ISIS are pure evil.

aidoh

jank wrote: »

That is a bit 'no true Scotsman' for my liking. ISIS may be the thin edge of the wedge but their buddies in arms like Hamas and Al-Qaeda should also be militarily routed out and destroyed. Islamicfascism is a scourge. Meanwhile Tony Abbott is sending 600 Australian personal to the Middle East in an effort to help destroy these animals.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29195689

Will there be any calls from Irish TD's to help or as per usual we talk a good fight but lack any balls for action.

Don't know about you but I would certainly oppose to our 'leaders' sending our fellow countrymen and women off to be blown to pieces in some scaldy desert warzone.

If you feel so strongly about it perhaps you should join up yourself, big man.

johnnyskeleton

jank wrote: »

That is a bit 'no true Scotsman' for my liking. ISIS may be the thin edge of the wedge but their buddies in arms like Hamas and Al-Qaeda should also be militarily routed out and destroyed. Islamicfascism is a scourge. Meanwhile Tony Abbott is sending 600 Australian personal to the Middle East in an effort to help destroy these animals.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29195689

I dont understand your point

Will there be any calls from Irish TD's to help or as per usual we talk a good fight but lack any balls for action.

No TDs making speeches, but we have had troops on the ground in syria for the last 2 years or so. Not the biggest fan of the pdf myself but fair play to those lads out there at the moment, and how dare you try to diminish them!

jank

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't understand your point

A moral equivalence. Hamas and Al-Qaeda are no longer seen as bad because there is something worse out there. Therefore Hamas and Al-Qaeda are not really terrorists in the vein that ISIS are terrorists.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No TDs making speeches, but we have had troops on the ground in syria for the last 2 years or so. Not the biggest fan of the pdf myself but fair play to those lads out there at the moment, and how dare you try to diminish them!

Oh please! Where did I diminish them? I did not mention the Irish army at all so you can cut out your faux outrage. My criticism was directly aimed at the political and media commentators who talk endlessly about these crimes but when push comes to shove would sit on the fence rather then engage these animals head on.

BuilderPlumber

There's a whole argument about who is the worst 'Islamic' fascist terrorist group out there at the moment. Here are who I would consider the top ones ranking from least to most dangerous.

10. Pasdaran/Sepah/al Quds/Basij (Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia): the dictators who call the shots in Iran and who control the priests who front for them and who have often stopped moderates from changing Iran for the better. In the 1980s, they brutalised their own people. In recent years, some of them have moderated their views and have become very rich and corrupt, enforcing laws and providing a black market for banned items at the same time. They remain a huge threat to Iran and would pose a problem if totally removed from power in Iran too. Their threat to non-Iranians remains extremely low. al Quds operates in other countries but mostly to execute dissident Iranians. Their main motive is to keep a fascist military dictatorship in Iran fronted by obedient priests. Seen as a terrorist group by some in US and EU. Listed as such officially by the US. They are Shia and not natural allies of other Islamic fascists and are very moderate when compared to the others I will list.

9. Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt: The Muslim Brotherhood has traditionally been opposed to Egypt's various military regimes. It has inspired so many organisations unfortunately spawning Ayman al-Zawahiri's career in terror. Though moderate in the grand scheme of things, they have been responsible for initiating modern Islamic politics. However, the MB do not pose a threat and have officially renounced violence since the 1970s. Not likely to pose a threat outside Egypt.

8. Mujahedin e Khalq: The unofficial Revolutionary Guards/dissident Revolutionary Guards you could say! Like the RGs, these were an anti Pahlavi Iranian group that kind of took up the nationalist/Islamic/communist hybrid. They quickly became enemies of the Revolutionary Guards and sought support from Saddam's Iraq. Considered a terrorist group by US and EU in the past. At present, they are irrelevant and don't pose any real threat anywhere. Could stage bomb attacks in Iran.

7. Jundullah: A Baluchi separatist group with links to al Qaeda akin to ETA in some ways. Their aim is to create a Baluchi homeland in West Pakistan and Southeast Iran with a fascist Sunni dictatorship. They operate in both these and also Afghanistan and are enemies of all 3 regimes. Again, their aims are insular and region specific and pose not much of an international threat.

6. Hamas: Hamas are a complex organisation with a wing that wants to create a state akin to Turkey and another wing committed to 'Islamic' dictatorship. Their aim is to get rid of Israel under its current guise and to control the Palestinian territories and Israel's territory too. Again, they have a specific aim and are not a threat it seems to anyone other than Israel.

5. Islamic Jihad: a more fanatic and dangerous version of Hamas in Palestine. But again region and country specific, not a threat to anyone other than Israel.

4. Boko Haram: now, we enter some of the worst. This awful terrorist group has engaged in hatred in Nigeria against Christians and has expanded into Niger and Cameroon too and is allied to similar groups in the region like AQIM (see later). So far, they pose a threat to just West Africa but have links to militants in Northwest Africa like affore mentioned AQIM.

3. Al Shabaab: Somalia's finest 'lads' have engaged in everything from executing world cup watchers to piracy and have imposed what many regard as the worst 'Islamic' fascism since the fall of Taliban in areas they control. A problem in East Africa, they have been responsible for carnage in Kenya in particular such as the event of this time last year. A violent and intolerant group, this has proven links to al Qaeda and could pose a threat to others outside of its region.

2. ISIS: ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State have developed into what is one of the most evil and intolerant 'Islamic' fascist regimes ever. Now, why put them in 2nd position? Well, this is because thus far they have not staged any spectaculars or have actually carried out anything outside of their own region so far. But, their brutal beheadings, ethnic cleansing and imposition of fascist 'Islam' by force all do not bode well. I am pretty sure these guys if left uncontrolled could replace the current No. 1 holders.

1. Al Qaeda: to date, al Qaeda (and organisations that use this name) have been the most evil and internationally successful 'Islamic' terrorist group of all. From driving the Russians out of Afghanistan, they settled on creating a pure Islamic state with the help of their allies the Taliban there. Their 1996-2001 rule was the most intolerant 'Islamic' dictatorship ever seen thus far and inspired others to set up similar. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri set up an ideology that seemed brazen in its bid to take out superpowers: first, the USSR and then the USA. However, brazen efforts like attacking the US embassies in East Africa in 1998 brought them well and truly under the US' eye and joining Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as then most prominent US enemies. 9/11 was their worst action of course and it sealed their fate: they were ousted from Afghanistan but have embraced the US wars which they took advantage of in Iraq. Zarqawi in Iraq proved the worst and most violent extremist: the inspiration for what we see in ISIS now. 10 years ago, we saw him behead Kenneth Bigley and shoot Margaret Hassan. Al Qaeda of course did other attacks like Madrid, London and Bali. It has spread to other areas and has called its local branches names like Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghred (AQIM), al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (former name of ISIS) and so on. While ISIS and AQIM are now officially ostracised from the mainstream al Qaeda, the mainstream al Qaeda still remains 100% responsible for the vile fascism these groups do. Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi proved the original inspiration and were the role models for today's ISIS. al Qaeda thus far have done the worst attacks, have been the most successful internationally and have originated in modern times the notion of a modern Sunni 'Caliphate'.

indigo twist

DarkJager wrote: »

Fight fire with fire. They behead a European citizen without a care in the world? That's fine, murder their entire family and relations in front of them, then murder them in the most humiliating degrading way possible.

And what if their family and relations have never done anything wrong? You think it would be OK to kill them all just to torture one person (who you're going to kill anyways straight afterwards)?

The problem with "fighting fire with fire" is that, by adopting their practices, you're basically agreeing with them that their tactics are the best tactics. You're encouraging your enemies (and friends) to use the same tactics in the future. It's a vicious circle.

Of course I agree that those behind this organisation are dangerous and evil, and the threat needs to be neutralised. But copying their methods is stooping to their level - it's basically sending a message that what they're doing is OK.

I would hope that civilised society will never regress that far.

ivytwine

Killer Wench wrote: »

For those who are foreign born, I would like to see them extracted out of Iraq and Syria and returned to their former countries and tried as traitors. If sentenced to death, it should be a woman executing them.

I'd like to see them serve out their prison sentences in dresses and make up. All the warders will be women carrying AK47s and every day they will have to recite swathes of Judith Butler before sewing lingerie.

Edit: Better idea, gay pride flags!

catallus

So the much heralded "Arab Spring" has bloomed into a glorious summer but the West dislikes this type of freedom so the option is to bomb the shít out of it?

Have I got that right?

Fratton Fred

catallus wrote: »

So the much heralded "Arab Spring" has bloomed into a glorious summer but the West dislikes this type of freedom so the option is to bomb the shít out of it?

Have I got that right?

No, not in the slightest.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

So the much heralded "Arab Spring" has bloomed into a glorious summer but the West dislikes this type of freedom so the option is to bomb the shít out of it?

Have I got that right?

Not sure how you got to that.

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

Not sure how you got to that.

Hold on, for the past 5 or 6 years there has been a clear policy of political subversion and material assistance to rebel groups across Northern Africa/Levant region by "Western Powers" spearheaded by USKN, with little or no thought put into how the whole thing would pan out and now when it turns to shít the only option put on the table is to bomb the fcukers into oblivion because they won't let us in on the game anymore and threaten to play by their own rules?

And everyone claps like trained seals.

johnnyskeleton

jank wrote: »

A moral equivalence. Hamas and Al-Qaeda are no longer seen as bad because there is something worse out there. Therefore Hamas and Al-Qaeda are not really terrorists in the vein that ISIS are terrorists.

I don't think ISIS are saying that Hamas are not terrorists, they are saying that they are not as good at it as ISIS claim they are. But I still don't fully understand why you're trying to point out their moral equivalence -as they routinely carry out extra judicial killings and ethnic cleansing, I think we can fairly safely assume that ISIS are not exactly the most morally principled group.

Oh please! Where did I diminish them? I did not mention the Irish army at all so you can cut out your faux outrage. My criticism was directly aimed at the political and media commentators who talk endlessly about these crimes but when push comes to shove would sit on the fence rather then engage these animals head on.

So...our TDs should take up arms and be on the front line? Or what exactly? Surely dispatching troops and not talking about it (i.e. what they are currently doing) is in line with your requirement that they do something rather than sit on the fence. So why are you criticising them?

I'm trying to understand you, but I'm struggling to ascertain what your point is exactly.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Hold on, for the past 5 or 6 years there has been a clear policy of political subversion and material assistance to rebel groups across Northern Africa/Levant region by "Western Powers" spearheaded by USKN, with little or no thought put into how the whole thing would pan out and now when it turns to shít the only option put on the table is to bomb the fcukers into oblivion because they won't let us in on the game anymore and threaten to play by their own rules?

And everyone claps like trained seals.

You are joining dots that aren't nessecarily to be joined, I think.

bilston

catallus wrote: »

So the much heralded "Arab Spring" has bloomed into a glorious summer but the West dislikes this type of freedom so the option is to bomb the shít out of it?

Have I got that right?

Nope

My name is URL

Al-Qaeda appealed to Isis to release the British hostage Alan Henning because it believed he was an innocent aid worker who was genuinely trying to help suffering Muslims, it can be revealed.

In evidence that the depravity exhibited by Isis is now repelling Muslims of all views and backgrounds, even the terrorist group behind the 11 September attacks on the US in 2001 decided that kidnapping the aid-convoy volunteer was a step too far.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/alan-henning-alqaeda-appealed-to-isis-to-release-british-aid-worker-following-kidnap-9734598.html

Fairly bizarre to think that even Al-Qaeda feel these guys have gone too far

daUbiq

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think ISIS are saying that Hamas are not terrorists, they are saying that they are not as good at it as ISIS claim they are. But I still don't fully understand why you're trying to point out their moral equivalence -as they routinely carry out extra judicial killings and ethnic cleansing, I think we can fairly safely assume that ISIS are not exactly the most morally principled group.



So...our TDs should take up arms and be on the front line? Or what exactly? Surely dispatching troops and not talking about it (i.e. what they are currently doing) is in line with your requirement that they do something rather than sit on the fence. So why are you criticising them?

I'm trying to understand you, but I'm struggling to ascertain what your point is exactly.

the yanks also carry out extra judicial killings..

conorhal

catallus wrote: »

So the much heralded "Arab Spring" has bloomed into a glorious summer but the West dislikes this type of freedom so the option is to bomb the shít out of it?

Have I got that right?

Na, I'd say the Arab spring was a chaotic untended garden that lead to the briars and weeds choking the roses. For any blooms to have a hope of blossoming ... we're going to have to break out the weedkiller.

renegademaster

catallus wrote: »

Hold on, for the past 5 or 6 years there has been a clear policy of political subversion and material assistance to rebel groups across Northern Africa/Levant region by "Western Powers" spearheaded by USKN, with little or no thought put into how the whole thing would pan out and now when it turns to shít the only option put on the table is to bomb the fcukers into oblivion because they won't let us in on the game anymore and threaten to play by their own rules?

And everyone claps like trained seals.

what if, and it's not a very big if at all really but what if they knew well what they were doing and their plans are moving along pretty much like they had hoped? afterall some people are making a fcuking fortune from it all

kstand

"The Arab Spring" - enthusiastically championed by triumphant journalists in missives such as the Guardian, in their minds heralding the arrival of freedom and choice and in part democracy in Arab countries run by glorified dictatorships. When in reality, it was always going to create a power vacuum that would inevitably be filled by radical Islamic groups, something much worse than the status quo that had been there all along.

porsche959

David Cameron said to have joked last night “After events I’ve been facing over the past few days, assassination would be a welcome release.”

Rogaine2

I hear the pope is the next target.

Ash.J.Williams

renegademaster wrote: »

what if, and it's not a very big if at all really but what if they knew well what they were doing and their plans are moving along pretty much like they had hoped? afterall some people are making a fcuking fortune from it all

that's what i've been thinking.....and have you noticed the way obama has been like "yeah whatever...we don;t really have a plan or a strategy".....like he's some chilled out zen master....when in reality they have and always had a plan...

SEPT 23 1989

Rogaine2 wrote: »

I hear the pope is the next target.

game over if they whack him

LordNorbury

The only way to sort this out is a 90 day air campaign, with 200 targets per night, which will leave these guys without as much as a pick up truck left to use.

Then send in ground troops and round up every last one of them and show them the same mercy that they have shown their captives, down to the last man, execute every one of them. There is no other way of sorting this out that I can see...

Rogaine2

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

game over if they whack him

I wouldn't mind, but he's a nice pope!

Rogaine2

Does Islam have a leader like the pope? Or is it still Mohammad? The dead fella?

JC01

LordNorbury wrote: »

The only way to sort this out is a 90 day air campaign, with 200 targets per night, which will leave these guys without as much as a pick up truck left to use.

Then send in ground troops and round up every last one of them and show them the same mercy that they have shown their captives, down to the last man, execute every one of them. There is no other way of sorting this out that I can see...

Sounds effective, but costly in lives and defence budgets, bar the US most country's would baulk at spending so much on such a mission.

And I can hear the PC brigade screaming about there "misunderstood human rights" already re executing the lot of them.

Then you have to ask what will replace them? It's blatantly obvious that the west will not allow nations in the Middle East thrive into successful nations as its way to lucrative to have things the way they are now. In this climate only even more extreme elements could replace ISIS

LordNorbury

JC01 wrote: »

Sounds effective, but costly in lives and defence budgets, bar the US most country's would baulk at spending so much on such a mission.

And I can hear the PC brigade screaming about there "misunderstood human rights" already re executing the lot of them.

Then you have to ask what will replace them? It's blatantly obvious that the west will not allow nations in the Middle East thrive into successful nations as its way to lucrative to have things the way they are now. In this climate only even more extreme elements could replace ISIS

I hear ya, but these guys are putting it up to the world and I just don't think that there is going to be any toleration whatsoever on the world stage for this, in these times. You can't imprison these guys or try to rehabilitate them back into some sort of a normal society. I reckon any day now, we'll be waking up to a "shock and awe" type missile intervention on a scale not previously seen in this world, that is going to hammer these guys until they haven't as much as a pick up jeep left to move around in, and I don't believe for a second that there will not be an infantry ground invasion. By the time there is one though, there will be so little left of ISIS that it will be more a cleaning up operation than a high risk combat operation.

ahmdoda

Rogaine2 wrote: »

Does Islam have a leader like the pope? Or is it still Mohammad? The dead fella?

Why do you think ISIS established the Islamic state and attempted to restore the Caliphat?

wretcheddomain

Rogaine2 wrote: »

Does Islam have a leader like the pope? Or is it still Mohammad? The dead fella?

The clue is in the name "Caliphate", with the Caliph acting as the "Islamopope".

LordNorbury

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The clue is in the name "Caliphate", with the Caliph acting as the "Islamopope".

I'm surprised they haven't taken this lad out yet. I'd give him a month.