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

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
For the most part, I'm going to avoid the interlineated responses to all your responses because they just get too long, and I think they detract from the major points. Believe it or not, I actually understand your point. I think your mistake comes from too much generalization in applying that point.

I am saying that we would not see as many willing to join groups like ISIS to fight against the West. It would work in our favor. It wouldn't be a satisfactory solution for radical Muslims OR radical Jews OR radical Christians. I think this point is a given; hence the term "radical." I've already said we should not be engaging radicals, we should be bombing them; what I have said is that we should disarm them and the best way in doing so is to mitigate the causes of radicalization.

You and I disagree because we're talking about different population pools, and because I think you're over-generalizing. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the ME, and I do not believe that most of them are candidates for joining ISIS, AQ, the Khorasan Group, or similar entities. They are not just not sufficiently radical to do that.

But there is a subgroup within that population that is more radical, and that constitutes the recruiting base for those groups. These are the people who are motivated by religious-based extremism/wahhabism/etc.. And my point is that subgroup, the real recruiting pool, are already sufficiently "radical" that they would reject any peace plan that left Israel at the 1967 borders. In other words, the people who would be willing to accept a 1967 Israel are not the ones who are picking up the guns and joining ISIS/AQ/etc. anyway. So when you have al-Baghdadi or other radical leaders inspiring followers and recruits by talking about the Palestinian issue (among all the others), which you have pointed to repeatedly, it wrongly implies that the solution we are willing to accept is the same one they are willing to accept.

A 1967 Israel would satisfy moderates like you. It won't satisfy the people who are considering joining ISIS, AQ, or the Khorosan Group, as well as many others who aren't radical enough to join themselves but still would oppose such a deal. And those folks will just continue doing what they're doing.

I just watched an interview with one of the jihadis fighting against Assad. He was very passionate about fighting against that regime, which I believe is justified. But he was then asked about what comes after Assad, and he was very clear that he was going to continue fighting to ensure that a strict Islamic state was established, and that he'd fight against others (Muslims) who would oppose that. From everything we've seen/heard/read about the infighting among anti-Assad groups, we have every reason to believe him.

That illustrates part of the reason why I think you're wrongly minimizing the central role Islamic extremism unrelated to Palestine is playing.

Groups like Al Qaeda had marginal (almost nonexistent) support in the 90s; we can get back to that point.

I'd point out that we have fewer troops in Saudi Arabia than we had in the 90's, and that Israel has withdrawn from additional territories since the 90's. Yet, those radical groups are stronger, and are getting still stronger today.

1) American position is not a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict as we only support Israel's international position in the Security Council. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the United States is not interested in an international solution, but instead, one that Israel is 100% committed to. Israel has to say yes, otherwise, there will be no Palestinian state. Muslims and Arabs are obviously disgusted with this position, as am I.

A solution that Israel isn't willing to accept isn't going to happen, by definition. And though I don't want to go too far off on that tangent in this thread, the Palestinian position has plenty of other supporters on the Security Council.

Oddly, you and I both agree that a final peace must have Israel at the 1967 borders. The two groups within Israel that resist that are 1) the religious groups that believe that those lands somehow "belong" to them, and I have zero respect for that position, and 2) those who have security concerns about what happens after they give up their last bargaining chip, and I have a lot of sympathy for that position. As I think many other Americans do as well.
 
Last edited:
Uuuuuuh i'm not sure how to say.

As a muslim and a Turkish person who lives near middle east and knows arab - turkish - iranian cultures and religions etc i believe the whole thing might be understand different in Usa or Europe or the the people surrounded by some media. So if there's a missunderstanding about isis(işid whatever), ıslam and the things going on like articles sayin Turkey goverment giving isis guns or helping them which is a lie or stuff like that. I can provide some information that not present you in Usa. You can ask any theese things to me too.

I can easily see the image of muslim religion and maybe all innocent muslims getting hurt because of theese things that's why i write this. It’s like the ghost of 9/11. I'm seing reports that people getting killed just because they have beard.
I'm not a terrorist. Or any of the things that showed to you like Stereotyped muslim. Just wanted to say if you want something from an inside perspective i'm here.

Since there's people who are actually from israel i can talk about Gaza topic too. I've never talked with a Jewish or israeli person so it should be a different experience
 
Believe it or not, I actually understand your point. I think your mistake comes from too much generalization in applying that point.

Q-Tip, if you understand my point then you understand that I'm all for combating the Islamic State in a limited fashion, from the air.

My point is that if we are seriously committed to preventing future terrorist attacks against the United States we need to take action to make friends in the region, and at the very least where we cannot see eye to eye we should not be making so many enemies.

The problem Muslims have with America are almost entirely centered around our uneven foreign policy. If we were to only change that policy we would remove a major point of contention among Muslims worldwide.

As far as "generalizations," I don't really know what you're talking about, but whatever.

You and I disagree because we're talking about different population pools, and because I think you're over-generalizing. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the ME, and I do not believe that most of them are candidates for joining ISIS, AQ, the Khorasan Group, or similar entities. They are not just not sufficiently radical to do that.

We aren't in disagreement here. And I don't recall ever saying that "most of them are candidates to join ISIS" etc. I don't know what would make you think that I said anything remotely like this.

But there is a subgroup within that population that is more radical, and that constitutes the recruiting base for those groups. These are the people who are motivated by religious-based extremism/wahhabism/etc..

Q-Tip, this point is counterfactual. There are many people in the Middle East who are not religious fanatics at all yet they have joined the Islamic State and become radicalized. In fact, (I'm now saying this for the umpteenth time) most ISIS recruits joined simply to fight Assad; religion was not their primary motivation for joining. They became radicalized by the group.

The Islamic State is now targeting youths around the globe; men and women, for recruitment. The largest group of jihadists are not religious fanatics because they aren't versed in their own religion all that well to begin with.

And my point is that subgroup, the real recruiting pool, are already sufficiently "radical" that they would reject any peace plan that left Israel at the 1967 borders.

Again, this isn't true for the aforementioned reasons. I'm not saying ISIS would support an Israeli peaceplan; nor do I care what ISIS would support. I am saying that the vast majority of Muslims would support a return to the 1967 borders and there are dozens of opinion polls to back this up.

Lastly, your definition of radical, again, just isn't based in fact. Many families in Europe are reporting their very moderate family members leaving for Turkey to cross over the border into Syria. These folks were driven by political and ideological reasons, not religious. Once there, it is a known fact that they are indoctrinated into a radicalized form of Islamic jihad - but not before.

In other words, the people who would be willing to accept a 1967 Israel are not the ones who are picking up the guns and joining ISIS/AQ/etc. anyway.

We're talking about lots of folks who are teenagers or just slightly older. This statement doesn't mean much for that reason. What they believe now, and what they believed prior to being indoctrinated are two different things. I doubt many had completely rational and reasoned worldviews prior to joining a group like ISIS to begin with, for obvious reasons.

So when you have al-Baghdadi or other radical leaders inspiring followers and recruits by talking about the Palestinian issue (among all the others), which you have pointed to repeatedly, it wrongly implies that the solution we are willing to accept is the same one they are willing to accept.

It's not wrongly implying anything. Again Q-Tip, you'd need to validate the point you made because frankly I can find little to no evidence that it represents reality. Most reports of individuals joining IS from European nations describes people who were not religious extremists; rather, the most common person is someone who was disillusioned and felt either oppressed or ostracized by their society.

Those in the Middle East who join are primarily either Syrian or Iraqi and they are joining for obvious reasons which are political in nature. You may think most of them wouldn't accept terms for an Israeli peace agreement, and in many cases you'd likely be right (al-Baghdadi obviously wouldn't). However, I don't these people are simply radical for the sake of being radical - which is how you described them in an earlier post.

A 1967 Israel would satisfy moderates like you. It won't satisfy the people who are considering joining ISIS, AQ, or the Khorosan Group, as well as many others who aren't radical enough to join themselves but still would oppose such a deal. And those folks will just continue doing what they're doing.

Again, you don't understand my point. My point is that if the Palestinian issue were resolved, and American involvement in the Middle East were reduced, financially, and militarily, these folks would have no reason to target America - at all.

Your argument implies that Israel requires American protection; it does not.
Your argument implies that America must be involved in the Middle East; it does not.

Lastly, based on these two implications, you are concluding that no matter what we do within possible options, we will face Islamic extremism at equal levels that we are today (without some other as of yet undisclosed solution). Again, radicalism for it's own sake. I reject this as it's simply based on an incomplete and frankly lazy understanding of what drives Muslims to jihad against the West and the Zionists.

If America removed itself from the equation, we would no longer be in the crosshairs of these groups. Simply put, what are we fighting for?

I just watched an interview with one of the jihadis fighting against Assad. He was very passionate about fighting against that regime, which I believe is justified. But he was then asked about what comes after Assad, and he was very clear that he was going to continue fighting to ensure that a strict Islamic state was established, and that he'd fight against others (Muslims) who would oppose that. From everything we've seen/heard/read about the infighting among anti-Assad groups, we have every reason to believe him.

Q-Tip, of course we should believe him. If you've read my posts in this thread at all I've stated that any new government in the Middle East, in almost any nation, will be under some form of Sharia law. It's what the people want.

Since this form of democracy is not compatible with the American concept of democracy (as it is not as free as we might like), then we need to make a decision as a society as to whether or not we can do business with nations that practice Sharia. We do now with Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia and many others; but for some reason if Syrians want Sharia then it's somehow intolerable. I think such double-standards cause great deal of confusion among groups like the Islamist rebels fighting both Assad and the Islamic State.

That illustrates part of the reason why I think you're wrongly minimizing the central role Islamic extremism unrelated to Palestine is playing.

No Q-Tip. The problem is that you think Islamist views are "extremist," they aren't. The Islamist, the person wanting to form a government based on Sharia, represents the majority. This is not important to my argument, because I do not care if a country decides, democratically, to support Sharia. It's not on my list of concerns.

Again, think about what I'm saying. You are claiming I'm minimizing something that I've stated in 3 posts in this thread already is not an issue for me. I do not give a fuck about Sharia law since the majority of Muslims want it in most countries.

Sharia is not a major point of contention among most Muslims; and I can provide figures to back this up easily. In Middle Eastern and South/Southeast Asian nations (90% of the Muslim population combined), the majority of people want Sharia (more than two-thirds).

Do I agree with Sharia law? No. I'm a liberal, obviously not.
But do I think Muslims have a right to self-determination? Yes.

I'd point out that we have fewer troops in Saudi Arabia than we had in the 90's, and that Israel has withdrawn from additional territories since the 90's. Yet, those radical groups are stronger, and are getting still stronger today.

This is disingenuous. We had troops in Saudi Arabia in the 90s due to the Iraq War; having them there now makes no sense. We also prop up a regime there, among other places, and the radicals hate us for it (especially the Shia, and non Wahabbis).

Israel's movements are not relevant. For every troop withdrawal there has been a doubling of settlements in the West Bank. Again, either this is disingenuous or you're just not informed on the issue.

A bit of research on these two points would be appreciated before making these types of comments as people reading this would think "Yeah, Israel and the U.S. did what these folks were asking and nothing changed!" Which again, would be a lie.

A solution that Israel isn't willing to accept isn't going to happen, by definition.

By definition? What? I think you misused that term here.

A solution can be imposed on Israel by the United Nations, and the ICC among several other international organizations. Israel's acceptance is only relevant if one of the permanent security council members continually vetoes sensible binding resolutions that would bring about an immediate two-state solution.

Wonder who might be doing that?

And though I don't want to go too far off on that tangent in this thread, the Palestinian position has plenty of other supporters on the Security Council.

Do you not realize the Security Council allows permanent members veto authority? The United States has been the lone veto voice (when all other nations were either in favor of, or abstained from the resolution) more than 50 times in 35 years.

Again, either you do not know this, or are deliberately ignoring this point. This is one of the few reasons why Muslims, justifiably, criticize America for contributing to the situation in Israel/Palestine and until our policies change we will make ourselves a target for extremists.

If America only adopted a more fair and open policy, rather than simply protecting and ultimately enabling Israeli occupation, we would surely help mitigate the present situation which is thousands of Muslims worldwide joining the Islamic State.

Oddly, you and I both agree that a final peace must have Israel at the 1967 borders. The two groups within Israel that resist that are 1) the religious groups that believe that those lands somehow "belong" to them, and I have zero respect for that position, and 2) those who have security concerns about what happens after they give up their last bargaining chip, and I have a lot of sympathy for that position. As I think many other Americans do as well.

I think many Americans are misinformed when it comes to many things, one of them being Israel. If Americans only knew what the perpetual Palestinian occupation cost Americans in both dollars and lives lost, I highly doubt they would want to continue the situation as is.
 
Last edited:
Apparently all the air support we are giving the Iraqi security forces isn't enough. Now, they're begging for us to put boots back on the ground.

Crumbling Anbar Province Pleading For Help From US Ground Forces

Although the ISIS campaign in Kobani, Syria has been given much attention by the media due to its highly visible location on the boarder of Turkey, it is actually of much less strategic importance than the current battle raging in al Anbar province of Iraq.


Iraqi Forces in Anbar are in danger of being cut off, and the fight is moving ever closer to Baghdad. ISIS fighters believed to be in the tens of thousands have moved in from parts of Syria and Mosul to bolster their numbers in Anbar. ISIS is believed to be in control of 80% of Anbar province with Haditha being the last remaining large city not yet held by the Islamic State.

Coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, mainly US and France, have repeatedly struck ISIS elements and infrastructure, but this has done little to slow their advances so far. Kurdish YPG forces and FSA “moderate” (lol) forces have been repeatedly pushed back by ISIS because of their lack of arms, ammunition, and numbers. Similarly in Anbar, Iraqi tribesmen and government forces have threatened to desert if the US doesn’t offer more help, meaning ground forces.

http://www.funker530.com/crumbling-anbar-province-pleading-for-help-from-us-ground-forces/



And not surprisingly, these gutless assholes are threatening to desert... again.
 
Threatening to "desert?" Um, it's not our country and our home that is being overrun by these ISIS freaks.
 
This has come up a few times in here and other threads lately...

I've never really find gourimoko to be as condescending as some of you guys do. I never even really find him to be a negative influence on a thread at all. I get the sense that when you guys find him condescending, it's because you get defensive when he appears to be more knowledgeable on a topic than you are or you feel pinned down in a conversation.

I've disagreed with him on things on the board before, particularly as relates to race, but I can't recall a single time that I had a problem with the way he relayed his points to me. I think gouri gets a little turned around and emotional on anything that can be construed as anti-black, but otherwise...he's well-researched if not completely objective. Why punish that?

The entire time I read your post, CleveRocks, I was far more focused on how badly you were straw-manning and characterizing his positions than I was on the couple of decent points you had. And who asked you to "take him seriously"?

That was an awful post and it getting likes blows my mind.

To be honest, I just 'Like" any post that argues with Gouri to give credit to people who actually have the time and patience to do so. Did not read more than 1-2 sentences of that one until I read Gouri's reply, or at least, attempted to, because during that time period cancer was cured, the Cavs began a dynasty and ended it, I graduated...with my Master's, and started a family.

480px-Troll_Face_Trollface.png
 
Shutting down the southern border won't stop them, then they'd just go through Canada which is a lot less unguarded and less extreme conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apparently all the air support we are giving the Iraqi security forces isn't enough. Now, they're begging for us to put boots back on the ground.

Crumbling Anbar Province Pleading For Help From US Ground Forces

Although the ISIS campaign in Kobani, Syria has been given much attention by the media due to its highly visible location on the boarder of Turkey, it is actually of much less strategic importance than the current battle raging in al Anbar province of Iraq.


Iraqi Forces in Anbar are in danger of being cut off, and the fight is moving ever closer to Baghdad. ISIS fighters believed to be in the tens of thousands have moved in from parts of Syria and Mosul to bolster their numbers in Anbar. ISIS is believed to be in control of 80% of Anbar province with Haditha being the last remaining large city not yet held by the Islamic State.

Coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, mainly US and France, have repeatedly struck ISIS elements and infrastructure, but this has done little to slow their advances so far. Kurdish YPG forces and FSA “moderate” (lol) forces have been repeatedly pushed back by ISIS because of their lack of arms, ammunition, and numbers. Similarly in Anbar, Iraqi tribesmen and government forces have threatened to desert if the US doesn’t offer more help, meaning ground forces.

http://www.funker530.com/crumbling-anbar-province-pleading-for-help-from-us-ground-forces/



And not surprisingly, these gutless assholes are threatening to desert... again.

One problem I've heard from some folks I know is that there aren't enough forward air controllers, so the number/effectiveness of airstrikes are limited. You'd really need to have FAC's at no less than the battalion level if you wanted to use air support properly.

Even if the Iraqis had that, they might still be getting pushed back, but it would help.
 
Quite possibly tons of (albeit outdated) chemical weapons in ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq. Article is much too long to post here, but I highly recommend reading it when you get a chance.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

FROM 2004 TO 2011, AMERICAN AND IRAQI TROOPS REPEATEDLY ENCOUNTERED, AND AT TIMES WERE WOUNDED BY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS THAT WERE HIDDEN OR ABANDONED YEARS EARLIER.
 
Oh, and speaking of chemical warfare...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-state-said-to-use-chemical-weapons-on-kurds/#ixzz3G3mFf1hI

Islamic State said to use chemical weapons on Kurds
Health officials in embattled town of Kobani assert that deaths of several Kurdish fighters were due to exposure to toxins

Kurdish health officials and activists in the besieged town of Kobani claim to possess evidence that Islamic State operatives have used chemical agents as a weapon on at least one occasion during clashes with Kurdish fighters along Syria’s northern border

According to several reports, which were compiled by the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center’s Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, the use of the toxins by the Islamic State took place on July 12 in the village of Avdiko, 10 days after the rogue Jihadi group launched an offensive on the Kobani enclave, near the Turkish border.

Nisan Ahmed, the health minister of the Kurdish authority in Kobani, said that in a number of photographs showing Kurdish fighters who had been killed during the battle in Avdiko, no visible wounds or external bleeding could be seen on the bodies, whereas severe burns and white spots were clearly visible. Ahmed asserted that the (graphic) photos, which were later obtained and posted online by the Middle East Review of International Affairs journal, suggest the fighters had died as a result of exposure to chemical toxins.

While it still remains unclear whether chemical agents were actually used by the Islamic State, Israeli experts who examined the photographs said the wounds, which included severe peeling of the skin and heavy blistering, suggested the Kurdish fighters had been exposed to mustard gas, the GLORIA Center reported. The experts added, however, that more data was needed to form a definitive conclusion.

In early July, shortly before the attack on Kobani, officials in Iraq reported that the Islamic State had taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, where 2,500 chemical rockets filled with the deadly nerve agent sarin, or their remnants, were stored along with other chemical warfare agents.

Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations, Mohamed Ali Alhakim, said in a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that “armed terrorist groups” entered the Muthanna site on June 11, detained officers and soldiers from the protection force guarding the facility and seized their weapons. The following morning, the project manager spotted the looting of some equipment through the camera surveillance system before the “terrorists” disabled it, he said.

Alhakim singled out the capture of Bunkers 13 and 41 in the sprawling complex 35 miles (56 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad.

The UN, however, stressed that the bunkers were bombed during the first Gulf War in February 1991, which routed Iraq from Kuwait, and said the rockets were “partially destroyed or damaged.”

The UN added that the sarin munitions were “of poor quality” and “would largely be degraded after years of storage under the conditions existing there.” It said the tabun-filled containers were all treated with a decontamination solution and likely no longer contain any agent, but “the residue of this decontamination would contain cyanides, which would still be a hazard.”

According to the report, Bunker 41 contained 2,000 empty 155-mm artillery shells contaminated with the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, 605 one-ton mustard containers with residues, and heavily contaminated construction material. It said the shells could contain mustard residues, which can’t be used for chemical warfare but “remain highly toxic.”

The Syrian Kurdish enclave of Kobani has been the scene of heavy fighting since late last month, with the better-armed Islamic State fighters determined to capture the border post.

The extremist group has carved out a vast swath of territory from northern Syria to the outskirts of Baghdad and imposed a harsh version of Islamic rule. The fighters have massacred hundreds of captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers, terrorized religious minorities, and beheaded two American journalists and two British aid workers.

A US-led coalition has been carrying out airstrikes against militant targets in and around Kobani for more than two weeks, and the town’s fate has emerged as a major test of whether the air campaign can obstruct the advance of the extremists in Syria.
 
Hey Gour, Been busy.

Concise.. OK. Your style is long posts. You need to own that.

Beheading is wrong on any level. As a punishment for criminals it is cruel and unusual, and when used to kill innocent people it is murder 1.

George Bush decided to go into Iraq, not the Cato institue or any other think tank. And yes I think he believed any citizen in a tyrannical state would embrace democracy and be an ally in that sense. "W" was a middle of the road Republican and was not the TEA parties favorite guy.

Communists, Fascists, Kings and Queens. Its all one. Tryanny by any other name is Tyranny. I am not talking about the theory, I am talking about the application in fact. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Assad, etc. These are not different in the sense I am talking about.

I did not generalize any of my arguments to all muslims.. You did. What I said applied to "these organizations" specifically the extreme ones such as the Taliban, Isis, Booku Harem. I put the Aryan Nation and KKK in the same category. All of them OK inhumane behavior in the name of religion.

It is a fact that women are oppressed under extreme Islam. They are also oppressed in other cultures (say india for example)

Sending weapons or money for weapons to Palestine is a terrible idea for the people who live there. You should reconsider this idea. In other posts you mention that you worked for the current administration during the election. If some CNN reporter got hold of that statement, the administration would completely disown you.

I will not comment further on the above topics. I will try to direct my posts to a less divisive style, because I want to this forum to be primarily common cause (Cavs fans)
 
CNN) -- In a new publication, ISIS justifies its kidnapping of women as sex slaves citing Islamic theology, an interpretation that is rejected by the Muslim world at large as a perversion of Islam.
"One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday.

The title of the article sums up the ISIS point of view: "The revival (of) slavery before the Hour," referring to Judgment Day.

The fourth edition of the group's English-language digital magazine called "Dabiq" said that female members of the Yazidi sect, an ethnically Kurdish minority living mostly in Iraq, may legitimately be captured and forcibly made concubines or sexual slaves.

The rationalization for a return to slavery -- repudiated around the world -- coincided with the release of a Human Rights Watch report on crimes committed by ISIS against the Yazidis in Iraq based on interviews with 76 displaced people in Dohuk.

"The Islamic State's litany of horrific crimes against the Yazidis in Iraq only keeps growing," said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch. "We heard shocking stories of forced religious conversions, forced marriage, and even sexual assault and slavery -- and some of the victims were children."

A 17-year-old kidnapped girl named Adlee recounts how a large bearded man forced her into a home in Falluja, where she was beaten and endured violent sexual advances before escaping two days later, the Human Rights Watch report reads.

ISIS forced tens of thousands of Yazidis to flee their homes in August when the extremists stormed many of the community's towns and cities in Iraqi Kurdistan. Displaced families and monitoring groups reported jihadists kidnapped hundreds of Yazidi women and girls, and many were sold or given away to militants as "spoils of war."

The terror group's 56-page propaganda publication also boasts of a "massacre against (Kurdish) PKK soldiers" alongside graphic images of slain men dressed in fatigues. On the next page, ISIS glorifies its "Services for Muslims" with photographs of a care home for the elderly and a cancer treatment center for children.

The issue, titled "The Failed Crusade," includes an alleged copy of slain American journalist Steven Sotloff's last letter to his mother and says the victim's Jewish identity warranted his beheading by ISIS.
Another ISIS captive, British journalist John Cantlie, allegedly pens the last section of the magazine, saying he expects to be killed soon, and "unless something changes very quickly and very radically, I await my turn."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
 

Honestly, who aren't they targeting anymore? Nothing but a death cult that is hell bent on killing everyone and everything in its path.
 
So this is unfolding this very second in Sydney's central business district:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-cl...-at-lindt-chocolate-cafe-20141214-127824.html.

Islamic State flags in the window, hostages with their hands pressed against the glass.

Chilling and horrific scenes at the moment. Will keep you guys posted if interested.

Update: Terrorists are threatening that they have bombs planted around the city and are demanding to speak to the Prime Minister live on radio...
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top