RE: Has ISIS finally went too far?

RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 12:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi We have a lot of muslims in this area but right now they are just trying to live their lives in peace and make a better life for their kids kinda like most of the other folks in this area. So what would you like them to do? Perhaps they could quit their jobs and start having daily rallies condemning the actions of IS. Would that make you feel better about them? They could also buy some air time and every morning list off all the evil muslims in the world. Of course they wouldn't have any money to pay for it because they already quit their jobs for the daily rallies but I am sure their houses are worth something. They could sell them to pay for the air time. Seems simple really. And in the end it wouldn't change anything. IS could really give a fuck if the folk in Dearborn think they are doing the right thing. The only ones it would help are the ones who seem to think if you don't stand on your roof and scream out how outraged you are, then you really agree with everything going on in the world. excellent post

oldncreepy -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 12:43:49 PM)
It looks like IS may have really screwed up this time.: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/photo-king-jordan-looking-badass-132100812.html I still stand on my earlier post about putting them in timeout until they're ready to join civilized humanity, but I'm not going to complain if Jordan sends a message.

Lucylastic -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 12:53:05 PM)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31153217 Jordan says its warplanes have carried out their first air strikes on Islamic State (IS) targets since the militants released a video showing the killing of a captured Jordanian pilot. On their way back, the planes flew over the village of pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh. Their flight coincided with a visit to the village by Jordanian King Abdullah II, who was meeting the pilot's family. The king has vowed to the step up the fight against IS. Jordan is part of a US-led coalition bombing the militants. Lt Kasasbeh was captured by the militants last year after his F-16 fighter jet crashed in Syria. IS this week released a video showing the pilot being burned alive in a cage, sparking outrage and calls for revenge in Jordan. The Jordanian aircraft flew over the pilot's tribal village, south of Amman The king gestured to the skies as the warplanes flew overhead, the Associated Press news agency said. Mr Kasasbeh told mourners that the aircraft were returning from a raid on Syria's Raqqa, the de facto capital of the militants' self-declared caliphate, which spans territory in Iraq and Syria. While Jordan did not specify the location of the air strikes, a security official quoted by Reuters news agency said they had targeted IS in Syria. However, anti-IS activists in Raqqa said there were no coalition air strikes in the city on Wednesday. "The response of Jordan and its army after what happened to our dear son will be severe," the king said, after cutting short a trip to the US this week. The army said in a statement that the air strikes were "just the beginning". Jordan responded to the release of the gruesome video, which depicted the caged pilot engulfed in flames, by executing two convicts, including Sajida al-Rishawi, a failed female suicide bomber. Jordan had earlier sought to secure the pilot's release in a swap involving Rishawi. However, it is now believed that IS had killed the pilot a month ago. The BBC's Paul Adams in Amman says talk of an exchange appears to have been an IS tactic to string Jordan along and foster doubt among Jordanians over its role in the US-led coalition. The US military said that the coalition had conducted a total of nine air strikes on IS-targets in Iraq, and three on targets in Syria, since Wednesday. The strikes hit IS units near the Syrian town of Kobane, and in seven Iraqi cities including Fallujah, Kirkuk and Mosul, the Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement. Joint resolve On Thursday, Mr Kasasbeh praised the king and condemned the militants. "You are a wise monarch," Reuters quotes him as saying. "These criminals violated the rules of war in Islam and they have no humanity. Even humanity disowns them." Mr Kasasbeh had earlier said the Jordanian government must do "more than just executing prisoners". "I call for [IS] to be eliminated completely," he told reporters on Wednesday. Earlier this week, King Abdullah and US President Barack Obama reaffirmed their joint resolve to destroy the group at a meeting in the White House before the monarch returned to Jordan. Jordan is one of four Arab states to have taken part in the anti-IS air strikes in Syria. The other countries are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. US officials told the BBC on Wednesday that the UAE had suspended its involvement in the strikes after Lt Kasasbeh was captured in December. The New York Times quoted officials as saying the UAE wanted the Pentagon to improve its search-and-rescue efforts in Iraq before it resumed bombing missions.

Politesub53 -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 4:27:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Shhesh, you post so much crap that my fingers are worn out answering you. No one is forcing you to keep your trollish little nose up my ass, john quote: Now you are suggesting they are only taking the fight to ISIS, only after the pilot was murdered. The very pilot shot down while........ errr taking the fight to ISIS. Thats without your ignoring all the other Muslims involved in the fight against ISIS, Kurds, some Sunni tribes, Shias etc. Flying the occasional sortie isnt doing anything except pissing them off a little bit. Take the fight to them means take the fight to them. Actually send in troops and eliminate them. two points. I cant get my nose up your arse, as you quantly put it, since your head is completely blocking the entrance. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting bombing people isnt taking the fight to them........ Excuse me while I piss myself laughing.

Politesub53 -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 4:37:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 FFS There was no ISIS, no AQ in Iraq, and no bombings in London prior to the 2003 invasion. The reason for the discontent by the Sunnis was the installation of a Shia Government by Bush and Co. You speak abpout the Sunnis having less eqaulity when the reason is so fucking obvious you are tripping over it. According to what you are saying, the Iraqi people have no blame at all for not being inclusive. I didn't exonerate Bush. I just rightly put some of the blame on the Iraqi's who were running the government. Had those people chosen to not play sectarian politics, there would be less risk of what we're seeing now. According to the Wiki, the actual beginnings of ISIS were in 1999... You still dont get it..... The Shia had been oppressed for years. Bush, or to be exact, Bremer, put them in charge. The US just switched on set of oppressors for another. IF, and its a moot point now, Cheney would have done what he said would happen, and ensure there was a fully inclusive Government, then the Shism between Sunni and Shia may not have broken out into civil war. That said nothing, absofuckinglutely nothing alters the fact that there was no such thing as AQ or ISIS in Iraq prior to 2003.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 7:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: I'm hoping this was the proverbial "last straw" that finally motivates the majority of Muslims to do something about the violent extremists who claim the same religious mantle. This depends so much on a view that assumes religious determinism - the idea that the likes of IS and, say, the Muslim bloke who runs my corner shop, are hard-wired the same way and 'all of the same group', and that the majority of members of 'that group' must somehow know, therefore potentially have control over, the minority members. I can't see how that assumption relates to the real world nor, more to the point, how it can somehow lead to a resolution of the problems of IS. How would that work in practice? I didn't follow your comment, but I do understand the question. [:D] So.... I fully believe the vast majority of Muslims are not the violent extremists. Without a doubt in my mind. How will it work? Jordan is retaliating. I'm hoping for an uprising of Muslims opposing and routing the violent extremists wingnuts who also claim to be Muslims. Not enough Muslims are standing up and taking the fight to those violent Muslim extremists. I hope that changes. There are plenty that oppose the violent Muslim extremists, but are only using their words. They need to use more "sticks and stones" because the words aren't really doing the job. [8D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/5/2015 7:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 FFS There was no ISIS, no AQ in Iraq, and no bombings in London prior to the 2003 invasion. The reason for the discontent by the Sunnis was the installation of a Shia Government by Bush and Co. You speak abpout the Sunnis having less eqaulity when the reason is so fucking obvious you are tripping over it. According to what you are saying, the Iraqi people have no blame at all for not being inclusive. I didn't exonerate Bush. I just rightly put some of the blame on the Iraqi's who were running the government. Had those people chosen to not play sectarian politics, there would be less risk of what we're seeing now. According to the Wiki, the actual beginnings of ISIS were in 1999... You still dont get it..... The Shia had been oppressed for years. Bush, or to be exact, Bremer, put them in charge. The US just switched on set of oppressors for another. IF, and its a moot point now, Cheney would have done what he said would happen, and ensure there was a fully inclusive Government, then the Shism between Sunni and Shia may not have broken out into civil war. So, it wasn't the Iraqi's fault at all? quote: That said nothing, absofuckinglutely nothing alters the fact that there was no such thing as AQ or ISIS in Iraq prior to 2003. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: quote: The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, AQI took part in the Iraqi insurgency. In 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which shortly afterwards proclaimed the formation of an Islamic state, naming it the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The ISI gained a significant presence in Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk and other areas, but around 2008, its violent methods, including suicide attacks on civilian targets and the widespread killing of prisoners, led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups.[a]

Politesub53 -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 3:56:28 AM)
From the first two lines of your link. The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The original group was founded in 1999, as you cleverly point out. It morphed into AQI in 2004, as you not so cleverly missed out. When i was at school, 2003 always came before 2004, how did it work for you ? The fact is, the original group was set up in Jordan by a Jordanian, again geography tells me Jordan is next to Iraq but isnt actually Iraq. It remains as said, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq PRIOR to the 2003. Your being obtuse wont alter that fact one iota. As for you trying to blame the Iraqis, you are happily using a one sided premis which abjectly fails to work. Blame the Shia Leadership, the one that was installed by the left wing BBC (Bush Bremer Cheney) < a joke for sanitys sake > { Mine not his [8D] } In order to assist Mod3 in her trials and tribualtions, no one was called stupid in the making of this post.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 4:27:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 From the first two lines of your link. The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The original group was founded in 1999, as you cleverly point out. It morphed into AQI in 2004, as you not so cleverly missed out. When i was at school, 2003 always came before 2004, how did it work for you ? The fact is, the original group was set up in Jordan by a Jordanian, again geography tells me Jordan is next to Iraq but isnt actually Iraq. It remains as said, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq PRIOR to the 2003. Your being obtuse wont alter that fact one iota. As for you trying to blame the Iraqis, you are happily using a one sided premis which abjectly fails to work. Blame the Shia Leadership, the one that was installed by the left wing BBC (Bush Bremer Cheney) < a joke for sanitys sake > { Mine not his [8D] } In order to assist Mod3 in her trials and tribualtions, no one was called stupid in the making of this post. Thank you for agreeing that the seeds of ISIS weren't sown by the actions of Bush, and it is noted that you are playing a name game. Were the Shia Leadership not Iraqi's? And, I'm not disagreeing that the Bush Administration (which means not just Bush) has some blame for the mess that is Iraq right now. I'm not going to blame Blair, or hold Blair blameless. I'll leave that up to you (though it seems you want to blame Blair only for being a Bush lapdog). Which group is "the original group?" Was it "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" or something else?

tweakabelle -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 6:50:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Which group is "the original group?" Was it "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" or something else? According to wiki: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد‎, Organization of Monotheism and Jihad) was a militant Jihadist[1] group led by the Jordanian national Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This group's name may be abbreviated as JTJ or shortened to Tawhid and Jihad, Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tawhid al-Jihad, Al Tawhid or Tawhid. The group started in Jordan, then became a decentralized network during the Iraq insurgency in which foreign fighters were widely thought to play a key role,[3] though some analysts said that it may have also had a considerable Iraqi membership. [...] Al-Zarqawi started the network with the intention of overthrowing the 'apostate' Kingdom of Jordan,[1] which he considered to be un-Islamic according to the four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. After toppling Jordan's monarchy, presumably he would turn to the rest of the Levant.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad Wiki notes that this group only became operational in Iraq after the US-led invasion: "Following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq" ( same source as above). To sum it up, the group that eventually became Al Quada in Iraq started life in Jordan c1998-9. It's original purpose was to over throw the Jordanian monarchy. It started operations in Iraq after the US led invasion, where it went through several name changes and eventually became AQ in Iraq. It seems quite reasonable and consistent with the evidence above to assert that Bush's action in initiating the invasion of Iraq was the key factor responsible for the movement of this group into Iraq. It naturally follows that without Bush's actions Al Quada in Iraq may never have existed.

BamaD -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 7:32:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Which group is "the original group?" Was it "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" or something else? According to wiki: "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد‎, Organization of Monotheism and Jihad) was a militant Jihadist[1] group led by the Jordanian national Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This group's name may be abbreviated as JTJ or shortened to Tawhid and Jihad, Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tawhid al-Jihad, Al Tawhid or Tawhid. The group started in Jordan, then became a decentralized network during the Iraq insurgency in which foreign fighters were widely thought to play a key role,[3] though some analysts said that it may have also had a considerable Iraqi membership. [...] Al-Zarqawi started the network with the intention of overthrowing the 'apostate' Kingdom of Jordan,[1] which he considered to be un-Islamic according to the four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. After toppling Jordan's monarchy, presumably he would turn to the rest of the Levant.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad Wiki notes that this group only became operational in Iraq after the US-led invasion: "Following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq" ( same source as above). To sum it up, the group that eventually became Al Quada in Iraq started life in Jordan c1998-9. It's original purpose was to over throw the Jordanian monarchy. It started operations in Iraq after the US led invasion, where it went through several name changes and eventually became AQ in Iraq. It seems quite reasonable and consistent with the evidence above to assert that Bush's action in initiating the invasion of Iraq was the key factor responsible for the movement of this group into Iraq. It naturally follows that without Bush's actions Al Quada in Iraq may never have existed. It also stands to reason that if they weren't stopped they would grow, but that wouldn't make them the fault of the US .

CreativeDominant -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 8:30:29 AM)
I love how some people can always find a way to blame the U.S. for some trouble making group's existence. That's like saying if the Union had just lost the war, there would have been no need for the KKK. So, are we to blame Lincoln for the existence of the KKK? Or the Reconstruction? Or are we to look at the true motives of the animals who founded the KKK and understand that the North and/or Lincoln and/or the Reconstructionists or even "them uppity blacks" were just someone handy to blame? If the U.S. had just stayed home, then it's likely the Jordanian group would not have morphed into Al Qaeda? Proof of that?

BamaD -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 8:57:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I love how some people can always find a way to blame the U.S. for some trouble making group's existence. That's like saying if the Union had just lost the war, there would have been no need for the KKK. So, are we to blame Lincoln for the existence of the KKK? Or the Reconstruction? Or are we to look at the true motives of the animals who founded the KKK and understand that the North and/or Lincoln and/or the Reconstructionists or even "them uppity blacks" were just someone handy to blame? If the U.S. had just stayed home, then it's likely the Jordanian group would not have morphed into Al Qaeda? Proof of that? You are agreeing with me, I think.

kdsub -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 9:01:07 AM)
You should know that making sense will get you nowhere with fanatics... It will only attract long drawn our rebuttals full of half truths with no basis in reality and history. Butch

Aylee -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 9:07:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I love how some people can always find a way to blame the U.S. for some trouble making group's existence. That's like saying if the Union had just lost the war, there would have been no need for the KKK. So, are we to blame Lincoln for the existence of the KKK? Or the Reconstruction? Or are we to look at the true motives of the animals who founded the KKK and understand that the North and/or Lincoln and/or the Reconstructionists or even "them uppity blacks" were just someone handy to blame? If the U.S. had just stayed home, then it's likely the Jordanian group would not have morphed into Al Qaeda? Proof of that? It is called Oikophobia (Scruton's usage). That being said . . . how long until the US screws Jordan again in regards to this?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 9:44:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I love how some people can always find a way to blame the U.S. for some trouble making group's existence. That's like saying if the Union had just lost the war, there would have been no need for the KKK. So, are we to blame Lincoln for the existence of the KKK? Or the Reconstruction? Or are we to look at the true motives of the animals who founded the KKK and understand that the North and/or Lincoln and/or the Reconstructionists or even "them uppity blacks" were just someone handy to blame? If the U.S. had just stayed home, then it's likely the Jordanian group would not have morphed into Al Qaeda? Proof of that? It is called Oikophobia (Scruton's usage). That being said . . . how long until the US screws Jordan again in regards to this? Given the present administration's fear...caution?...reluctance?...to ruffle anyone's feathers except those we should help...not too long.

Musicmystery -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 9:49:45 AM)
Or the present administration's recognition that war costs money, resources, and lives that the bulk of Americans are not crazy about sacrificing in a battle among Muslims in a Muslim country on top of the other military actions we're already paying for deeply since the last administration.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 10:27:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Or the present administration's recognition that war costs money, resources, and lives that the bulk of Americans are not crazy about sacrificing in a battle among Muslims in a Muslim country on top of the other military actions we're already paying for deeply since the last administration. Then perhaps the present administration should not have entered into a coalition with Jordan ?

Musicmystery -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 10:28:51 AM)
Perhaps there are those who see middle ground between doing nothing and taking over as a US mission in a Muslim civil war.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Has ISIS finally went too far? (2/6/2015 11:06:51 AM)
If they honor their coalition agreement, then they'll be doing something...whether it's taking the middle ground or something more. I don't have a problem with them working to honor that. The question that was asked was whether or not they'll honor the coalition agreement they entered into.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875