canada, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Tanzania, Somalia, even China and Chechnya.

They are not a formal unit. They are basically a loose network of hundreds of cells each with their own leader but the name ISIS and its present reincarnation is in fact just a mutated offshoot of Al Quaeda. It continues to evolve.

What Dre’s willful ignorance will not acknowledge is that ISIS was not created by a council and its not Al Quaeda. I

t was a loose evolving of mutating terror cells coming together to fight the same enemy and that is all it is. It has no central command.
When the Syria uprising, began in March 2011 it was the result of many years of civil clashes between the tiny Alawite klan keeping Assad in place and the majority Sunnis wanted him out. Assad’s Alawites although not Shiite were supported and still are by Hezbollan and Iran.

During the initial phase of the civil war after March 2011, the Syrian Free Army (FA) asked the US for aid. Obama at the time was in a Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt alliance supporting Erdogan of Turkey and Morsi of Egypt.

Obama’s half brother is a key financier of the Muslim Brotherhood, his step father is an active member and advisor, and he has 8 advisors in his inner circle all supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The FA turned to Al Nusra in Syria for help when they could get no help from Erdogan and Obama. Al Nusra then eventually reached a working agreement with ISIS in Syria and the three in essence are all in one messy alliance now but distinct and sometimes turn on one another when not united against Assad.

Now to understand the origins of ISIS one must understand the US and Turkish role in its creation.

The US and Turkey believed the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt represented the modern future for Arab Muslim peoples. Obama and Erdogan sang Morsi’s praises in Egypt and spoke of how the Muslim Brotherhood offered a modern, civil approach to world affairs.

Obama openly praised it in numerous speeches. When Morsi came to power and incited crowds to attack and kill Coptic Christians in Egypt he remained silent. When Egypt’s military got fed up watching Morsi strip the country of any opposition and bankrupt the nation with an absence of any economic policy they disposed of him then arrested him much to Obama’s dismay.

Egypt today like Jordan and Israel feels betrayed by Turkey and the US. These three nations share in common the realization that not just Iran and Hezbollah and the Shiite extremists do not like them but neither did the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Quaeda or Hamas oral Nusra and so the three now sit out and distance themselves from either side in the current civil war and wish nothing to do with

Obama or Erdogan to the point that Egypt and Israel have both turned to Russia and China for assistance in keeping the area stable. China has become such a strong ally of Israel it sent naval ships to Israel on an exercise.

ISIS is the direct result of Erdogan and Obama and their Muslim Brotherhood allies.

It starts back in Libya. Erdogan and Obama decided to get rid of Ghaddafi. To do that they recruited Sunni extremists in Libya, Chad, Nigerm Dahomey, Malim Senegal, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq.

They assisted in the creation of a bunch of rag tag Libyan civilians mixed with outsider Sunnis to assist them. Erdogan used his Muslim Brotherhood connection to recruit Al Quaeda in Iraq to send seasoned fighters to assist these rag tag civilians take down Ghaddafi and they did.

In return for their assistance the US and Turkey allowed the Libyan armories that were looted by the rebels of Libya to be taken by Al Quaeda to Syria.

These weapons included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles smuggled into Syria through Turkey.

The Times of London on Sept. 14, 2012, published a story as to this. What was interesting is this mass transfer of weapons arose 3 days after the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, an openly gay man, while walking the streets with no body guards was seized by Al Quaeda militants and killed. They openly attacked him accusing him of being a homosexual and shoved a pole into his bottom and pulled out his colon while he was alive. They also mutilated his body including pulling out his heart and liver and showing them to the crowds while yelling Allah Akbar.

Obama watched the display on satellite and he and Clinton covered it up. Why? Because those same savages were now being asked by Turkey and the US to now take the looted weapons and attack Assad.

Seymour Hirsch who won a Pulitizer prize, wrote an article in April fo 2014 which exposed an agreement between the CIA, Turkey and Syrian rebels (now Al Nusra, the Free Army and ISIS) to create the “rat line” a corridor that smuggled in the weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels.

Some believe Stevens was upset about the decision of the US to send the weapons to Syria and he was killed so he would not leak this development. I reject this conspiracy story. I believe he was killed simply because he was a flamboyant gay man walking alone in a country where the same fundamentalist Muslims Obama was courting to now turn on Assad detested his being gay and killed him because he was so stupid as to think he could prance about Libya without proper guards thinking he was the next TE

Lawrence whom the Arabs would embrace for disposing of Ghaddafi.

He reminds me of many idiots of many idiots on this forum who think they understand Muslim extremists and are

their friends,

Obama and Erdogan courted Al Quaeda which was Al Nusra in Syria and not the Free Army. That’s who they backed. It was a disasterous decision because Al Nusra reached out to ISIS once it broke from Al Quaeda Iraq.

Al Nusra in Syria felt Al Quaeda in Iraq was more preoccupied with sucking up to Erdogan and the US then fighting Assad. They also thought Al Quaeda was not being tough enough in Iraq on Shiites in an effort to please Erdogan who was trying to placate Iran by saying-take Iraq but we want Syria.

That blew up in Erdogan’s and Obama’s faces. The attempt to tell Iran to take Iraq in return for Syria going Sunni literally blew up because Al Nusra, the Free Army and ISIS once it broke from Al Quaeda Iraq said not a chance. We will not turn our back on Sunnis in either country and be played by Iran, Hezbollah, the US, Turkey.

The fact is the rag tag bunch of Jihadist fighters from Libya found their way to both Iraq and Syria where they fight today, some with Al Nusra, some with the Free Army, and many more with ISIS.

ISIS would not have broken from Al Quaeda and turned on Erdogan and Obama had they both not tried to place a Shiite puppet in Iraq and think the Sunnis of Iraq would just sit around and be slaughtered in Iraq as a pay back for allowing Assad to get pushed out in Syria.

ISIS is a mutation of a part of Al Quaeda that came about as a response to the slaughter of Sunnis in Iraq which Turkey and the US allowed in an attempt to placate Iran from entering with Hezbollah into Syria.

Obama and Erdogan are idiots. Iran turned on them, Maliki turned on them. ISIS turned on them. The Free Army and Al Nusra turned on them.

The Sunnis and Shiites will continue to wage war against each other but they will fight Turkey, the US as well. They hate them all equally.

This war now, it has nothing to do with Israel, Egypt and Iraq. Egypt castrated and imprisoned the Muslim Brotherhood in its country. Israel with Egypt’s full approval gave Hamas a serious beating depleting its rocket supplies.

Hamas who solely depends on Iran and Hezbollah can not now get missiles in because ISIS is now in Gaza saying not so fast, you are Sunni do not get weapons from the Shiite. You want help, you come to us.
ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Quaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq are all gripped with internal tensions and war between Sunni and Shiite.

Dre can’t grasp it. He still thinks Al Quaeda is ISIS and that councils create terrorist cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dre can’t grasp it.

You can bleat and wretch and moan all you want, and you can repeat the same crap over and over again and hope that might make it true. But it wont. ISIS is ISI with an expanded scope and a bunch of new volunteers. Same caliph, same leadership, same basic goal. ISIS was recently created, ISI formally announced that it was changing its name and expanding into Syria. And again... this isnt even contentious or contraversial.

If you spent even 5 minutes researching this you would fine dozens of sources verifying every single claim I have made. Every single one.

And thats why you bleat and wretch and moan and refuse to argue a single point I have made. Its because youve already googled them and you know they are all true. You know that ISIL is ISI with a different name and a few new members. You know that ISI was created by the Shura Council. And you know that every single claim I have made can be easily verified that no sources exist that say otherwise... So you bleat... and wretch... and moan.

He still thinks Al Quaeda is ISIS and that councils create terrorist cells.

ISIL is not a terror cell. Its a movement to create a Sunni state. A movement with well defined goals, and relatively strong central leadership, that has been around for almost a decade.

Again this is pretty accurate timeline.

nce its formation in early 1999, as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ), the group has had a number of different names, including some that other groups use for it.[10][72]

In October 2004, JTJ's founder and leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[72]swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the name of the group to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers", more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).[10][84] Although the group has never called itself "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", this name has frequently been used to describe it through its various incarnations.[12]

In January 2006, AQI merged with several smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an umbrella organization called the "Mujahideen Shura Council". This was claimed to be little more than a media exercise and an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[85] Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006, after which the group direction shifted again.

On 12 October 2006, the Mujahideen Shura Council joined four more insurgent factions and the representatives of a number of Iraqi Arab tribes, and together they swore the traditional Arab oath of allegiance known as Ḥilf al-Muṭayyabīn ("Oath of the Scented Ones").[b][86][87] During the ceremony, the participants swore to free Iraq's Sunnis from what they described as Shia and foreign oppression, and to further the name of Allah and restore Islam to glory.[c][86]

On 13 October 2006, the establishment of the Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah, "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) was announced.[10][88] A cabinet was formed and Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi became ISI's figurehead emir, with the real power residing with the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[89] The declaration was met with hostile criticism, not only from ISI's jihadist rivals in Iraq, but from leading jihadist ideologues outside the country.[90] Al-Baghdadi and al-Masri were both killed in a US–Iraqi operation in April 2010. The next leader of the ISI was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the current leader of ISIS.

On 8 April 2013, having expanded into Syria, the group adopted the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also known as "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham."[91][92][93] The name is abbreviated as ISIL or alternately ISIS. The final "S" in the acronym ISIS stems from the Arabic word Shām (or Shaam), which in the context of global jihad—as in Jund al-Sham, for example—refers to the Levant or Greater Syria.[94][95] ISIS was also known as al-Dawlah ("the State"), or al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State"). These are short-forms of the name "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" in Arabic.[96]

The name "Daʿesh" (pronounced "Daʔesh" and transliterated as "Dāʿesh") is used particularly by ISIS's detractors such as those in Syria. The term based on the Arabic letters, Dāl, ʾAlif, ʿAyn and Šīn(Shin), which form the acronym (داعش) of the Arabic name translated as, "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham).[97][98] The group considers the term derogatory and reportedly uses flogging as a punishment for people who use the acronym in ISIS-controlled areas.[99][100]

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.[98] The debate over which acronym should be used to designate the group, ISIL or ISIS, has been discussed by several commentators.[95][96]

On 29 June 2014, the establishment of a new caliphate was announced, and the group formally changed its name to the "Islamic State" (IS).[5][101][102][d]

In late August 2014, a leading Islamic authority Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", because of the militant group's un-Islamic character.[

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-1 we disagree on some things and not others. On this we are saying the exact same thing. I could not agree more with your previous analysis. It frustrates me to hear ISIS referred to as a nationalist movement.

Keep hammering away at me too when you have too. Its all good.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zionism is a cancer. I have, on several occasions, have said that other cancerous ideologies like Wahabism/Salafism are also dangerous to the world. So you, once again, were yelling so loud and typing so much, that you ended up putting words in my mouth.

Rue, you have a very offensive habit of putting words in people's mouths. You falsely accuse people of having certain opinions when they've never said such. You just make up crap out of thin air. Please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rue, you have a very offensive habit of putting words in people's mouths. You falsely accuse people of having certain opinions when they've never said such. You just make up crap out of thin air. Please stop.

Oh good we are even. If find you have an offensive habit of denying your positions stated.

Hudson Jones opnely admitted what I said. At first he tried to deny it now he has to admit it. He refrred to Zionism as a cancer that needs to be wiped out then in the next breath of fresh air claimed he wasn't saying a Jewish state should not be wiped out.

You want to argue to me calling for Zionism to be wiped out does not mean wiping out the Jewish state of Israel? You want to play that with me and say I put words in his mouth? Go ahead. His double speak-is there. He can deny it all he wants and so can you, and if you don't like how I interpret your positions either debate me or ignore me. No I will not shut up. I come on this forum as you do, to state my opinions and challenge those I find like you offenseive.

Look at his latest response. He won't dare mention the word Hamas, Al Quaeda, ISIS, and use their name and address them directlyand state they are terror That is a fact. He has never come on this forum and stated ISIS, Al Quaeda HAMAS or any other terrorist groups and are cancers and need to be wiped out.

I will spell it out one more time. In his latest response to me he could not and will not mention the name of terrorist groups and condemn them as he does Israel. So what he does in his choice of double speak is to demonstrate once again how lacking in any credibility his posts are. He will refer to Wahabiism ideology but never use the word Hamas, ISIS, ISIL, Al Quaeda. You want to defend that double speak go ahead. Whabism ideology? What the phack does that have to do with HAMAS, ISIS, Al QUAEDA, HEZBOLLAH.

As for you, I read your posts. You want to infer or suggest things, I will challenge them. You don't like it, defend yourself or ignore it.

I know what Hudson Jones is. Its a name that is used to engage in the Hamas script.

That name is used to engage in one sided diatribes against Israel and defend Hamas and will never denounce ISIS or Al Quaeda or Assad or any one else on this forum unless they are a Jew, an American or Israeli. That is a fact. You deny it. Show me one post where he has critized an Arab terrorist group by name and said terrorism by Muslims against Israel or the US or the West is wrong.

As for you, your bias against Israel you made that quite clear and you can knock yourself on the other thread engaging in anti Israel comments.

No you will not shut me up.

Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and to defend itself against ANYONE who tries to extinguish it.

The US, Israel, the West have the right to do what they think is necessary to contain, crush, extinguish, eradicate Muslim terrorists.

That's the difference between us. I do not mince words. I don't couch and code my words then try deny what I said or avoid my true agenda and script trying to hide behind pathetic games of semantics. This semitic is not semantic.

You want to join the other thread pissing on Israel for existing go ahead.

I will challenge you, Dre, Eye, this "Hudson Jones" or any other terrorist apologist on this forum and you can feel free to name call, ignore me, tell me to shut up, complain to your mother, whatever.

Edited by Rue
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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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