ISIS are pure evil.

Zebra3

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its a fact, Islam spread by conquest, enemy males slaughtered, females enslaved and impregnated.

How is that bs ?

Go and read some history.

Yet you cheer the fact that European Christians did the same thing in the Americas in your post on page 173. :rolleyes:

DarkJager

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So a 2 year old or a 6 year old or a 5 month old child in your eyes would be considered an ISIS sympathizer?

They will grow up to be yes. You might have missed the article when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death. IS put up large screens in Raqqa so people could gather around and watch the video. They also filmed a few questions with those watching it. There was a child, no older than 6 or 7 watching with a smile on his face. When asked his opinion, he simply said "I would have burned him with my own hands". Don't mistake age for innocence there, even the children are mini jihadists in waiting

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

They will grow up to be yes. You might have missed the article when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death. IS put up large screens in Raqqa so people could gather around and watch the video. They also filmed a few questions with those watching it. There was a child, no older than 6 or 7 watching with a smile on his face. When asked his opinion, he simply said "I would have burned him with my own hands". Don't mistake age for innocence there, even the children are mini jihadists in waiting

I have seen children that age talk about how Noah put 2 of every animal on earth into a boat. Here's the thing, kids will believe what they are told because they as children are innocent. You think they deserve to die because of their beliefs?

DarkJager

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have seen children that age talk about how Noah put 2 of every animal on earth into a boat. Here's the thing, kids will believe what they are told because they as children are innocent. You think they deserve to die because of their beliefs?

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not a belief, it's a mental illness. The people who follow it are so utterly deluded by it that they are willing to blow themselves up for the cause. A 6 year old who is already being brainwashed in to that culture is a lost cause.

When you have a rat infestation, the whole nest needs to be destroyed to remove it. It is no good killing the adult but leaving its offspring remain. There is no difference between that and what needs to be done in Raqqa.

jobbridge4life

DarkJager wrote: »

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not a belief, it's a mental illness. The people who follow it are so utterly deluded by it that they are willing to blow themselves up for the cause. A 6 year old who is already being brainwashed in to that culture is a lost cause.

When you have a rat infestation, the whole nest needs to be destroyed to remove it. It is no good killing the adult but leaving its offspring remain. There is no difference between that and what needs to be done in Raqqa.

I'd be more tempted to view an adult drawing an analogy between rats and a six year old, as a lost cause myself.

DarkJager

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'd be more tempted to view an adult drawing an analogy between rats and a six year old, as a lost cause myself.

You might view them as human and equate normal values to their lives but I don't. Their supporters, families and personnel are nothing but sub human scum, all part of a cancerous movement that must be annihilated.

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not a belief, it's a mental illness. The people who follow it are so utterly deluded by it that they are willing to blow themselves up for the cause. A 6 year old who is already being brainwashed in to that culture is a lost cause.

If you are taught something from birth then it is a belief. A child can be tauht differently, where do you think atheists come from in predominantly catholic countries such as Ireland?

When you have a rat infestation, the whole nest needs to be destroyed to remove it. It is no good killing the adult but leaving its offspring remain. There is no difference between that and what needs to be done in Raqqa.

And again you are back to the idiotic posts calling for the slaughter of innocents, and then you dare to take the moral high ground thinking you are any better than the ISIS lads :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

DarkJager wrote: »

You might view them as human and equate normal values to their lives but I don't. Their supporters, families and personnel are nothing but sub human scum, all part of a cancerous movement that must be annihilated.

I actually picture you foaming at the mouth as you typed that batch of bolloxollogy.

Ash.J.Williams

DarkJager wrote: »

So, the last time I posted in this thread I advocated the carpet bombing of Raqqa. A few people didn't like this, telling me there were innocent people there who would die. Well here is what innocent people look like in Raqqa:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959934/Beaten-death-mob-Hundreds-savage-ISIS-supporters-swarm-Syrian-prisoners-kick-death-corpses-dragged-streets.html

I still stand by my suggestion, this place should be flattened and burnt in to the ground and then bombed again just to make double sure.

yeah it's about time world leaders bombed cities based on daily mail articles

Wurzelbert

still baffled by how so many posters here and elsewhere keep trying hard to convince themselves and everybody else that somehow it is all our fault anyway and that we – the west/christianity – started it all and should be ashamed of ourselves and show some respect for isis somehow...whatever it is with all the whataboutery and that sickening self-hatred so prevalent among westerners in our time...

Playboy

Wurzelbert wrote: »

still baffled by how so many posters here and elsewhere keep trying hard to convince themselves and everybody else that somehow it is all our fault anyway and that we – the west/christianity – started it all and should be ashamed of ourselves and show some respect for isis somehow...whatever it is with all the whataboutery and that sickening self-hatred so prevalent among westerners in our time...

Well we kinda did. To think that Western intervention in North Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia over the last hundred years has had nothing to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is deluded in the extreme. We are currently best buddies with the House of Saud where most of this thinking originates. You cannot continue to exploit a region/people and not expect consequences, we have a similar if not quite as extreme history in this country.

Shurimgreat

The west has pulled out of north africa, middle east and africa in the last century and largely left them to their own devices.

Usually the west gets involved to prevent some massacre or humanitarian catastrophe or other. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Islam and fundamental Islam were not invented by the west. They were around long before the modern US, Britain or the west were around. Only for the west Islam and Sharia Law would be far more prevalent that it is today.

Yes we can build a wall around the middle east and never intervene or go there again. What do you think would happen behind that wall though? Everyone living perfectly secular lives in a human rights idyl? Or Islamic fundamentalists running the show? Realistically what do you think?

FTA69

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Usually the west gets involved to prevent some massacre or humanitarian catastrophe or other. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Like Iraq? They bombed the country to pieces in order to secure what they thought would be a puppet regime and cheap, plentiful energy. The Americans didn't go in there for altruistic reasons and as a consequence we now have ISIS who emerged during that vacuum.

kstand

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The west has pulled out of north africa, middle east and africa in the last century and largely left them to their own devices.

Usually the West gets involved to prevent some massacre or humanitarian catastrophe or other. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Islam and fundamental Islam were not invented by the west. They were around long before the modern US, Britain or the west were around. Only for the west Islam and Sharia Law would be far more prevalent that it is today.

Would agree that it is time to leave them to their own devices and let the Arab world sort out their own problems - even if they were in part at least created by western intervention over the centuries. And under no circumstances let any of those countries develop a nuclear weapon.
We also need to man up in the west and move away from carbon based sources of energy - the nuclear road is the only viable option for now. Whatever it takes to completely eradicate our dependency on Arab oil.
And we need to stand up to Islam within our own borders - we cannot afford to let Islam fester, in spite of the many secular Muslims living in western countries. The Chinese solution appeals to me - i.e. state managed mosques which are run by the state and closely monitored.
And sort out the cancer within our Human Rights legal institutions - i.e. even if you are a citizen of a country or say the EU - if you break certain laws, then you are banished for good. Your family may remain but you may not - one way ticket.
I know that these are very simplistic overviews of what direction to take but they would be a start.

Wurzelbert

Playboy wrote: »

Well we kinda did. To think that Western intervention in North Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia over the last hundred years has had nothing to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is deluded in the extreme. We are currently best buddies with the House of Saud where most of this thinking originates. You cannot continue to exploit a region/people and not expect consequences, we have a similar if not quite as extreme history in this country.

yeah, and the isis gunmen all have sand in their eyes and are really just trying to compensate for a difficult childhood...come on, nobody would deny western heavy-handedness has not helped, but to say the west caused islamic aggression - and thus terrorism and isis as its latest incarnation - in the first place is preposterous...and not like it all began in the 20th century anyway...

kstand

FTA69 wrote: »

Like Iraq? They bombed the country to pieces in order to secure what they thought would be a puppet regime and cheap, plentiful energy. The Americans didn't go in there for altruistic reasons and as a consequence we now have ISIS who emerged during that vacuum.

It was always inevitable when they didnt grasp the bull by the horns and divide the country 3 ways - each under Shia, Sunni or Kurd control. Let people migrate to those areas if they didnt feel safe - and a budget in place to facilitate that within a certain time frame.
What they left behind was an empty vacuum quickly filled by violent scumbags.

Playboy

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yeah, and the isis gunmen all have sand in their eyes and are really just trying to compensate for a difficult childhood...come on, nobody would deny western heavy-handedness has not helped, but to say the west caused islamic aggression - and thus terrorism and isis as its latest incarnation - in the first place is preposterous...and not like it all began in the 20th century anyway...

What do you think is the major driving force behind Islamic terrorism? How you think they manage to recruit people to their cause?

Playboy

kstand wrote: »

It was always inevitable when they didnt grasp the bull by the horns and divide the country 3 ways - each under Shia, Sunni or Kurd control. Let people migrate to those areas if they didnt feel safe - and a budget in place to facilitate that within a certain time frame.
What they left behind was an empty vacuum quickly filled by violent scumbags.

Shia and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam, they intermarried and were scarcely distinguishable as separate groups. The US stoked the sectarian fires in that country.

Wurzelbert

Playboy wrote: »

Shia and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam, they intermarried and were scarcely distinguishable as separate groups. The US stoked the sectarian fires in that country.

and what a nice guy saddam was...especially the shiites in iraq all loved him dearly...

Tony EH

DarkJager wrote: »

You might view them as human and equate normal values to their lives but I don't. Their supporters, families and personnel are nothing but sub human scum, all part of a cancerous movement that must be annihilated.

You're no better than the lads in ISIS.

jobbridge4life

Playboy wrote: »

Shia and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam, they intermarried and were scarcely distinguishable as separate groups. The US stoked the sectarian fires in that country.

That is completely inaccurate. The Shia were an oppressed majority (a rare thing but true).

kstand

Playboy wrote: »

What do you think is the major driving force behind Islamic terrorism? How you think they manage to recruit people to their cause?

They (Islamic extremists) love to use the mantra that every day, western bombs are "killing Muslim women and children" which is a complete and utter fabrication - the vast majority of Muslims killed in Iraq etc are killed by other Muslims - i.e. car bombings etc. They conveniently leave that out however as it doesn't justify the point they are trying to make. They have mastered the use of propaganda against the west - and the west has no answer and has enough apologists within the leftist ranks to bolster the points the radical Islamists are making.
Now I agree - its time to end western intervention - and by the same token, completely eradicate our dependency on anything from that region, even as much as 1 grain of sand. And the nuclear option has to be very seriously reconsidered - but then you will find that the very same leftists apologists mentioned above will be up in arms of a return to the production of feul from nuclear means.
And while this is happening, sort out the social problems within our own borders, not just from radical elements of Islam (which will have to be dealt with) but also from the rise in violent crime on our streets etc. How can we hold up our own civilisation as a paragon of anything other than how to do things wrong when you consider the social problems we face on our own streets?
Just to show how screwed things are - today the Greeks are closer to exiting the Euro which will have a big economic impact, the Russians are testing the military resolve of the UK and France by flying right up to both countries respective airspace, there's an upcoming election in the UK and one of the headlines on several news sits is that photos of Beyonce have appeared on line without makeup and one columnist has told us "that in spite of this, we should treat her as a goddess anyway".

kstand

Playboy wrote: »

Shia and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam, they intermarried and were scarcely distinguishable as separate groups. The US stoked the sectarian fires in that country.

Not entirely correct - the shiites kept their heads down as much as they could as they didnt hold power and the man that did would wipe them and their families out if they stepped out of line. hardly a democracy.

Shurimgreat

FTA69 wrote: »

Like Iraq? They bombed the country to pieces in order to secure what they thought would be a puppet regime and cheap, plentiful energy. The Americans didn't go in there for altruistic reasons and as a consequence we now have ISIS who emerged during that vacuum.

So a small minority of neo cons represents all of America now, not just now, but forever? Including those who opposed the war? Talk about reducing a complex nation into something small and handy you can understand. What next, all Muslims are the same? Africans too?

Zack Morris

Playboy wrote: »

Shia and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam, they intermarried and were scarcely distinguishable as separate groups. The US stoked the sectarian fires in that country.

Except none of that is true. Shia and Sunni Muslims have always hated each other. Saddam oppressed the Shia when he took charge, destroyed their shrines, destroyed the marshlands in the predominately Shia south.

When Saddam was removed, Shia fought back and the sectarian conflict escalated.

Playboy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is completely inaccurate. The Sunni were an oppressed majority (a rare thing but true).

No I think you will find it is accurate

Playboy

kstand wrote: »

Not entirely correct - the shiites kept their heads down as much as they could as they didnt hold power and the man that did would wipe them and their families out if they stepped out of line. hardly a democracy.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is completely inaccurate. The Sunni were an oppressed majority (a rare thing but true).

So which is it?

jobbridge4life

Playboy wrote: »

So which is it?

Shia sorry brain fart.

Shurimgreat

Playboy wrote: »

What do you think is the major driving force behind Islamic terrorism? How you think they manage to recruit people to their cause?

If you left the middle east to itself it would produce Islamic extremists.

If you don't leave it to itself it produces them.

If the west was never invented and there was only Islam in the world, who would you blame then? Maybe you'd prefer if we all lived under Sharia Law and have done with it. Not put up a fight or anything.

As other posters have said blaming the west for Islamic extremism is in itself extreme.

How do you explain Boko Haram by the way? West to blame there too?

jobbridge4life

Playboy wrote: »

No I think you will find it is accurate

No I won't.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iraqs-oppressed-majority-95250996/?no-ist