The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[Tlyons]

But t

Do you not know the significance of this group and the damage they could cause if they come over here?

@Maximus pretty much nailed it.

They're already here and tweeting.

 

[gourimoko]

Thanks JSS for the video.. Again, people who do not understand Islam should watch it. The "moderates" in the video are fighting "for the purpose of jihad." They consider themselves jihadis. On a jihad against al-Assad's murderous regime.

Jihad is not inherently a bad thing. Some are good people, some are not. It simple means those who choose to struggle and resist for Islam.

p.s.
"They wonder why the explosion happened on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. Why? Why?
...
But they don't wonder about the killings of Palestinians and Syrians."

 

[brownindian]

I read somewhere (cant recollect where) that the war on terror has now cost the US more that the 2 nd world war. If that is true then it is bad. We really need to end the war or curtail the spending.

 

[Simon]

 

[Tlyons]

Boogie woogie

 

[CleveRocks]

Here we go with the mile long posts. I have been reading the discourse on whether the palestinian situation is the motivation for violence aimed at america, and i have some comments.

"The point I was making was that if we end our hegemony in the region, if we stop being so one-sided in our handling of the Palestinian issue, and we promote even-handedness and fairness, and true democracy - whatever form it takes - then we'll disarm cowards like Al-Baghdadi who use religion as a war cry to commit murder." gourimoko

You may be trying to make this point, but I am not buying it. You call Baghdadi a coward, but you are making apologies for his actions. These kinds of organizations never stop. They hate the west and they hate the Jews. This has been so for centuries. The US has been pro israel in the region since WWII. We attempted to create an arab ally in the region by expelling the comunio-nazi that was Saddam Hussien, and these neo nazis simply use that as cover for more violence. The fact is that the only country that wants us to succeed in the middle east is Israel. Hence they should be our allies. Playing both sides of the argument only muddies the water.

"ISIS' goals are very different. They are establishing the Islamic Caliphate. They do this to answer the wrongs done against the Muslim people. They are attacking other Muslims for political reasons, predominantly, as those Muslims are supporting the regimes that oppose ISIS. It's pretty easy to understand if you think about it. " Gourimoko

Again, no. ISIS grabbed territory, stole money, murdered innocents, and took women hostages because they believe it is their god given right to do so. They are power crazed megalomaniacs. They are beheading people publicly to taunt the US into a ground war because they actually think they will win. This is nuts.

These guys are right there with Hitler in the history books. If they had the means they would gleefully round up the Jews and stick em in the gas chamber, and if you dont believe me, just ask them. I am pretty sure they would not stop there. It does not matter a whit which book they put the hand on and proclaim their authority. It could be the Quran, it could be the Bible, it could be Mein kampf, it could be leaves of Grass.. It only matters that in their twisted minds they have the right to murder someone for the fuck of it. Thats who are dealing with here. There are millions of Muslims that agree with this, and are just as offended by these guys as I am.

"Every Muslim, and every Arab should feel outraged at American policy in the Middle East. It is disgusting. " gourimoko

This is a real gem. They should feel outraged at american policy in the middle east... Really? Not outraged that a bunch of thugs have hijacked their culture and religion to justify the most inhumane actions possible? Not outraged at the british policy after WWI which created the artificial boundaries currently in the middle east in the first place? Not outraged at the Neo-Ba'athist dictators that have ruled the region since WWII while enriching themselves beyond measure? Not outraged by an Iranian Holy State that represses any religious, political or cultural diversion from the party line(not to mention sending arms to fuel the constant attacks on israel) ? Not outraged by so called Islamic radicals that would reduce women to the status of a good mule? No..No.. All muslims should be outraged by american policy in the region. A policy which says stop fighting, a policy which promotes a peaceful two state solution to Palestine/israel, a policy which is trying to prevent the crazies from murdering minorities they dont like, a policy that is pro democracy. This is your take on it. I just cant take this view seriously.

 

[Maximus]

GOP Rep: ‘At Least Ten ISIS Fighters Have Been Caught Coming Across The Mexican Border’
October 8, 2014 12:03 PM


WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., says that at least ten fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have been apprehended while attempting to enter the southern U.S. border.

The California Republican claims that “at least ten ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas,” in a conversation with Fox News on Tuesday. Hunter says that the Islamic terrorists are slipping into the U.S. through the porous southern border as several have already been captured.

“There’s nobody talking about it,” Rep. Hunter told Fox. “If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border. It’s that simple…They caught them at the border, therefore we know that ISIS is coming across the border. If they catch five or ten of them then you know there’s going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the border patrol.”

In August, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, warned that the open border posed an “immediate threat” for terrorist activity infiltrating the country. The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, said ISIS terrorists were “planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born [sic] improvised explosive devices.”

Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that 1,933-mile southern border with Mexico is the obvious entry point for Islamic State terrorists. He says that information regarding the capture of Islamic State terrorists crossing the border comes directly from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force, they don’t have nuclear weapons. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming through the southern border – which they already have,” he added.

“They aren’t flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities,” said Hunter. “But they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico…All you have to do is ask the border patrol.”

 

[Marcus]

^^^ Glaringly obvious that they would try and use the southern border to try and infiltrate, but nothing will be done until an attack actually happens.

 

[gourimoko]

Here we go with the mile long posts.

Never understood prefacing a post with this whenever someone has something to say to me. If you want me to respond concisely you should probably keep your post size and scope limited and narrow. But when folks toss out about 5-10 topics in a single post, I don't know how I am expected to respond; and when I ignore certain raised issues, they are invariably brought back up.

I have been reading the discourse on whether the palestinian situation is the motivation for violence aimed at america, and i have some comments.

Okay.

"The point I was making was that if we end our hegemony in the region, if we stop being so one-sided in our handling of the Palestinian issue, and we promote even-handedness and fairness, and true democracy - whatever form it takes - then we'll disarm cowards like Al-Baghdadi who use religion as a war cry to commit murder." gourimoko

You may be trying to make this point, but I am not buying it. You call Baghdadi a coward, but you are making apologies for his actions.

I've not made any "apologies for his actions." That's a lie. I've not said that the Islamic State was justified. In fact, numerous times I have stated (at least 10x so far in this thread) that we must use military force (airstrikes) against the Islamic State. That they are out of control, vicious, and brutal. That their leader is manipulating them... etc. etc. etc.

How you came away with me making "apologies for his actions" is astounding in all of that. Just because we should understand a thing doesn't mean we agree with it.

These kinds of organizations never stop. They hate the west and they hate the Jews.

Muslims don't hate the West, and Muslims by and large do not "hate the Jews." Yet Muslims are far more likely to be sympathetic with the Islamic State. Again, your argument seems to align me with the Islamic State; why?

This has been so for centuries. The US has been pro israel in the region since WWII. We attempted to create an arab ally in the region by expelling the comunio-nazi that was Saddam Hussien, and these neo nazis simply use that as cover for more violence.

CleveRocks, if you want me to take you seriously you cannot use terms like "communist-Nazi." The two ideologies could not be further apart, and it's obvious you don't understand either communism or Nazism, especially if you are conflating those two terms with as yet another unrelated belief in radical Salafist Jihad.

Also, the nonsensical idea that "we attempted to create an Arab ally" by invading Iraq is totally insane. No credible international think tank believed that the end result in Iraq would be an American ally. This is preposterous. The CATO Institute, probably the most well-funded right-aligned think tank blasted the Administration's motives for going to war in Iraq on faulty CIA intelligence (at the time, in 2003). There was never a reasonable belief that a democratized Iraq would align itself with the United States. You can read the CATO policy analysis from the period at their site.

So again, why do you believe this was the motivation for the American invasion of Iraq? It's not the pretext the Administration claimed as the cause of invasion; nor, has this ever been asserted as a justifiable cause to go to war. Why do you believe this?

The fact is that the only country that wants us to succeed in the middle east is Israel. Hence they should be our allies. Playing both sides of the argument only muddies the water.

Who is playing "both sides of the argument," and who said Israel should not be our ally? Again, seems you're having an argument with a different poster.

But to address a point you might be making; understand that simply because we are allied with a nation, doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to them oppressing and ultimately ethnically cleansing an indigenous population of millions of people.

Allies have bilateral communication, not one-way directives issued from on-high. Understand that our relationship with Israel is not mutually beneficial in the normal sense. They are a dependent state of ours, yet they do not act in our better interests.

Why do you think that is?

"ISIS' goals are very different. They are establishing the Islamic Caliphate. They do this to answer the wrongs done against the Muslim people. They are attacking other Muslims for political reasons, predominantly, as those Muslims are supporting the regimes that oppose ISIS. It's pretty easy to understand if you think about it. " Gourimoko

Again, no.

Will stop you here. No to what. ISIS and ISIL are not political organizations? Is that what you're saying "no" to? Or that they are attacking other Muslims for political reasons? Is that what you're saying "no" to?

Or, are you saying it's just hard to understand. But in your own words:

ISIS grabbed territory, stole money, murdered innocents, and took women hostages because they believe it is their god given right to do so. They are power crazed megalomaniacs. They are beheading people publicly to taunt the US into a ground war because they actually think they will win. This is nuts.

Territory; this is political. They chant "the State is Established." They are creating a country out of Iraq and Syria. How is this not political? It is a politically motivated move to establish an Islamic State. That, by definition is political.

Stole money. They would consider this "nationalization," but I don't disagree with your assessment. Either way, understand they have absolutely no need to "steal" money. They are incredibly well-funded. Far far far more than any other faction in the region, regardless of US or international backing.

Again, the beheadings just seem odd because you realize our "allies" behead dozens of people every year. Publicly, on camera. Most of those people do indeed hold foreign passports.

As far as your assertion that they are trying to goad the United States into open confrontation, this is the one thing you said that was accurate. However, what isn't accurate is that they believe "they can win." They do not. They believe that any action against them, by the United States, would result in a more radicalized Islamic population worldwide - particularly in Southeast Asia (where most Muslims live). They are regularly targeting Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia with their propaganda. That is the real reason for wanting an American ground invasion.

These guys are right there with Hitler in the history books.

How?!?

If they had the means they would gleefully round up the Jews and stick em in the gas chamber, and if you dont believe me, just ask them. I am pretty sure they would not stop there. It does not matter a whit which book they put the hand on and proclaim their authority. It could be the Quran, it could be the Bible, it could be Mein kampf, it could be leaves of Grass.. It only matters that in their twisted minds they have the right to murder someone for the fuck of it. Thats who are dealing with here.

I don't doubt this. But until it happens, I wouldn't put them in the same scope as the Nazis.

There are millions of Muslims that agree with this, and are just as offended by these guys as I am.

No doubt.

"Every Muslim, and every Arab should feel outraged at American policy in the Middle East. It is disgusting. " gourimoko

This is a real gem. They should feel outraged at american policy in the middle east... Really?

Absolutely! Any Muslim or Arab NOT outraged by American foreign policy has some real soul searching to do.

Not outraged that a bunch of thugs have hijacked their culture and religion to justify the most inhumane actions possible?

Is outrage towards American foreign policy and ISIS mutually exclusive? Why the false dilemma here? C'mon.

Not outraged at the british policy after WWI which created the artificial boundaries currently in the middle east in the first place?

You do realize that the Islamic State references this point almost daily?

Not outraged at the Neo-Ba'athist dictators that have ruled the region since WWII while enriching themselves beyond measure?

Again. An IS talking-point. Again, most Muslims are in agreement here.

Not outraged by an Iranian Holy State that represses any religious, political or cultural diversion from the party line(not to mention sending arms to fuel the constant attacks on israel) ?

LOL @ the Israel reference. Most Muslims that I know, including my family members, do not oppose sending weapons to the Palestinians. So no on this one, sorry. Take out the Israeli reference, and sure.

Not outraged by so called Islamic radicals that would reduce women to the status of a good mule?

Most Muslims are against female oppression. It's a myth in America that women in Muslim communities are generally oppressed. Women have similar rights to males, relatively speaking (with respect to all nations), in most Muslim communities. Try visiting Asia sometime. Women in Indonesia, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, etc are considered to have relatively equal rights compared to men. These nations have several times the population as many of the Arab countries you're probably referring to. Does discrimination against women exist in these countries? Absolutely, it exists everywhere; including the United States. But it is not as pervasive as it would be in a nation like say Saudi Arabia (which is likely what you are referring to).

No..No.. All muslims should be outraged by american policy in the region.

Absolutely. Why not do some research on American-Muslim and Arab-American positions on American foreign policy instead of trying to dictate terms to me, a member of that community?

A policy which says stop fighting,

Stop fighting whom? Wtf are you talking about? Stop fighting Assad? Stop fighting IS? Stop fighting Israel? Who are you talking about?

a policy which promotes a peaceful two state solution to Palestine/israel,

This is a lie.

a policy which is trying to prevent the crazies from murdering minorities they dont like,

But our policies do no such thing and have not worked to protect Muslim minorities historically. Where are you getting this from?

a policy that is pro democracy.

Another lie. Ask the Islamists in Egypt or those fighting Bashar's forces in Syria if America is "pro-democracy." America is pro-secular, pro-Israel. This is not compatible with most Muslim ideals. Most Muslims are not secular, and most people are not pro-Israel.

This is your take on it. I just cant take this view seriously.

Then why bother posting? Your views are obviously jaded, emotional, and frankly based on false information.

If you want to have a discussion, then we can do that. But when you say you can't take my views seriously, when AFAIK I'm the only Arab in the thread and the only person in the thread with ties to people in region, when I just left one of the nations the Islamic State and Al Qaeda has been targeting for new recruits and dealt with the Muslims there daily... I mean, if you want to believe what you believe, rather than what is happening in the Muslim world, then that is your choice.

As I said, if you want a discussion, I'll give you one. If you want a debate, no problem. But to say that Muslims should accept American foreign policy as it is and be pleased is, well frankly, insane.

If you don't want to take my word for it, just go read/listen/watch some Arabs on the issues mentioned in this thread (there's a few IS-related videos in this thread, try watching them to learn more).

 

[The Oi]

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.

 

[gourimoko]

Yeah, I appreciate that Jigo. I've been called condescending a bit much recently and I think it has to do with my back-and-forth with one particular poster. I actually hate to seem condescending, in any way, at all - but if it's seeping into my posts, then I'll try to relax.

Honestly though, sometimes my posts are written through a great deal of frustration. Lots of these threads become echochambers for like minds and there isn't any real room for discussion; especially on a topic so important as when the United States should be going to war.

 

[The Oi]

It's not seeping into your posts. You're not condescending. You have minority (pun not intended) opinions much of the time and your opinions are generally thought out while others aren't.

It's probably fair to accuse you of being biased from time to time and I've seen you be a bit knee-jerk, but you're not condescending.

The times I've seen you get pissed off were pretty predictable because it's when people do this common thing you'll find during political or current event debates which is to create mutual exclusivity with one of your opinions, claim you have an opinion you don't while making your real opinion mutually exclusive with the one they're making up.

Like it's literally as stupid as if I say I like Russ Wilson and Brian Hoyer and someone else reads it and claims That I said I hate Brian Hoyer because if I said I really like Brian Hoyer then I can't also like Russ Wilson and if I DO like Russ Wilson it means that I want the Browns to lose every Sunday. It's fuckin dumb and it's a way for people with less-developed opinions to take out their anger about the topic du jour on someone they can frame into the enemy they're mad at.

It's been done to me before and frankly, the only thing I ever see work with people who do that is public humiliation.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

a

The point I was making was that if we end our hegemony in the region, if we stop being so one-sided in our handling of the Palestinian issue, and we promote even-handedness and fairness, and true democracy - whatever form it takes - then we'll disarm cowards like Al-Baghdadi who use religion as a war cry to commit murder.

This is the core of our disagreement, and it's an argument of convenience for your personal views rather than one based on the facts. I do not believe for a moment that attacks against the U.S. would cease if we stopped supporting Israel. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are other nations that do not share our position on Israel that nevertheless have been the subject of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. Moreover, again as I mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe that having Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders and paying some reparations to displaced Palestinians would be a satisfactory resolution for the radicals anyway.

'You've tried to set up yourself as being a particular authority on the motivations of those who join ISIS. AQ, and other extreme groups, and I for one don't buy it. Not unless you've personally been in those groups, had long discussions with those members, etc.. But b your own admission, you're not a radical along those lines, so you're getting your information second hand just like the rest of us do. And unless we've all been living under rocks, there have been a multitude of public statements, both written and verbal, by both leaders and the rank-and-file of those groups, where we can all listen to the words as they come out of their mouths. And I've heard nothing that leads me to believe that Palestine is the Gordian knot that would cut all of this. Nor do I believe their actions are consistent with people whose primary motive is defeating Israel.

We're obviously favoring our "ally" Israel and for obvious reasons (political elections here at home). It's pathetic.

Right, almost forgot. All our troops have died because the Jews and their lobby.

Well, I personally think we should favor Israel, but I'll point out that U.S. Presidents have consistently pressured Israel to give back, in succession, the Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza strip, and most of the West Bank. Even now, our view of the proper "end-game" is Israel back at the 1967 borders. I do not believe that to be an unreasonable position, blindingly one-sided position about which Americans should feel disgust.

When did I refuse to discuss what divides Muslims? Why lie?

I didn't. It's coming....

It isn't about being sufficiently devout. You mean ISIS killing Syrian troops? They should be killing Syrian troops! They are fighting to depose a ruthless dictator! Or don't you remember when the Republican caucus was furious that Obama wasn't going to arm the Syrian (Islamist) Rebels? Or how Hillary Clinton just wrote a book about how she wanted to arm those same groups -- who are, by the way, Islamists.

And there it is -- another disingenuous effort to avoid discussing unpleasant truths. No, I was NOT referring to ISIS killing Syrian troops, as you know perfectly well when I made that point because I've been specific on this. I'm talking about the Muslim civilians fleeing their homes or murdered in Iraq by ISIS for not being sufficiently devout. I saw and listened to them crying on the news myself. I'm talking about the Yazidis and Christians being murdered by ISIS in Iraq.

You've peddled the bogus argument that the ISIS rank and file/lower level leadership who actually commit those acts aren't really/primarily motivated by religious extremism/intolerance (that doesn't have shit to do with the U.S.), but rather by wanting to fix Palestine. So if we fixed that, they'd just wither. It's absurd.

When did I say it was all the drives ISIS fighters.. When did I say that all they fight for is Palestine..? Or that in Iraq and Syria, it is all they think about is Palestine...? When did I say anything remotely like that? I said it is a motivating factor, it drives the disillusioned Western Arab to join ISIS, it is a rally cry.

The very first quote of yours in this thread identifies Palestine as the central motivating factor for the rank and file who join ISIS and AQ, to the point where we'd "disarm" those groups if we just satisfied them on that count. Even if you were correct, I don't think any solution acceptable to the U.S. or to Israel would satisfy those who are sufficiently radical to take up arms with ISIS/AQ anyway, so it's a rather moot point.

But you're not correct anyway. It makes no logical sense for some guy whose primary motivation (to the point where he wouldn't fight otherwise) is "liberating Palestine", to go fight against other Muslims and religious minorities in northern Iraq for years. And like probably everyone else who participates in these threads, I've listened to tons of interviews with/reports on these guys, and "liberating Palestine" is simply not what they themselves identify as their primary motivations.

They'd likely agree that would be one of the goals of a unified Caliphate (and another would be spreading forcibly that Caliphate outside the Middle East), but the liberation of Palestine is not the primary reason they are fighting for that Caliphate in the first place. Their primary motivation is the idea of a strict religious Muslim Caliphate for its own sake.

So, given a choice to either believe what they say about their own motivations, (as well as what their own actions demonstrate), or to believe you, I choose to believe them.

 

[gourimoko]

a

This is the core of our disagreement, and it's an argument of convenience for your personal views rather than one based on the facts. I do not believe for a moment that attacks against the U.S. would cease if we stopped supporting Israel.

Again, you're setting up impossible hurdles to overcome in order to support your viewpoint and marginalize mine. I am not saying terrorist attacks against the United States would end. Rather, I said, explicitly, that if the United States adopted a policy more in-line with the Muslim population who lives in the region, we would immediately nullify a very large recruitment base for groups based on radical jihad.

But, again, you twist what was said into false dilemmas when in fact the argument being made is just slightly more nuanced than you allow for.

So to be clear: I am not saying terrorism would end. 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. Groups like Al Qaeda had marginal (almost nonexistent) support in the 90s; we can get back to that point.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are other nations that do not share our position on Israel that nevertheless have been the subject of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists.

I think you might be conflating ideologies here. Again, you're confusing the goals of groups like Al Qaeda with the goals of groups like the Islamic State.

Moreover, again as I mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe that having Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders and paying some reparations to displaced Palestinians would be a satisfactory resolution for the radicals anyway.

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. Right now, this exact debate is being had in the halls of UK Parliament (but not in Congress). It's a very important conversation to have.

You've tried to set up yourself as being a particular authority on the motivations of those who join ISIS. AQ, and other extreme groups, and I for one don't buy it.

You don't buy it because it would require you to listen. Look at your reasons listed below.

Not unless you've personally been in those groups, had long discussions with those members, etc..

Right, so I would need to be in ISIS for you to accept my anecdotal opinion for what it is (and offered as nothing more than that). But rather than actually reading my posts, seeing my point of view and how I've compared it to that of al-Baghdadi and bin Laden, you simply dismiss it (of course), because I am not a member of ISIS.

But b your own admission, you're not a radical along those lines, so you're getting your information second hand just like the rest of us do.

No I'm not a radical; but your conclusion does not follow the premise. I don't get my information from the same sources as you do. Unlike you, as I've said, I have family who I communicate with regularly via social media, emails, and secure chats where we discuss the situation on the ground in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and yes Syria and Iraq. Most of my family lives in the region - I am an Egyptian-American.

But again, anecdotal. So I point you towards Arabic/Islamic social media, political outlets, news outlets, etc that you could read - but then instead you discount my opinion (why?) and my advice (why?).

Personally, I don't think you're ready to change your mind - so anything that might cause you to rethink your positions is pretty much off limits.

Lastly, if you really think I'm getting my news from the same "sources" that you do, you are wildly mistaken.

And unless we've all been living under rocks, there have been a multitude of public statements, both written and verbal, by both leaders and the rank-and-file of those groups, where we can all listen to the words as they come out of their mouths. And I've heard nothing that leads me to believe that Palestine is the Gordian knot that would cut all of this. Nor do I believe their actions are consistent with people whose primary motive is defeating Israel.

I'll put it this way, I've quoted numerous people in these groups already who reference Palestine as an example of how "Muslim lives are worth less than nothing." How "Freedom in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt would go so far in establishing dialogue." How bin Laden and al-Baghdadi used the Palestinian issue regularly to recruit disillusioned Western educated Muslims.

But, since that doesn't seem to fit into your own personal worldview, you again disregard it.

At this point, it's just gotten ridiculous. I've gone out of my way to demonstrate the importance of the Palestinian issue. I've cited polls, I've quoted the leaders of these groups, I've referenced popular Islamic voices; yet, to no response.

Right, almost forgot. All our troops have died because the Jews and their lobby.

...How can people expect me not to respond condescendingly to comments like this? When I actually try to offer an informed opinion, this is what I'm being hit with? I'd punch someone in the face for saying this type of shit.

Simply put Q-Tip, you're not actually making a logical argument. You are reasserting your point of view, but not offering factual premises that can be disputed, or whose interpretation can be analyzed and critiqued. In this entire post, you've not actually made a single, factual case to back up your claims.

...

Going to just respond in numerals because it's not worth responding to:
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.

2) Muslims being killed in Syria and Iraq. Q-Tip, I don't know what you're talking about if you're not being clear. When you say Muslims killing Muslims I'm think you're referring to the majority of the killings, not the minority.

Most Muslims who've died at the hand of the IS have been armed Syrians and armed Iraqis. As far as the Yazidis and Christians, we've already been over this, numerous times, and that is where I compared the situation to Nazi Germany. But again, without actually reading what I am saying you are attempting to align me with those of the Islamic State to try and discredit my viewpoint.

Again, it's transparent.

You've peddled the bogus argument that the ISIS rank and file/lower level leadership who actually commit those acts aren't really/primarily motivated by religious extremism/intolerance (that doesn't have shit to do with the U.S.), but rather by wanting to fix Palestine. So if we fixed that, they'd just wither. It's absurd.

Err, I've said numerous times.. We need to prevent radicalization. Either you do or don't speak English, but the word prevent does not mean fix or cure but to stop before it happens. Everyday there are hundreds of new IS recruits who are driven to extremism and jihad due to radicalizing effects they feel are outside of their control.

I'm not going to go over this again. How is it that you cannot understand this? To everyone in the thread: can you folks really not grasp this? That a change in American foreign policy in the region would mitigate the amount of people wanting to join groups like the Islamic State?

The lower ranks feel a sense of hopelessness. They are left with little to no options to improve the lives of Muslim people and feel compelled to do something about it. The Islamic State and groups like it offer an immediate solution. They do not start off as Islamic radicals, they get radicalized once they make the commitment to reach out and join these groups. They are brought in, taught Salafism (which most did not practice prior to joining), they are sworn into allegiance, and then they are carefully indoctrinated into the groups belief system.

I just, cannot see why this is so hard to understand.

The very first quote of yours in this thread identifies Palestine as the central motivating factor for the rank and file who join ISIS and AQ, to the point where we'd "disarm" those groups if we just satisfied them on that count. Even if you were correct, I don't think any solution acceptable to the U.S. or to Israel would satisfy those who are sufficiently radical to take up arms with ISIS/AQ anyway, so it's a rather moot point.

It's not a moot point. Again, your conclusion doesn't follow the premise. If you go look at the recruitment materials of the groups you've mentioned; if you actually listen to radical jihadists in Western and Middle Eastern nations you'd hear their arguments continually orbit the Palestinian issue. Again, you're not aware because you are not informed.

But to get back to your point; by mitigating that issue we would remove a major factor of radicalization among Arabs and Muslims in the region.

With respect to a solution that "Israel is willing to accept," well, that's the entire problem isn't it? Israel is not willing to accept a solution the Palestinians are. That's why many simply say the Two-State Solution is a joke and should be abandoned - but that's another issue.

But you're not correct anyway. It makes no logical sense for some guy whose primary motivation (to the point where he wouldn't fight otherwise) is "liberating Palestine", to go fight against other Muslims and religious minorities in northern Iraq for years. And like probably everyone else who participates in these threads, I've listened to tons of interviews with/reports on these guys, and "liberating Palestine" is simply not what they themselves identify as their primary motivations.

To be honest Q-Tip, I don't think you've ever listened to a Muslim discuss Islam or Islamic issues in the world. I'm pretty much going to call bullshit on that.

And again, if you go back to my original post on this, I clearly stated it was one of the primary motivating factors of those joining IS. Ask them what drives them and they'll tell you - and yes, they will mention Palestine. Just in this thread there are two videos in which Syrians mention Palestine as the primary example of the dehumanization of Muslims.

Lastly, the person joining IS and fighting in Iraq and Syria is fighting for the Islamic caliphate.

Does a Sunni man of Egyptian descent who goes and fights in Fallujah makes sense to you? Does a Saudi national fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan make sense to you? What about Qatari fighting in the hills and mountains of Mindanao?

For some reason you seem incapable of understanding the concept that Islamic people from everywhere will fight in Islamic countries for Islamic causes. They don't see the Palestinians as a separate people in the same way you do, it's a more complex difference than that.

They'd likely agree that would be one of the goals of a unified Caliphate (and another would be spreading forcibly that Caliphate outside the Middle East), but the liberation of Palestine is not the primary reason they are fighting for that Caliphate in the first place. Their primary motivation is the idea of a strict religious Muslim Caliphate for its own sake.

"For it's own sake" is usually used by folks who really don't understand why something is happening and nor do they feel inclined to investigate it further.

Al-Baghdadi, in his own fucking words, does not say that they should practice his brand of Islam because he has the only usable interpretation of Islam; he says that his interpretation of Islam is the answer to the problems of everyday Muslims. Listen to IS members and their remarks - the State provides them with dignity and security and will liberate all Muslims under oppression of dictators and Zionists.

For whatever reason, you are being obtuse when it comes to this point. Frankly, I'm done arguing about it. I've already cited these individuals, directly, in previous posts in this thread. I've pretty much had it with this asinine argument.

Anyone here who thinks Palestine is not in the Top 3 issues among radical Muslims is pretty much an idiot.

So, given a choice to either believe what they say about their own motivations, (as well as what their own actions demonstrate), or to believe you, I choose to believe them.

Fucking idiot.

Here is the Fatwa from the Mufti in Saudi Arabia calling for jihad against Israel for the sake of the Palestinians (not because they are Jews, as this particular cleric recognizes Israel's existence).

To Proceed:

The Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and Verdicts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has followed ý with all sorrow and pain- what has occurred, and is still going on against our Muslim brethren in Palestine ý and specifically in Gaza. That which is [actions] of oppression, and killing of children, and women and old people! And [it is] transgression on that which is sacred [innocent], and the destruction of infrastructure and institutions, and the terrorizing of innocent people. And there is no doubt that this is a crime and oppression on the rights of the Palestinian nation.

And at this sorrowful event; it is an obligation on the Muslims to be with their Palestinian brethren, and to help and aid them, and to make an effort to lift the oppression against them ý through any means which is of their reach ý so as to actualize the Islamic bond, and the ties of 'Eeman.

Allaah The Exalted said:

"The believers are indeed brothers [in Islýmic religion]." (Al-Hujuraat: 10)



And He The Most Mighty, The Most Majestic said:

"The believers, men and women, are Auliyý' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one anotherý" (At-Tawba : 71)



And The Prophet (sallahAllaahu alayhi wasallam) said :

"The believer to another believer is like the structure [like a wall] ; each part strengthens the other,' and then he co-enjoined his fingers." (Agreed upon)



And he (may Allaah's blessings and good mention be upon him) also said:

"The example of the believers in their relationship, and their love, and their having mercy upon each other ; is like the example of one body part to the rest of the body; if one part is affected then the whole body complains of fever and pain." (Agreed upon)



And he (may Allaah's blessings and good mention be upon him) also said:

"The Muslim is the brother of another Muslim; he does not oppress him, nor does he deceive him, nor does he give him up to the enemy, nor does he look down on him." (Narrated by Muslim)



And help comprises of many things ýaccording to the ability, and depending on the situations ý whether it is intellectually or physical [things], or whether it is from the general Muslims through wealth, and food, and medicine, and clothing, and other things. Or whether it is from the Islamic Arab nations through making it easy and possible that the aid reaches them, and by taking a sincere position in regards to their [the Palestinian Muslims] matter, and by supporting their case in the gatherings, and seminars, and the international conferences: And all of these are from the ways of co-operation upon good and piety ý which is something that is ordered- in the statement of The Exalted :

"Help you one another in virtue, righteousness and pietyý" (Al-Maaida : 2)



And also from those ways is: to direct sincere advice to them [the Muslims in Palestine], and to direct them to that which is of good and of benefit to them. And from the greatest of those is to make du'aa for them -at all times ý so that their tribulation is lifted, and their affliction is raised, and that their situation is rectified, and that their statements and actions become good.



Upon this, we also advise our Muslim brethren in Palestine to have fear of Allaah ý The Exalted- and to return to Him, just as we advise them to be united; upon the truth, and to leave off divisions and splitting up, and not to give a chance to the enemy ý who has taken advantage of it ý and will continue to use it in enmity and oppression.

And we also encourage and emphasize our brethren to take the causes which will lead to lifting the oppression directed at their land ý while having complete sincerity to Allaah The Exalted ý in [those and all other] actions, and to seek His pleasure, and to seek His assistance ý through righteous actions, and prayers, and consulting the scholars and people of wisdom; in all their matters ý indeed that is a way of being facilitated [to that which is good] and establishment.


Just as we call on to the intellectuals in the world and the international meetings; to have an open look at this catastrophe ý with a look of insight, intellect, and equality ý so that the Palestinian community can be given its rights. And so that the oppression be lifted from it: such that they live in a honourable life. And at the same time we thank all -the nations and individuals- who have initiated in aiding and helping them.



We ask Allaah by His Beautiful Names and His Lofty Attributes; that He lifts the despair on this Ummah, and that He strengthens its religion, and to raise its statement, and to aid His allies, and to disgrace His enemies -and to return back their plots against themselves- and to save the Muslims from their evil, Indeed He is the Patron, and the One who is Most Able of all that. And may His blessings and good mention be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and also his family and his companions and those who follow them upon good; upto the Last Day.



His eminence; the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia,

President of the Council of Senior Scholars,

Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez Ibn 'Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaykh.

Member of Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and Verdicts.


....
....
....

This particular Fatwa raised over $250M in just a week and that money was donated to "groups fighting injustice." Those groups are mostly terrorist organizations.

You want to stop radical jihad, help to resolve the conflicts in the region. If we're not willing or able to do so, then we should simply take a stance of non-alignment with all parties in the region.

 

[gourimoko]

...