• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Goddamnit Q-Tip.

Fix the quote structure, you overly conservative bastard. You two's posts are already impossible to follow, much less if you've got Gouri's comments mixed in with your own. And you did it twice.

My head almost exploded trying to decipher whether you were just criticizing your own patriotism or assessing Gouri's.

I'm trying. Fucking thing gets really slow and words don't show up for like 20 seconds after you type. SO I'm doing bits and pieces.
 
Release Ebola in the region. Make Isis beg for help and refuse to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A woman was just beheaded in Oklahoma by some guy who reportedly had been recruiting people to convert to the nation of Islam...
 
Who is trying? What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Iraqi troops that are getting killed. The ones who run away early are safe. It's the guys that try to stick around and do their job that generally are getting captured and killed. Anyway, if the Iraqis truly were not resisting at all, ISIS would have conquered Baghdad months ago. Someone is fighting back. And I think we should help at some level.

Advising whom? The Iraqis or the FSA?

Either, both, but more particularly the Iraqis. Not sure the FSA is viable enough. But the Iraqi army has divisions, corps, command elements, supporting arms, etc. Competent military advice, particularly fire support coordination, can help tremendously. I've seen first hand how competent fire support coordination can be a huge boost to the combat performance of troops that are otherwise below average.

I'm speaking the King's English there is no reason to try to read tea leaves to ascertain what my meaning is. It is clear as day what I am trying to convey. That the Administration, as well as many others, are ignoring the realities of what drives jihad. I've said it now several times in this thread, yet it hasn't been addressed.

Again, you do not seem to grasp that your assertion that they are ignoring the realities of what drives is not self-evident, and has not been proven. I don't believe that those "realities" are being ignored. Further, I don't agree with your definition of what those "realities" are, and I suspect the Administration does not fully agree with them either. You keep confusing the concept of ignoring realities with disagreement regarding what those realities are, and/or disagreement as to how best to address those "realities".

I don't know if you've ever participated in a logical debate in college but when you call an argument that has been presented by the opposition a "strawman," without backing up that claim, it is considered a form of ad hominem attack. You stated that no one is saying exactly what many are saying including the top Senators on the issue (Graham and McCain)... you said " Who - either here or elsewhere -- is seriously claiming that Islamic extremism can be "defeated" through only military means? That seems a strawman to me." .

I did my time on debates and have practiced law for over 20 years, so I know what an ad hominem attack is. You've misread their comments and taken them out of context. They are talking about defeating the military threat posed by ISIS, and they advocated a military solution to that. That is not the same thing as saying that the ideology of Islamic extremism can be defeated solely through military means. That remains a strawman argument on your part unless you can find a quote where they are clearly referring to the ideology as a whole, and explicitly claiming it can be eliminated through solely military means. You won't find it because it is ludicrous on its face.

Irrelevant.. It's irrelevant because Q-Tip says it is. Fuck what Muslims think, Q-Tip tells them "don't worry about it, we've got fewer troops there now anyway."

You expect everyone else to ignore not only what the jihadis themselves actually say, but what common sense can derive from the realities of what they are actually doing on the ground. And I'll skip over a bunch of stuff to get to the statement you made that goes to the heart of this debate:

It isn't the primary motivating factor for ISIS, but it is a rallying cry for Muslims and Arabs (including myself) everywhere in the world.

Gee, you don't say? That's the entire point. THIS IS THE ISIS THREAD. That's what everyone else is discussing, at least, and if you want to talk about jihadi movements elsewhere, different facts and motivations may well apply. But since we were all talking about ISIS, and what motivates those guys, perhaps you can now see why your stubborn insistence that "jihadis" are motived by Palestine and Saudi Arabia doesn't fit into this thread's discussion of ISIS.

ETA: I have to add that this seems particularly odd given that you were talking about the "realities" of jihad with respect to the bombing of ISIS above. What do the "jihadi realities" of Palestine and Saudi have to do with the bombing of ISIS? You've acknowledged that those issues are not the driving force for ISIS, so what "realities" do you believe the Administration is ignoring with respect to ISIS when it is dropping those bombs?

Or by many many many Muslims, including members of my immediate family who do not want American military presence in the holiest of holy places. You attempt to marginalize these people by calling them radicals;

I don't think not wanting American troops in Saudi Arabia makes you a radical. Justifying murder because you don't want American troops in there would make you one, though. I assume your family doesn't fit that shoe, though.

But to go a bit further, I don't think Egyptians should have the legal or moral right to dictate who Saudi Arabia invites into that country. Non-Saudis are certainly entitled to not like it or to express disapproval, but they're not entitled to dictate and force the situation they'd prefer in Saudi Arabia through violence, any more than killing someone who draws a cartoon of Mohammed in another country can be justified.

There is no right to not be offended, especially by things that occur in other countries. And to the extent there are those in the Muslim/Arab world who believes that such a right does exist, that was who my "screw them" reference was directed to.

Also, when referring to "radical" Islam, I was not referring simply to political issues relating to Palestine or Saudi Arabia. I was also referring to other conduct that evinces a lack of tolerance for other religions or violent suppression of rights, which is why I've mentioned the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues, ISIS killing religious non-conformists, or women being stoned to death or punished with brutality for adultery. Again, I don't see those issues having any relationship to Palestine or Saudi Arabia at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about the Iraqi troops that are getting killed. The ones who run away early are safe. It's the guys that try to stick around and do their job that generally are getting captured and killed. Anyway, if the Iraqis truly were not resisting at all, ISIS would have conquered Baghdad months ago. Someone is fighting back. And I think we should help at some level.

I have no problem with attacking ISIS from the air. Anything more than that - no thanks.

Either, both, but more particularly the Iraqis.

Either or both.. so we help the FSA... ridiculous. I don't mind selling arms to the Iraqis. I, again, don't mind us bombing the hell out of ISIS. But arming the FSA is insane.

Again, you do not seem to grasp that your assertion that they are ignoring the realities of what drives is not self-evident, and has not been proven. I don't believe that those "realities" are being ignored. Further, I don't agree with your definition of what those "realities" are, and I suspect the Administration does not fully agree with them either. You keep confusing the concept of ignoring realities with disagreement regarding what those realities are, and/or disagreement as to how best to address those "realities".

I'm not confusing anything, I keep bringing up real issues that need to be addressed, and here again, rather than discuss those issues you talk past them.

I did my time on debates and have practiced law for over 20 years, so I know what an ad hominem attack is. You've misread their comments and taken them out of context. They are talking about defeating the military threat posed by ISIS, and they advocated a military solution to that. That is not the same thing as saying that the ideology of Islamic extremism can be defeated solely through military means. That remains a strawman argument on your part unless you can find a quote where they are clearly referring to the ideology as a whole, and explicitly claiming it can be eliminated through solely military means. You won't find it because it is ludicrous on its face.

First off the fact that you are a lawyer is astounding to me considering how poorly your arguments are constructed. Secondly, Graham's assertion is that ISIS poses a grave and imminent threat, not simply a military threat, as you claim. That "American cities will burn" if we don't put boots on the ground in Iraq. He is explicitly stating that America is less safe due to the possibility of an attack by ISIS against us, here at home. The only feasible way that could happen is via a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are not coordinated military strikes, they are by suicide bombers, who are extremists - driven by an ideology. Why I have to spell this out to you is, again, astounding. ISIS is not a military threat to the United States.

You expect everyone else to ignore not only what the jihadis themselves actually say, but what common sense can derive from the realities of what they are actually doing on the ground. And I'll skip over a bunch of stuff to get to the statement you made that goes to the heart of this debate:

What the fuck are you talking about?

Gee, you don't say? That's the entire point. THIS IS THE ISIS THREAD. That's what everyone else is discussing, at least, and if you want to talk about jihadi movements elsewhere, different facts and motivations may well apply. But since we were all talking about ISIS, and what motivates those guys, perhaps you can now see why your stubborn insistence that "jihadis" are motived by Palestine and Saudi Arabia doesn't fit into this thread's discussion of ISIS.

Again, you know shit about Islamic fundamentalism, jihad, or what drives people to jihad. Palestine is a leading cause. Anjem Choudary was just arrested in the U.K. for being aligned with ISIS. He has spoken about the rise of the Khalifa for years. One of his central themes, one of the absolute core pieces to his rhetoric is American support for Israel. "The Saudis are in the pocket of the Americans, and the Americans in the pocket of the Israelis, and the Israelis in the pocket of the (devil)." To ignore these facts, that Palestine is a rally call to all Arabs and Muslims everywhere - even here in the Philippines, is to demonstrate willful ignorance, which you've repeatedly done. It's pathetic.

ETA: I have to add that this seems particularly odd given that you were talking about the "realities" of jihad with respect to the bombing of ISIS above. What do the "jihadi realities" of Palestine and Saudi have to do with the bombing of ISIS? You've acknowledged that those issues are not the driving force for ISIS, so what "realities" do you believe the Administration is ignoring with respect to ISIS when it is dropping those bombs?

The Administration is responding to the beheading videos, not ISIS. Had ISIS not directly engaged America, and had focused on Syria instead of pushing towards Baghdad. Had they kept their forces contained within Mosul and Fallujah, south of Kurdistan, and simply pressed into the Levant as they had originally planned. We would not be bombing them. The bombings happened because ISIS believed, wrongly, that American involvement would strengthen their cause and they made an ideological rather than a strategic decision which was a mistake.

As far as critiquing the Administration; if that is what you are looking for, the chief problem I have is with arming the FSA who are almost as genocidal as ISIS. There are very few "moderate" Syrians who are actively fighting against Assad.

With respect to your comments about jihad, I don't really think you know what it is or what it means for Arabs and Muslims today. But it is important. And again you misrepresent what I said, so let me be absolutely clear: The issues of Palestine and Saudi Arabia are chiefly important to the jihadi. ISIS' purpose is to solve these problems with the prophesied establishment of the Khalifa. Those who have joined the Islamic State have done so for numerous reasons, but they aren't conscripts. They are determined ideological individuals, many from developed nations, who believe that Arab and Muslim people have been trounced upon.

Again, you can ignore these realities if you choose to.

I don't think not wanting American troops in Saudi Arabia makes you a radical. Justifying murder because you don't want American troops in there would make you one, though. I assume your family doesn't fit that shoe, though.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. To be honest. You don't really understand what it means to have American troops in Saudi Arabia. You don't understand the gravity it holds to many Muslims. It is defiling the holiest places. To an American, it might seem ridiculous; but that's closed minded.

But to go a bit further, I don't think Egyptians should have the legal or moral right to dictate who Saudi Arabia invites into that country. Non-Saudis are certainly entitled to not like it or to express disapproval, but they're not entitled to dictate and force the situation they'd prefer in Saudi Arabia through violence, any more than killing someone who draws a cartoon of Mohammed in another country can be justified.

You're conflating the wishes of the Saudi regime, with that of the people who live in Saudi Arabia. Those people despise the regime. They are no better than any other petty dictatorship. And mind you, this same regime beheaded dozens of people this year, stones them to death, beats women in the streets. It is only one-step removed from the Taliban.

There is no right to not be offended,
especially by things that occur in other countries. And to the extent there are those in the Muslim/Arab world who believes that such a right does exist, that was who my "screw them" reference was directed to.

It isn't that they feel they have a "right not to be offended," it is that they can see what is obvious. The United States is doing what is in it's best geopolitical interests by ensuring the continuation of stability in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar. Kuwait, etc. Now you can add Egypt back to that list. Arabs from all sects see American unconditional support for Israel as an affront.

Now you're saying they should deal with it. Well they are. Iran is enriching uranium. We've got the Arab Spring. We've got the FSA, the Islamic State, etc etc.. It's a very volatile region.

Also, when referring to "radical" Islam, I was not referring simply to political issues relating to Palestine or Saudi Arabia. I was also referring to other conduct that evinces a lack of tolerance for other religions or violent suppression of rights, which is why I've mentioned the Taliban destroying Buddhist statues,

But that's not just the Taliban. That's done in many Islamic countries. Idolitry is an affront God and is explicitly forbidden. It would be as if someone built a monument with an upside-down cross. It would be removed as being offensive to the community in most places, right or wrong. (I fully support freedom of expression and speech, but I'm pointing out why that happens in Islamic countries and how it isn't very different than people protesting a mosque being built at ground zero).

ISIS killing religious non-conformists, or women being stoned to death or punished with brutality for adultery.

Two different things. The women being stoned to death happens with American support. That happens in Saudi Arabia all the fucking time. It might not had we allowed or pushed for democratic reforms there. It doesn't happen in the more progressive Arab nations.

Again, I don't see those issues having any relationship to Palestine or Saudi Arabia at all.

Because those issues have nothing to do with the motivations of the jihadi. They aren't joining radical movements because they want to destroy Buddhist temples or stone women. They want to fight against the petty dictators in the region, they want to topple the bullshit Iraqi government, they want to make a statement to all Muslims to resist their governments and join the Khalifa (with respect to IS).

Jihad isn't about stoning women, nor is it a fundamentalist principle. It's a concept about struggle for Islamic people. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism or traditionalism. You are getting those things confused.
 
But he FSA is insane.

There's no harm sending advisors (as opposed to arming), but you're just nitpicking anyway because I specificaly said I don't know (and neither do you) whether the FSA is sufficiently viable to justify sending advisors. There are people much closer to the ground with much better knowledge of the situation than you or I can glean from the internet.

First off the fact that you are a lawyer is astounding to me considering how poorly your arguments are constructed.

Heh. Well, we all have our opinions.

Secondly, Graham's assertion is that ISIS poses a grave and imminent threat, not simply a military threat, as you claim. That "American cities will burn" if we don't put boots on the ground in Iraq. He is explicitly stating that America is less safe due to the possibility of an attack by ISIS against us, here at home. The only feasible way that could happen is via a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are not coordinated military strikes, they are by suicide bombers, who are extremists - driven by an ideology. Why I have to spell this out to you is, again, astounding. ISIS is not a military threat to the United States.

That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The point we were discussing was whether or not there were people claiming that Islamic extremism could be defeated via purely military means. I said that was a strawman of your own creation, you claimed it wasn't. What you just typed has nothing to do with that, but rather goes to the completely different issue of whether ISIS is a threat at all.

Again, you know shit about Islamic fundamentalism, jihad, or what drives people to jihad. Palestine is a leading cause. Anjem Choudary was just arrested in the U.K. for being aligned with ISIS.

Again, you're deliberately speaking in general "jihadi" terms to avoid discussion of the specific group at issue in this thread, which is ISIS. There is no logical connection between the actions ISIS is taking against Muslims, Yazidis, and Christians in Iraq, and Palestine.That is a different agenda, and you've even admitted that those factors you identified are NOT the primary motivation of ISIS. As for Choudary, he's been mouthing off in the U.K. for years. He's not an ISIS jihadi in Syria or Iraq -- he's the jihadi equivalent of a limousine liberal.

The Administration is responding to the beheading videos, not ISIS.

Says you. I say we started bombing ISIS on August 7, and they didn't broadcast the Foley video until the August 18th. I think the facts are on my side, not yours. But you are giving me serious deja vu, because someone else (I think), previously tried to argue that they beheaded Foley to provoke us into air strikes. Temporal contradictions notwithstanding.

With respect to your comments about jihad, I don't really think you know what it is or what it means for Arabs and Muslims today. But it is important. And again you misrepresent what I said, so let me be absolutely clear: The issues of Palestine and Saudi Arabia are chiefly important to the jihadi. ISIS' purpose is to solve these problems with the prophesied establishment of the Khalifa.

Backtrack much? Again, in your last post, you said "It isn't the primary motivating factor for ISIS." Well, of course it isn't. Rounding up and murdering Yazidis, Christians, and insufficiently devout Muslims in northern Iraq has jack shit to do with getting jews out of Palestine. But because you are so hot on that issue, you want to paint that as being the major cause of unrest so a change will be made in the direction you favor.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. To be honest. You don't really understand what it means to have American troops in Saudi Arabia. You don't understand the gravity it holds to many Muslims. It is defiling the holiest places. To an American, it might seem ridiculous; but that's closed minded.

No, my POV isn't closed minded. But a mindset that believes the mere presence of a human being of a different faith is offensive is both closed-minded and intolerant. And if you're saying that's a commonly held belief in Islam, then the problem is more widespread than I'd thought.

You're conflating the wishes of the Saudi regime, with that of the people who live in Saudi Arabia.

No I'm not. I specifically said that non-Saudis have no right to control the presence of origin troops in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi people do to the extent that is not consistent with what they'd want.

It isn't that they feel they have a "right not to be offended," it is that they can see what is obvious. The United States is doing what is in it's best geopolitical interests by ensuring the continuation of stability in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar. Kuwait, etc. Now you can add Egypt back to that list. Arabs from all sects see American unconditional support for Israel as an affront.

Nice try, but you just said U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in particular was intolerable specifically because of the religious significance of Medina and Mecca. You said their mere presence was "defiling the holiest places".

Now, you're trying to backtrack and say it's just about geopolitical balance and Palestine again. Again, all you care about is the Israel issue, and you twist everything into somehow being caused by that. Even though as I pointed out previously, extremism and intolerance from Wahhabism preceded Israel by nearly 200 years.

But that's not just the Taliban. That's done in many Islamic countries. Idolitry is an affront God and is explicitly forbidden. It would be as if someone built a monument with an upside-down cross. It would be removed as being offensive to the community in most places, right or wrong. (I fully support freedom of expression and speech, but I'm pointing out why that happens in Islamic countries and how it isn't very different than people protesting a mosque being built at ground zero).

There's a world of difference between saying something offends you, and passing laws against such offense or killing/threatening to kill those who have offended you.

The women being stoned to death happens with American support. That happens in Saudi Arabia all the fucking time. It might not had we allowed or pushed for democratic reforms there. It doesn't happen in the more progressive Arab nations.

You really think a "democratic" Saudi Arabia would be significantly more liberal in terms of religion? Shit, primary opposition to the Saudi government is from the religious extremists. We weren't running Pakistan or Afghanistan, or supporting those dictatorships, when they helped or turned a blind eye to the Taliban. We hated Gaddhafi, yet western Libya gave birth to more jihadis than anywhere else.

Because those issues have nothing to do with the motivations of the jihadi. They aren't joining radical movements because they want to destroy Buddhist temples or stone women. They want to fight against the petty dictators in the region, they want to topple the bullshit Iraqi government, they want to make a statement to all Muslims to resist their governments and join the Khalifa (with respect to IS).

If those actions have nothing to do with the motivations of the ISIS jihadis, why do they engage in those actions?
 
Last edited:
Sources tell ABC News that Nolen may be mentally ill. Law enforcement officials have not discovered any evidence to suggest that the beheading had a connection to radicals overseas and have made no ties to terrorism. The officials said they believe that workplace anger was the main source of his rage.

2 Killed in Alabama UPS Shooting Were Supervisors

The FBI is now involved in the case and were called in by the local police "due to the manner of death and the initial statements of co-workers," according to the Moore Police Department.

"After conducting interviews with Nolen's co-workers, information was obtained that he recently started trying to convert several employees to the Muslim religion," police said in a statement.

Authorities are investigating whether Nolen posted a series of fanatical messages on Facebook and, though they have not yet found any connections, they are still looking to see if he was influenced by the recent ISIS beheadings dominating the news.
+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- +

Just so we keep the facts straight.


Also, IMO - I dont think there is any soft solution to the ISIS problem. A war is a temporary solution. As long as we have hardliners this will be a long and never ending problem. The good news is we still seem to have money now. I wonder what will happen a decade from now ?
 
gour, your responses are way to long to read...
 
There's no harm sending advisors (as opposed to arming), but you're just nitpicking anyway because I specificaly said I don't know (and neither do you) whether the FSA is sufficiently viable to justify sending advisors. There are people much closer to the ground with much better knowledge of the situation than you or I can glean from the internet.


But that's the point, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you have almost no information about what is going on. For what it's worth, that's understandable because you're not an Arab, you have no Arab friends or family, you have no connection to the region, and thus you aren't involved in the situation. You're surely not reading Arab press, Arab social media, and obviously don't understand Arab worldviews in the region.


What is also obvious is that you're merely parroting Western media outlets, and even then, only those you choose to listen to. Your connection to the MIddle East, as evidenced by your source of information, is weak at best.


With respect to the FSA, the FSA is insane. You're saying "I don't know" but then saying "well gour, you must not know either." Wrong. I do know, and many others have said this before, that the FSA is run by genocidal fanatics very much like the Islamic State.


But "there's no harm sending in advisors." Sure there is. For one, we're putting American soldiers in harms way; for two, we're doing so with an unknown outcome and an unknown or hidden enemy (IS can easily go underground, and have many elements and sympathizers among the Syrian and Iraqi forces); for and third, sending in advisors is often not far removed from actually having American forces in combat and can, slippery slope I realize, lead to just that if the mission appears to be failing.


But most importantly, the FSA has a truce with the Islamic State, they are not opposed to one another at this point. While the FSA would likely engage the Islamic State if it meant finally getting Western support, by way of arms, it simply means we'd be buying them off. Ideologically, they are not inclined to fight one another while Bashar Assad remains in power.


I question the sanity of anyone who would suggest we help the Syrian rebels at this point.


Heh. Well, we all have our opinions.


I'll just leave this alone.


That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. The point we were discussing was whether or not there were people claiming that Islamic extremism could be defeated via purely military means. I said that was a strawman of your own creation, you claimed it wasn't. What you just typed has nothing to do with that, but rather goes to the completely different issue of whether ISIS is a threat at all.


Because again, you've lied and ignored what was posted. Numerous Congressmen have stated that by engaging the Islamic State, militarily, we can defeat radical Islam and reduce the potential for a terrorist attack at home. That is the point.


Such a statement would mean military action against the Islamic State would result in a lower probability of a terrorist attack which is almost assuredly to be ideologically driven. Thus, they are stating we can defeat the idea of jihad. Because if the terrorist who would potentially attack America believes he is on a holy mission, he is engaging in jihad against America, he is singularly driven by his own personal ideological beliefs.


Attacking the Islamic State does not likely reduce the potential for such an attack; and there are many reasons to believe it would have the reverse effect.


This is the second or third time I've had to explain this to you... it's getting ridiculous.


Again, you're deliberately speaking in general "jihadi" terms to avoid discussion of the specific group at issue in this thread, which is ISIS. There is no logical connection between the actions ISIS is taking against Muslims, Yazidis, and Christians in Iraq, and Palestine.That is a different agenda, and you've even admitted that those factors you identified are NOT the primary motivation of ISIS. As for Choudary, he's been mouthing off in the U.K. for years. He's not an ISIS jihadi in Syria or Iraq -- he's the jihadi equivalent of a limousine liberal.


This is what I am talking about.. This. To everyone reading this page. You have absolutely no clue.


Let's break it down one-by-one, and then I'm done.


You don't understand what jihad is. To say I'm speaking in generalities when discussing the jihadi, demonstrates you don't get what is causing hundreds and potentially thousands of Muslims from Western nations to join the Islamic State. So, I'll explain it to you.


What drives a European Muslim to travel to the Middle East and fight with the FSA or ISIS?

a) Not being able to successfully assimilate at home.

b) Viewing Western governments complicity in what many Arabs perceive as American/Israeli dominance in the region.

c) Unfair treatment of advancing nations, like Iran, toward nuclear energy - all the while, Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

d) Seeing Arab (Palestinian) children dead in the streets.

e) Watching the Arab Spring in Egypt morph into yet-another U.S. puppet in al-Sisi. Yet-another Mubarak, who was hated.

f) Seeing how Iran devolved due to American interventionism by installing the Shah.

g) Seeing how America propped up Saddam, Mubarak, the House of Saud, and numerous other petty dictatorships.

h) Seeing how Palestinians are treated like dogs, have their land stolen from under them, and are butchered en masse; humilated, and defeated as a matter of routine.

i) Seeing American presence in the Holy Land of Mecca and Medina. Knowing this is haram.

j) Seeing al-Saud and the Wahhabi Saudis demolish mosque after mosque, even turning the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad into a public toilet.

k) Feeling helpless and hopeless; having no control over the nation of your birth, none of the nation to which you reside, no acceptance, nothing.

l) Understanding that historically Islamic Civilization was chief among all in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. This is a great sense of pride, but also something that leads people to want a new Islamic State.

m) Continued, repeated, and constant American military aggression against Arab, Persian, and African peoples - all of Islamic faith.

n) The perceived exploitation of Arab lands and resources to benefit the small plutocracy that exists within the allied oil producing nations (understand these nations do not treat Muslims and Arabs as citizens; and emigrating to these nations, becoming naturalized, can be next to impossible for the vast majority of Arabs).


The list goes on and on and on and on... It boils down to this: "either help us, or leave us alone." And most Muslims would just like to see America simply withdraw, militarily and economically, and that would solve 90% of their issues with the United States.


Let Muslims solve Muslim problems in the region. If there will be civil wars, then so be it. If there is to be an Islamic State, then what else is new? If you hadn't been paying attention, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few, were/are under strict Islamic codes.


So since none of that is happening, there are millions of disillusioned Muslims in the world, and not just in the Middle East. This disillusionment, and feeling of oppression, leads to radicalization. Radicalization of thought, in all areas of life; including their interpretation of Islam - to become more fundamentalist, and yes, if Sunni, this can lead many who are from Wahhabi backgrounds to start to see the world through the lens that IS portrays.


So.. now that we have that out of the way.. Let me try to explain the concept of jihad. Jihad is the struggle of all Muslims to fight towards the path of Allah, as did the Prophet Muhammad. It is the third greatest of all good deeds. It is not a choice but an obligation to oneself to fight the enemies of Islam in physical resistance. Jihadists are those who are essentially performing a holy act, similar to a pilgrimage. They are giving themselves to a higher purpose, the struggle of their people in service to God.


The reason I feel it import to explain this is because it seems you don't really get it. You keep referencing "ISIS," as if this is a contained phenomena. The problem isn't ISIS. ISIS is a single manifestation of radical Islamic Jihad. There are countless others, including al-Qaeda, al-Nursa (who represents a very very large portion of the FSA coalition forces), the Islamic Front, Hamas, etc. Groups you would call "terrorist organizations" and rightfully so in most cases!


So when you say "I'm only referring to ISIS" for one, that's asinine. ISIS is/was al-Qaeda. al-Nursa is al-Qaeda. We bombed both this past week. Now the FSA is telling us to stop bombing al-Qaeda and only focus on ISIS. We are ignoring the difference the FSA is making because, frankly, there is no difference. Our armed forces know that al-Nursa is ISIS. Both are essentially offshoots of al-Qaeda which is really only a term that is useful when describing Osama bin Laden's Saudi/Afghan mujahideen. But we're still dealing with al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda in Syria just on two sides of a border. In fact, even that distinction isn't accurate. It is believed that the vast majority of al-Nursa's command structure is Al-Qaeda in Iraq forces who served under al-Zarqawi.


Btw, the different terms of "in-this place" and "in-that place" are just distinctions without much of a difference. They are poor translations to make the decentralization of the totality of the worldwide Sunni Muslim mujahideen easier to understand.


Now that we have the framework out of the way I'll address the individual points you made above.


1) "you're deliberately speaking in general "jihadi" terms to avoid discussion of the specific group at issue in this thread, which is ISIS."

A: Hopefully now you can see this is silly, right?


2) There is no logical connection between the actions ISIS is taking against Muslims,

A: Wahabbism is entirely about dividing Muslims between good and bad. Those who practice Islam and those who are apostates. ISIS takes actions against Muslims first, not last, because they should know the "law."


3) Yazidis,

A: The Yazidis are Kurds, they generally reside south of the majority of the population of Kurdistan. The Islamic State has pressed in all directions, and has engaged the Kurdish Peshmerga. Once the peshmerga withdrew, the Yazidis were defenseless. They have been kidnapped and murdered due to their religion and being perceived as worshiping Satan. From an Islamic perspective, their views would be considered highly offensive. Does that mean they deserve death, obviously not, but if you're asking for an explanation - there it is.


4) and Christians in Iraq,

A: Christians have been treated differently than the Yazidis. It's not fair to categorize them together, at all. Christians are not being wiped out like the Yazidis. Yes, they have been killed, sometimes en masse, but this isn't the case.


First off, the point of "in Iraq" is indicative of ignorance, the majority of Christians under ISIS live in Syria, but anyway Christians under ISIS are treated very much like the Jews in early-30's Nazi Germany. They are placed under specific rules that stem from Islamic law called dhimmitude, and are told they must pay Jizyah, or a tax, defined in the Koran which gives Christians a "protected" status. Their homes and businesses are marked with the letter N to note they are followers of the Nazarene. And they are treated generally as second-class citizens or worse.


5) and Palestine.That is a different agenda, and you've even admitted that those factors you identified are NOT the primary motivation of ISIS.

Because the primary motivation of ISIS is to claim the lands of Iraq and the Levant and establish the Khalifa. But the primary driving force that lead so many to join ISIS, that drove so many to join al-Nursa, al-Qaeda, al-Aqsa, the Islamic Front, and the Army of Islam, just to name a few most assuredly includes Palestine. Palestine is chief among all regional issues for all Muslim nations. You fail to understand this, for whatever reason.


For every single coalition put together by the United States, all of the Arab "allies" demanded action on the issue of Palestine in order to lend their support. It is widely believed that the exact same thing has happened just recently and this is why Abbas believes the United States will not issue a veto if he can get a resolution in the Security Council prior to 2016.


In bin Laden's own words: "America will not be able to dream of security until we live in security in Palestine. It is unfair that you live in peace while our brothers in Gaza live in insecurity... Accordingly, and with the will of God, our attacks will continue against you as long as your support for Israel continues,"


You are a fool if you still refuse to understand this simple fact. Palestine is the central issue in all of the Arab world. To see Palestinians treated worse than animals infuriates all of us in the Arab world, including me. It drives people to speak out, and some to take what they perceive as warranted action.
 
Says you. I say we started bombing ISIS on August 7, and they didn't broadcast the Foley video until the August 18th. I think the facts are on my side, not yours. But you are giving me serious deja vu, because someone else (I think), previously tried to argue that they beheaded Foley to provoke us into air strikes. Temporal contradictions notwithstanding.


This should be simple to figure out, and you're right someone else did say that and they were right and you were wrong. The videos were designed to provoke an American response. We bombed ISIS on the 7th, in a limited engagement. This was explained to you previously in another post, that ISIS has gambled that now is the opportune time to engage the United States (believing it will happen sooner or later). As I stated before, their northern expansion is what prompted this confrontation. Had they simply proceeded into Syria they would have met little American resistance at all.


Backtrack much? Again, in your last post, you said "It isn't the primary motivating factor for ISIS." Well, of course it isn't. Rounding up and murdering Yazidis, Christians, and insufficiently devout Muslims in northern Iraq has jack shit to do with getting jews out of Palestine. But because you are so hot on that issue, you want to paint that as being the major cause of unrest so a change will be made in the direction you favor.


Well, there we have it. You're not willing to listen to their point of view. Let me quote the Muslim Brotherhood text on Jihad and it's motivations:


"The youth should know that the problems of the Islamic world, such as Palestine,

Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, or the Philippines, are not issues of territories and

nations, but of faith and religion. They are problems of Islam and the Muslims, and

they can be resolved neither by negotiation nor by recognizing the enemy's right to

the Islamic land he stole. Rather, the only option is Jihad for Allah, and this is why

Jihad is the way... "


Let me quote al-Qaeda's open letters to the people of Egypt:


Not going to use quote function because it's garbage and this should be read by everyone.

--------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------START

--------------------------------------------------


"For 30 years, the US was silent toward the corruption and the embezzlement by Mubarak, his family, and his inner circle. It did not start talking about transition of power in Egypt until the security forces failed to suppress the uprising of the Egyptian people who are starving for dignity and freedom.


Anyone who monitors the statements of the US administration and its president and the statements of Western leaders would notice the gradual shift from talking about protecting stability in Egypt to asking Mubarak to resign. They were not only saying that they want Mubarak to resign; they were asking for an orderly and controlled transition that would allow change of faces, and perhaps regime, but would maintain the current policies. They want to continue with the policies that fight Islam and demote the Shari‟a, even if the overwhelming majority of Egyptians demand it, and policies that do not oppose to the American and Western military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, the Gulf, and the Islamic Maghreb. They want to continue with a policy that helps that presence and supplies it with whatever it needs, including supplies, fuel, airports, seaports, bases, information, forces, and polices that ensure the survival of Israel, continues the pressure on the Palestinian people in Gaza and elsewhere in order to give in to the Israeli aspirations and accept a government headed by compromisers and defeatists, and ensures the continuation of the Zionist project for the destruction of al-Aqsa and the Judiazation of Palestine.


This is the democracy that the US wants for us; a democracy that is especially designed for the Third World in general and the Islamic world in particular. We witnessed this democracy in the election of the Rescue Front in Algeria, and we witnessed it when the US and the West boycotted the government that was formed by Hamas, and in the US‟s appointment of Karzai as president even after it admitted that he rigged the election.


...


The US and the West imposed Israel on us and brought an entire nation and settled it in Palestine and uprooted an entire nation from its land and refused to allow it to return to it with total disregard to the opinion of the majority and the right to self determination for the uprooted.


The majority in the US and the West wanted to expel the Palestinians from their land; therefore, they were expelled. “This is democracy and let these people go to hell.”


...


They want a democracy that accepts the confiscation of most of Palestine and giving it to the Zionist entity. They want a democracy that will continue the siege on Gaza and the suffocation of the resistance against Israel. They want a democracy that will fight jihad in the name of fighting terrorism.


...


To strengthen a regime that is loyal to her, the US shamelessly and disgracefully intervenes in Egyptian affairs, issues instructions and orders day after day, sends it representatives for direct involvement, and contacts the government and some opposition factions as if it is dealing with a farm or a branch of a company that it owns. This humiliating style in the American treatment of Egypt became deeply rooted by Mubarak and by al-Sadat before him.


So, this is the disease that the corrupt Egyptian regime represents. As I said before, it is a secular regime that fights Islam, oppresses, corrupts, steals resources, is defeatist in front of Israel, and is loyal to the West that is headed by the US.


So, what is the cure?


The cure is to amputate this corrupt regime and replace it with a good, just, and Shari‟a-based regime that spreads Shura and justice and will allow the nation to participate in selecting their rulers and holding them accountable and will allow their active participation in managing their affairs through their representatives, and will work on redistributing the nation‟s wealth and on stopping the theft, embezzlement, wickedness, and immorality, and will confront the Western hegemony over our countries, and will aid in ending the oppression of any oppressed person in our nation, in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every corner of the Islamic world, and ending the oppression of every oppressed person in the world, because oppression is forbidden to Muslims and non-Muslims.


The Prophet said, “God said, „My people, I banned oppression for myself and I banned it amongst you, so do not oppress.‟”(Footnote 1)


The removal of the tyrant and the amputation of the corrupt regime is nothing but a step or steps on the path to a cure. It is like a surgeon who cuts open the abdomen of a cancer patient, who will not heal until this cancer is removed and the abdomen is stitched back together and the patient is cared for until he recovers.


(Footnote 1) I suggest that at the beginning you should include the poem that I attached to you in a file named “Good News.” "


--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------END

--------------------------------------------------


Throughout the letters, videos, posts, Islamist websites, social media, everything. Palestine is the chief issue of Arab oppression. Every Arab despises what is happening there, and every Arab can sympathize with the Palestinians. So organizations like al-Qaeda make it the foremost rally cry for their recruitment.

In al-Qaeda's own words, when discussing the problems facing Muslims today “It was necessary to discuss Palestine first.” .


Now I know you aren't keen on changing your opinions, but if anyone was ever proven wrong it has been you, just now. This post has gone on long enough. And frankly I've spent far too much time discussing the topic with someone whom I know will not engage in good faith debate.


Anyway to those interested I hope this has been enlightening.
 
Sorry for that long two posts, I won't write anything that long again on here... XenForo even told me it was too fucking long (limit 20,000 chars)...

I've got another 10 pages here to post, but I don't want to spam the board.. Suffice it to say, things are more complicated than some are being led to believe. It's not as simple as saying these guys are good and these guys are bad..

There are very few "good guys" here.. The Syrian Rebels are not good guys in my book, they are filled with extremists.
The Iraqi Army is a joke.
And yes we should bomb the hell out of the Islamic State (if we can identify them).

But if we really want an end to Islamic Jihad against America which is the real problem here (ISIS is just a symptom of that problem), then we have to start addressing the core issues that drives an Arab or a Muslim or anyone really to Islamic extremism and ultimately a jihad against the United States.
 
But if we really want an end to Islamic Jihad against America which is the real problem here (ISIS is just a symptom of that problem), then we have to start addressing the core issues that drives an Arab or a Muslim or anyone really to Islamic extremism and ultimately a jihad against the United States.

The core issue is that we support Israel. And since thats not going to change, this problem will continue.
 
The core issue is that we support Israel. And since thats not going to change, this problem will continue.

Don't tell Q-Tip that..

But there is no reason not to change this policy. We can continue to support Israel without funding their military efforts, and without blocking (by veto) any progress regarding the Palestinian issue in the Security Council.

Let's stop supporting the oppression of Palestinians and see how that goes? :conf (11):
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top