ISIS are pure evil.

xxyyzz

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thing is, its unconventional warfare.

ISIS don't hold a line or have formations to smash.

If you engage ISIS it will probably be in an urban environment. A town teeming with young men in civilian clothes.
Ask any of them if they are in ISIS, they would deny.

So its pointless.

However, smaller engagements with SEALs/Delta..... More useful.

Plus, these are the same lads everyone wanted to arm in order to defeat Asad. The middle east is complicated to say the least.

Gatling

xxyyzz wrote: »

Plus, these are the same lads everyone wanted to arm in order to defeat Asad. The middle east is complicated to say the least.

No there not .

The ones that the west were thinking of arming were the moderate groups but unfortunately they couldn't get there act together .
so the Arab countries armed them all and china is involved in there somewhere .
Alot of weapons and ammunition is china issue and china doesn't export military equipment usually .
Both the rebels in Syria and isis are china armed

wes

conorhal wrote: »

Three men aren't an army, 30,000 IS soldiers are.

You seem to be confusing oddball outliers (I see a few mentions of that one family cult Westburough Baptist Church getting a few mentions also) for a mich more ingrained problem within Islam.

The Lords Resistance Army would be the Christian equivalent of ISIS, and they were active until very recently. Largely ignored (until Kony 2012, and that largely concentrated on Kony, and after he was largely beaten) by the worlds media for some reason.....

It is interesting to note the difference in reaction to ISIS and the LRA, both managed to control large swaths of land, butchered anyone who disagreed with them, but they never managed to get the same sort of media attention as ISIS, despite similar early successes.

Don't need to go back to middle ages to find plenty of Religious extremists the world over. Sure, there are even Bhuddist extremists murdering people right now.

To get back to the point that started this line of argument, it is interesting how Islam is a monolith, but Christianity is separated into Catholicism etc, and its perfectly fair thing to point out the difference in how the 2 Religions are referred to. Islam is apparently a monolith, despite the fact that the group we are talking about has largely targeted and killed Shia Muslims, which make the referral to Islam as a monolith doubly strange, seeing as the entire mess we see now is due to the Sunni/Shia schism. I don't see how the topic can be discussed in any kind of reasonable fashion, when people refer to Islam as a monolith, especially when a lot of the same people wouldn't do so in other instances.

BTW, I haven't see anyone actually address this point, but rather went on a tangent instead, and seemed to side step the point being made....

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

No there not .

The ones that the west were thinking of arming were the moderate groups but unfortunately they couldn't get there act together .
so the Arab countries armed them all and china is involved in there somewhere .
Alot of weapons and ammunition is china issue and china doesn't export military equipment usually .
Both the rebels in Syria and isis are china armed

It's accepted now that ISIS were created and armed by Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States and if anyone believes that this was done behind the USA's back and they didn't know what was happening then they are living on another planet. The Saudis and the US are staunch allies. I doubt if vast quantities of weapons were sent to Syria with signs on the containers saying "only to be used by moderates"
Interesting the way NATO are sending forces to eastern Europe because Putin is a threat yet look the other way when ISIS now look to be in control of the border of Syria and NATO member Turkey.
It appears the role of ISIS is the oust Assad who just happens to be an ally of Russia.

realweirdo

Gatling wrote: »

No there not .

The ones that the west were thinking of arming were the moderate groups but unfortunately they couldn't get there act together .
so the Arab countries armed them all and china is involved in there somewhere .
Alot of weapons and ammunition is china issue and china doesn't export military equipment usually .
Both the rebels in Syria and isis are china armed

Not so sure that's accurate. The moderates were pretty effective at the start, highly motivated, and most of the original FSA in 2011/12 were military defectors.

The problem was the west dallied and delayed and buried their heads in the sand and hoped the issue would go away. Some countries like Germany want nothing to do with the middle east, and most of the european countries are the same. They immediately think Iraq post 2003 as opposed to taking each situation on its own merits.

People were saying in 2011 and 2012 to arm and support the regular FSA with arms and give them some kind of air support. It didn't happen. We are two years down the road and it was always inevitable that some kind of AQ group would hijack the uprising to form some kind of caliphate and a weak Assad would cling to power.

By doing the nothing the west/UN/etc has brought about the worst possible scenario. And Russia and China also share massive blame too in their support for Assad.

Very difficult to see how ISIS can be defeated now.

Fallschirmjager

wes wrote: »

The Lords Resistance Army would be the Christian equivalent of ISIS, and they were active until very recently. Largely ignored (until Kony 2012, and that largely concentrated on Kony, and after he was largely beaten) by the worlds media for some reason.....

It is interesting to note the difference in reaction to ISIS and the LRA, both managed to control large swaths of land, butchered anyone who disagreed with them, but they never managed to get the same sort of media attention as ISIS, despite similar early successes.

Don't need to go back to middle ages to find plenty of Religious extremists the world over. Sure, there are even Bhuddist extremists murdering people right now.

To get back to the point that started this line of argument, it is interesting how Islam is a monolith, but Christianity is separated into Catholicism etc, and its perfectly fair thing to point out the difference in how the 2 Religions are referred to. Islam is apparently a monolith, despite the fact that the group we are talking about has largely targeted and killed Shia Muslims, which make the referral to Islam as a monolith as doubly strange, seeing as the entire mess we see now is due to the Sunni/Shia schism.

Firstly looking at stats the LRA has 250 members for 2014.

If you care to read the pages back that is exactly what we are saying, there is a wholesale slaughter of Shia Muslims going on. The group targeting is not a group, ala LRA. There is 30,000 members in Isis minimum.

Sunnis constitute about 90% of Islam.

The Webster definition of monolith is
1
: a single great stone often in the form of an obelisk or column
2
: a massive structure
3
: an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force

At 1.5 billion with 90% of the religion I think it's fair to say Sunni Islam fits definition 2 or 3 above.

However maybe you don't agree.

Buona Fortuna

xxyyzz wrote: »

Plus, these are the same lads everyone wanted to arm in order to defeat Asad. The middle east is complicated to say the least.

Some might remember how we (the west) armed the Taliban to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan - how did that go?

I sometimes wonder, that maybe we would not get to these junctures if we had just stayed the fcuk out of it - but then who wants my opinion

realweirdo

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Some might remember how we (the west) armed the Taliban to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan - how did that go?

I sometimes wonder, that maybe we would not get to these junctures if we had just stayed the fcuk out of it - but then who wants my opinion

"We" in the west didn't arm the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't even around then or AQ.

The CIA armed a resistance movement to the Russians which had broad support across Afghanistan and included many pro western elements. The group that later on formed the Taliban and AQ were just a small part of that.

It's all related to unforeseen consequences and blowback. Generally the wars in Europe when they ended were cut and dried. Europe is a mostly moderate, christian, white continent.

In the Middle East, there are all sorts of differences, tribal, religious, etc.

The best that ever be achieved in the Middle East is fire fighting. The west or outside forces are never ever going to achieve a perfect solution largely because of the presence of Islam in the region. However that doesn't mean the west should just wash its hands when one group gains an upper hand and tries to wipe another off the map.

wes

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Firstly looking at stats the LRA has 250 members for 2014.

The LRA have been largely defeated at this point, and I said as much........ The group at it height had far more members, what you see today is a group that has been largely defeated, and I think we both know your aware of that.

If at some point in the future ISIS are defeated and have similar numbers, it would hardly retroactively change the fact they were at one point far larger.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

If you care to read the pages back that is exactly what we are saying, there is a wholesale slaughter of Shia Muslims going on. The group targeting is not a group, ala LRA. There is 30,000 members in Isis minimum.

Wait, so your saying "The group targeting is not a group". What the hell are you on about? ISIS aren't a group, but are a group? What your saying is very very confusing.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Sunnis constitute about 90% of Islam.

There a splits with in Sunni Islam as well, which can be separated into 4 schools of taught, so Sunni Islam itself is not a monolith.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

At 1.5 billion with 90% of the religion I think it's fair to say Sunni Islam fits definition 2 or 3 above.

However maybe you don't agree.

Its not about agreement, its about you being wrong by your own provided definition, which is pretty funny. Sunni Islam on its own has 4 major schools of taught (historically there were even more), and then you have Sufism, where you can have Sunni Sufi, and Shia Sufi for example.

Shia's also have there various splits as well, between the various Ayatollahs, and not to mention the Agha Khan's Ismaili Muslims.

So let look at your definition:

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

2
: a massive structure

There referring to buildings here. So I have no idea what the hell your on about here........

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

3
: an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force

Shia Islam is the sect that has leaders, not Sunni Islam......... Even with the Shia's, there are multiple leaders.

So how exactly can Sunni Islam be described as "single unified powerful" is beyond me, seeing as there is no leadership, no priesthood (any man can a Iman, there is no ritual to become one) and a split along 4 different schools of taught, so that doesn't fit.

Now on to the or part of the definition, Sunni Islam is again not a single influential force either, seeing as again there is no leadership, no single school of taught, but rather multiples, and as I said before, there were even more than that in the past.

I also didn't get into cultural difference between various Sunni Muslims either....

Roger Hassenforder

SwiftJustice wrote: »

Khorasan does not exist and was made up to justify the air strikes.

Obama ****ed up. He said ISIS was not an immediate threat to the US and he cannot launch air strikes on a country that pose no threat so he used this shadow organisation as a cover.


THE FAKE TERROR THREAT USED TO JUSTIFY BOMBING SYRIA - Glenn Greenwald

you wouldn't do me a favour and post a reference there?
Save me the hassle of googleing it myself...

Fallschirmjager

realweirdo wrote: »

Not so sure that's accurate. The moderates were pretty effective at the start, highly motivated, and most of the original FSA in 2011/12 were military defectors.

The problem was the west dallied and delayed and buried their heads in the sand and hoped the issue would go away. Some countries like Germany want nothing to do with the middle east, and most of the european countries are the same. They immediately think Iraq post 2003 as opposed to taking each situation on its own merits.

People were saying in 2011 and 2012 to arm and support the regular FSA with arms and give them some kind of air support. It didn't happen. We are two years down the road and it was always inevitable that some kind of AQ group would hijack the uprising to form some kind of caliphate and a weak Assad would cling to power.

By doing the nothing the west/UN/etc has brought about the worst possible scenario. And Russia and China also share massive blame too in their support for Assad.

Very difficult to see how ISIS can be defeated now.

Sorry this is revisionist bs.

The moderate group then included Isis.

Despite what Obama and that other maroon McCain were saying they had no clue who was who. They also tried to bypass congress, even bush didn't try that.
Despite what McCain says, e.g. all I was doing was standing for a photo op, he met senior members of Isis. He had no clue who he was meeting, that's the reality.

Obama abandoned Iraq saying they were free, even Leon panetta, a former advisor is saying that he is responsible.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/panetta-obama-white-house-responsible-for-chaos-in-iraq/

That's the reason he is drip feeding special forces into Iraq in 100's at a time. That's exactly why it is inevitable a US special forces team will be appearing soon on a tv with their heads cut off. There will be another black hawk down moment in the coming months because he is doing exactly what Clinton did in Somalia, not enough troops for the job.

The reality I want to see is let's for once see the Middle East step up to the plate. I am sick to my teeth of the marches that it was U.S. imperialism or the Brits or some other bs. Okay show us how it should be done. Don't hold your breath for any takers on that.

Irelandcool

It would be nicer all together if somehow Ebola was engineered only to infect people who are member of ISIS, boko haram, al-shabaarb, al qaeda, taliban, al nusra, LRA and other terrorist groups.

Of course anyone notice how no one is talking about Boko haram or the kidnapped girls, no one is reporting on them. Same thing with MH270 (which I kind of believe is being covered up because no one is talking about it).

realweirdo

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Sorry this is revisionist bs.

The moderate group then included Isis.

Despite what Obama and that other maroon McCain were saying they had no clue who was who. They also tried to bypass congress, even bush didn't try that.
Despite what McCain says, e.g. all I was doing was standing for a photo op, he met senior members of Isis. He had no clue who he was meeting, that's the reality.

Obama abandoned Iraq saying they were free, even Leon panetta, a former advisor is saying that he is responsible.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/panetta-obama-white-house-responsible-for-chaos-in-iraq/

That's the reason he is drip feeding special forces into Iraq in 100's at a time. That's exactly why it is inevitable a US special forces team will be appearing soon on a tv with their heads cut off. There will be another black hawk down moment in the coming months because he is doing exactly what Clinton did in Somalia, not enough troops for the job.

The reality I want to see is let's for once see the Middle East step up to the plate. I am sick to my teeth of the marches that it was U.S. imperialism or the Brits or some other bs. Okay show us how it should be done. Don't hold your breath for any takers on that.

There is nothing revisionist about it. The rise of ISIS is complicated, but I will try to give you a quick overview.

1. Early FSA were mainly if not all native Syrian soldiers who defected.
2. When it was clear the west had abandoned the FSA, large groups of foreigners came to Syria. They tended to join AQ or radical islamic groups.
3. Al Nusra became the AQ franchaise in Syria.
4. ISIS was a branch of Al Nusra but then broke off and started becoming extreme and AQ washed their hands of them.
5. Gradually the early FSA were edged out and the extremists with support from some Gulf states as well as with first class foreign fighters started to take over.

The regular FSA were fighting Assad while ISIS were for about a year ignored by Assad, mainly because they also fought FSA.

I agree however, that US intel on Syria has been zero. They have been clueless, next to useless. They didn't foresee much of what is now happening. Obama was too busy playing golf to really care. He's displaying all the symtoms of a classic bored second term president who is counting the hours so he can leave.

ISIS and LRA aren't even in the same ballpark. LRA are an impoverished ragtag outfit hiding in jungles and armed with AK47s.

ISIS are worth 2 billion dollars, have several oil fields, run several cities, make fortunes from oil and hostage taking and probably taxes, have dozens of tanks, apcs, artillary, anti aircraft, morters, and so on and so forth. Many of their more experienced fighters are closer to special forces than ordinary fighters.

realweirdo

Irelandcool wrote: »

It would be nicer all together if somehow Ebola was engineered only to infect people who are member of ISIS, boko haram, al-shabaarb, al qaeda, taliban, al nusra, LRA and other terrorist groups.

Of course anyone notice how no one is talking about Boko haram or the kidnapped girls, no one is reporting on them. Same thing with MH270 (which I kind of believe is being covered up because no one is talking about it).

We live unfortunately in an Americo-centric world. Unless America is directly involved in something, most people don't give a damn.

Boko Haram capture hundreds of girls, no-one cares. America is involved somewhere, endless hours of round the clock coverage, analysis, criticism, conspiracy nuts coming out of the woodwork trying to piggyback their agendas, America is bad, why are they intervening, CIA, blah blah blah..

Irelandcool

realweirdo wrote: »

We live unfortunately in an Americo-centric world. Unless America is directly involved in something, most people don't give a damn.

Boko Haram capture hundreds of girls, no-one cares. America is involved somewhere, endless hours of round the clock coverage, analysis, criticism, conspiracy nuts coming out of the woodwork trying to piggyback their agendas, America is bad, why are they intervening, CIA, blah blah blah..

Boko haram could be just as dangerous as ISIS if they try to take advantaged of the ebola outbreak. (of course they may not realize ebola will kill them as well because boko haram thinks western medicine is sinful so no treatment for them) Also give a few years time and the Taliban will end up doing the same thing in afghanistan because the afghan forces can't fight for crap (just ask any afghan veteran and they will tell you).

Fallschirmjager

wes wrote: »

The LRA have been largely defeated at this point, and I said as much........ The group at it height had far more members, what you see today is a group that has been largely defeated, and I think we both know your aware of that.

If at some point in the future ISIS are defeated and have similar numbers, it would hardly retroactively change the fact they were at one point far larger.

Wait, so your saying "The group targeting is not a group". What the hell are you on about? ISIS aren't a group, but are a group? What your saying is very very confusing.

There a splits with in Sunni Islam as well, which can be separated into 4 schools of taught, so Sunni Islam itself is not a monolith.
Its not about agreement, its about you being wrong by your own provided definition, which is pretty funny. Sunni Islam on its own has 4 major schools of taught (historically there were even more), and then you have Sufism, where you can have Sunni Sufi, and Shia Sufi for example.

Shia's also have there various splits as well, between the various Ayatollahs, and not to mention the Agha Khan's Ismaili Muslims.

So let look at your definition:
There referring to buildings here. So I have no idea what the hell your on about here........
Shia Islam is the sect that has leaders, not Sunni Islam......... Even with the Shia's, there are multiple leaders.

So how exactly can Sunni Islam be described as "single unified powerful" is beyond me, seeing as there is no leadership, no priesthood (any man can a Iman, there is no ritual to become one) and a split along 4 different schools of taught, so that doesn't fit.

Now on to the or part of the definition, Sunni Islam is again not a single influential force either, seeing as again there is no leadership, no single school of taught, but rather multiples, and as I said before, there were even more than that in the past.

I also didn't get into cultural difference between various Sunni Muslims either....

well the lesson for me is dont type on an ipad, but i digress.apologies for the position of a comma or 2 or a mistype. so let me explain. also have to do it with numbers, always make a balls of quotes so i wont attempt them.

1. on ISIS becoming irrelevant or like the LRA, lets hope that is so. dont hold your breath. however you did bring it up and bringing it up as a counter balance to ISIS is a tad simplistic dont you think? i also like how you covered your argument there, very nice. you dismiss your own arguement so you have a come back, very smart. note to self on that one. no doubt you will have a super slick response to this (you see i am a fast learner!).

2. 'The group targeting is not a group, ala LRA. There is 30,000 members in Isis minimum.' what i meant to type : ISIS is not a group like the LRA, they are 30,000 members minimum, right now...and if i can add some more very likely to increase in size. are the different sects or groups or schools in the new wondrous caliphate i wonder? do they all break out the caliphate into parts next?

3. monolith. : actually it can be used either way, but fine - lets use the third description of it then. so you dont believe islam acts as a unified force when it suits? wow, i wish i had your faith in that, i certainly dont. good luck with that.
There are several distinct sects of Sunni islam, i agree but lets delve a little deeper. here is a quote from wikipedia, or if you like you can get it from official sunni websites if you want to demean wikipages (just a little preemptive strike there before you use that canard, you see i learned that from you!!!)

'While one school may see a certain act as a religious obligation, another may see the same act as optional. Historically, the schools were often engaged in violent conflict with one another, though today these schools aren't regarded as sects; rather, they represent differing viewpoints on issues that are not considered the core of Islamic belief.

wow, its almost like its a mono....no lets not say it. happy now? can we agree that although there are groups within sunni islam, those differences in the caliphate in iraq and syria are marginal discussion points at best. for instance what sect or school is the guy from London doing the beheadings? Also the LRA you raised, you called them christian (which incidently they most definitely are not) as some type of moral equivalence, what branch of christianity are they? you know, since we are going by sub-divisions now? i dont recall anything in the new testament about child soldiers or sex slaves like the LRA practised, but please school me on that if you know more. There is quite a bit about killing infidels in the koran, getting booty, slaves etc. apparently all those sects you mention believe that...who would have thunk it, not being a mono...sorry a big structure and all.

4. sunni vs shia bit, i got the impression you felt this thread was treating sunnis and shia the same and that is not the case, if i am incorrect in that assumption, then mea culpa.

Also since you feel christianity is broken out, no doubt by the evil west to show how good we are, and we want islam as some big bad monolith (oh oh that word again!) I could not care less whether the person being beheaded is shia or christian or kurd. its disgusting, at least on that point i am sure we can agree. With respect, you are looking for a bogeyman that isnt in this thread. The issue at hand is ISIS and what they are doing and sects or schools are a side show to what is going on.

daUbiq

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Some might remember how we (the west) armed the Taliban to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan - how did that go?

I sometimes wonder, that maybe we would not get to these junctures if we had just stayed the fcuk out of it - but then who wants my opinion

I agree but not sure what you mean by us... perhaps you mean the yank warmongers and their lackeys the British?

keith16

Two Tone from Limehouse wrote: »

People forget the yanks and Brits defeated Nazism

I guess people "forget" that the US and Britain defeated the Nazi machine, mainly because the Russians did most of the defeating.

Richard D James

The American war machine loves ISIS. Is it not a bit odd that they encounter these "ememies" every few years that they need to defeat in the name of freedom ? Maybe the middle east just doesnt want their freedom and is telling them to fcuk off

wiseoldelf34

nice to see.the chucks coming home to roost for uncle Sam.
they should have left well enough alone.

Gatling

keith16 wrote: »

I guess people "forget" that the US and Britain defeated the Nazi machine, mainly because the Russians did most of the defeating.

Explain for me.

Fratton Fred

wiseoldelf34 wrote: »

nice to see.the chucks coming home to roost for uncle Sam.
they should have left well enough alone.

Yeah, what's a bit of genocide. At least it's an excuse to have a dig at the Yanks.

opinionated3

keith16 wrote: »

I guess people "forget" that the US and Britain defeated the Nazi machine, mainly because the Russians did most of the defeating.

Rubbish.

KungPao

opinionated3 wrote: »

Rubbish.

They did a hell of a lot more than they get credited for, in fairness. They raped everything in sight as they headed to Berlin though, kind of takes the gloss off of their good work from the east.

wes

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

1. on ISIS becoming irrelevant or like the LRA, lets hope that is so. dont hold your breath. however you did bring it up and bringing it up as a counter balance to ISIS is a tad simplistic dont you think? i also like how you covered your argument there, very nice. you dismiss your own arguement so you have a come back, very smart. note to self on that one. no doubt you will have a super slick response to this (you see i am a fast learner!).

What are you on about? I didn't dismiss my own argument.......

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

2. 'The group targeting is not a group, ala LRA. There is 30,000 members in Isis minimum.' what i meant to type : ISIS is not a group like the LRA, they are 30,000 members minimum, right now...and if i can add some more very likely to increase in size. are the different sects or groups or schools in the new wondrous caliphate i wonder? do they all break out the caliphate into parts next?

How are they not like the LRA? The LRA at it height has 1000s of members, and there leader claimed to be a Religous leader. Both groups are very much a like. The only difference is that the LRA have been more or less beaten after years of fighting.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

are the different sects or groups or schools in the new wondrous caliphate i wonder? do they all break out the caliphate into parts next?

Your making no sense again. Clearly ISIS see themselves as being the one true Islamic sect, and you seem to just be talking nonsense for the sake of it.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

3. monolith. : actually it can be used either way, but fine - lets use the third description of it then. so you dont believe islam acts as a unified force when it suits? wow, i wish i had your faith in that, i certainly dont. good luck with that.

How exactly is Islam a unified force? For example we have Kurds (who are largely Sunni), fighting ISIS another group of Sunni's. Care to explain that away? Doesn't look like a great deal of unity there at all.....

I never claimed that Islam acts like a unified force in the first place, so your claim that I only say that when it suits, is a straw man. FFS, again your just talking complete nonsense, and may as well be having a conversation with yourself.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

There are several distinct sects of Sunni islam, i agree but lets delve a little deeper. here is a quote from wikipedia, or if you like you can get it from official sunni websites if you want to demean wikipages (just a little preemptive strike there before you use that canard, you see i learned that from you!!!)

So you admit here are several sects at least.....

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

'While one school may see a certain act as a religious obligation, another may see the same act as optional. Historically, the schools were often engaged in violent conflict with one another, though today these schools aren't regarded as sects; rather, they represent differing viewpoints on issues that are not considered the core of Islamic belief.

Yeah, that quote needs to be changed what with ISIS killing Sunni Muslims like the Kurds (and Arab Sunnis who have the temerity to disagree with them) right now as we speak, kind of proves that to rather inaccurate. That is also ignoring various other conflicts going on right now as well.

Then there is a lack of your know a leader, a priesthood, a single Sunni Islamic organization (there are probably many 1000s world wide), national differences. cultural differences, and so on. Your quote doesn't address all of my points at all, now does it?

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

wow, its almost like its a mono....no lets not say it. happy now?

Sorry, you didn't prove anything. A quote from a website doesn't change the facts as they are currently happening, what with ISIS going to war with various other Sunni Muslims......

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

can we agree that although there are groups within sunni islam, those differences in the caliphate in iraq and syria are marginal discussion points at best.

Again, your making 0 sense. Where did I claim that there were difference within ISIS exactly? Your seem to be having a complete different conversation than me, or just going out of your way to misrepresent what was said.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

for instance what sect or school is the guy from London doing the beheadings?

Clearly a member of ISIS...... Its clear that you taking the piss at this point.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Also the LRA you raised, you called them christian (which incidently they most definitely are not) as some type of moral equivalence, what branch of christianity are they?

Ah, well nice of you prove my point here. So ISIS equals Islam, but the LRA not Christian (and apparently any Christians that believe in the old testament apparently, which is the vast majority, and yes I know you didn't say that, but that the only conclusion I can come too from what you said in regards to the new testament). Some nice blatant double standards right there.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

you know, since we are going by sub-divisions now? i dont recall anything in the new testament about child soldiers or sex slaves like the LRA practised, but please school me on that if you know more.

Interesting so the Bible only consists of the new testament that is interesting........

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

There is quite a bit about killing infidels in the koran, getting booty, slaves etc. apparently all those sects you mention believe that...who would have thunk it, not being a mono...sorry a big structure and all.

You would have a point if you didn't suddenly decide that the Bible only consists of the new testament. Now last I checked most Christian sects don't reject the old testament......... You see what I did there, I acknowledged that there are plenty of Christian sects, for example Mormons, who have even newer testament, that no other Christian acknowledge for example.

Its amazing that your are making my point for me. You have a completely different set of rules for one Religious groups, where you claim that the LRA are not Christian but that ISIS are most certainly Muslim. Again stunning hypocrisy, and clear double standard.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

4. sunni vs shia bit, i got the impression you felt this thread was treating sunnis and shia the same and that is not the case, if i am incorrect in that assumption, then mea culpa.

Well seeing as so many are referring to Islam, as opposed to the 2 separate groups, in the context of a thread, where the primary group we are discussing main aim is to kill Shia's, with a secondary one of killing anyone else who disagrees with them, even other Sunni's like the Kurds, and even other extremist groups as well.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

Also since you feel christianity is broken out, no doubt by the evil west to show how good we are,

Again, your making 0 sense, and attributing complete nonsense that I never said. Look if you wish to have an argument with a straw man, then start a job, and argue with what ever straw man you can come up with.

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

and we want islam as some big bad monolith (oh oh that word again!)

You claimed exactly that earlier........ and defended that position again in the post I am replying to. Its pretty clearly your position.......

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

I could not care less whether the person being beheaded is shia or christian or kurd. its disgusting, at least on that point i am sure we can agree. With respect, you are looking for a bogeyman that isnt in this thread. The issue at hand is ISIS and what they are doing and sects or schools are a side show to what is going on.

Really? Seem pretty clear that you are doing exactly what I said some people are doing in this post. Its perfectly valid to point out, how people refer to Islam, in a way that they wouldn't refer to in regards to Christianity, for example you say the LRA are not Christian, but in then refer to Islam as being a monolith. Its a bizarre state of affairs, when we see for one group people being rather specific, but for another people simply don't bother.

Roger Hassenforder

Are ye going to be at this shyte all night lads?

realweirdo

Would I be right in thinking that the Kurds and the Kurds alone can stop and defeat ISIS in the middle east. Everyone else including Assad and the Iraqi government usually just roll over and run away in the face of ISIS.

Gatling

realweirdo wrote: »

Would I be right in thinking that the Kurds and the Kurds alone can stop and defeat ISIS in the middle east. Everyone else including Assad and the Iraqi government usually just roll over and run away in the face of ISIS.

So far there the only ones up for a fight and there willing to fight to the death ,

Funny how isis cant seem push assad out at all

mug_holder

the west should never have backed any kind of insurgency against assasd , he is a saddamesque style dictator , rutheless but secular , mubarak was the same in egypt as was gadaffi ( though less so ) in libya

in reality the " arab spring " was an islamist spring

realweirdo

Gatling wrote: »

So far there the only ones up for a fight and there willing to fight to the death ,

Funny how isis cant seem push assad out at all

Indeed. The west have been investing time and effort and weapons in the Iraqis who just run away at the first sight of trouble, allowing those weapons fall into the hands of ISIS.

Meanwhile the Kurds aren't given as much as a pellet gun and they fight ISIS to the death.

In future lets support the Kurds to the hilt and if Shia Iraq falls, so be it. Of all the "allies" in the the middle east, the Kurds are the only ones that can be relied on.