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.

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.

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...

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?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

quote:

That said nothing, absofuckinglutely nothing alters the fact that there was no such thing as AQ or ISIS in Iraq prior to 2003.

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]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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 }
In order to assist Mod3 in her trials and tribualtions, no one was called stupid in the making of this post.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Which group is "the original group?" Was it "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" or something else?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.