Studied terrorism for eight years, Islamic extremism and deobandism for five, fundamentalism and historical implications of terror for two and finally the past five years spent studying the minor and major conflicts of the so called "Arab Spring".
That is a good point, except they aren't technically allies, but over the course of the past 10-14 months, (before and after Isis's break off with AQ) they have had none-aggression and even some co-operation, pacts, so you could argue this is evidence of some form of an alliance. But to answer your question as to why Al-Nusra hasn't made it public that they are allied is because Al-Nusra are die-hard allies with "Islamic Front" who are essentally a break of group of the 2012 FSA, and so an alliance with IS (real enemies of Islamic Front) would damage their relationshiop
Boko Haram literally translates as "books are sinful" and contrary to popular belief, oppose to nearly all forms of non-islamic education for any gender. Isis on the otherhand teaches maths and some sorts of literacy (as shown in the leaked Raqqa school report). But they are techniaclly allied, but do not worry for north Africa, Isis would never fight with Boko Haraam as Boko-Haraams ideology does not allow for a Peninsular-controlled caliphate, which is Isis' main aim.
I do not have a d-phil (PHD) as I ran out of funding :(, but I do have a degree in international relations and have travelled many places with funding from various publications and wrote my dissitation in Islamic Terrorism.
It is definitely difficult to end Internet terrorism as any international sites that have control of various terror related account refuse to take action, but these ISIS twitter accounts and websites boasting facts are their greatest online weakness. They reveal so much about them, infact the discovery of the "golden chain" was aided by leaked info from what AQ believed to be protected websites. In short, ignoring what they post, using the information they leak against them, and mocking them for it makes them feel demeaned and belittled in a way that religious extremists hate. I'm no psychologist, but it does not take a genius to see that they adore attention and thrive of fear.
Who are the scholars that recently have been recruited by ISIS?
About what percent of Western religious leaders (Imams) are sympathetic toward ISIS?
I watched a Kurdish broadcast that said they found drugs on ISIS combatants, how much truth does this have?
Why are women joining ISIS?
When exactly did the FSA get stomped by ISIS, and are we sure that they took the arms that the US supplied the FSA?
What does ISIS actually feel about Christians?
What do you think of the supposed "Mediterranean strategy", discovered through a phone tap, where ISIS sends up to 500,000 Africans to southern Europe in order to create complete havoc in Europe?
Again, I've studied terrorism, not religious spread but I do believe that one day ( it may takes hundreds of years) Islam will mature and become the christianity we see today. History has taught us time and time again that mono-theistic religions go through fazes of massacre, destruction and belief in a divine right to power. Christianity had this during the crusades and committed some awful acts, as Isis does. One day I do believe (and hope) that fundamentalist Islam will be a thing of the past. But for that to happen we need to see bloodshed (it is a tragedy), we need to see mass executions and we need to see uncontrolled calpihate growth to the point where it burns itself out (one of those options). When this happens, extreme islam will no longer seem so attractive, much like Christianity with the crusades and jews with the zealots.
If Dabiq was glassed preemptively what effect would this have on ISIS?
Someone I met in passing told me his father with an army history and a current position in Canadian intelligence indicated to him that most of ISIS are just people looking to make money and such (obviously not the actual leadership however)
That they are not all religious fundamentals but simply people willing to slaughter for person gain.
That is a lot of questions, don't worry I will try to answer them all in due course, I have a few hours. Women join Isis because the flashy propaganda videos directed at women do not show fighting, but a glorious opportunity to raise a good Islamic family with a brave fighter to populate the caliphate (this is one of Isis's most sadistic delusions). The FSA have not been stomped, but when IS broke away from AQ in 2014, so did many other smaller groups and the FSA found itself right in the middle of a religious and land motivated bloodbath and has since not been so combat effective. And your first question is more interesting. The leader of ISIS Abu-Bakr Al-Bagdadi was once an Islamic study, he studied Islamic studies at the university of Damascus (or Bagdad, not sure) and has alot of Islamic scholar connections. Most of these Scholars providing the interpretations of the Quuran you see on their propaganda videos are recruited as either fighters then as scholars, or enlisted as scholars or as they call them "interpretists"
No MOSAD and the CIA do not fund ISIS. The arguably the CIA have contributed to their growth through the use of old soviet and american tech from soviet invasion. But ISIS (rather scarily) seems to be able to pull weaponry and armour out of their ass. I'm not a second world war tank expert, but here is a picture of what I believe is a Panzer tank (not sure of the model). Pic related.
>one day ( it may takes hundreds of years) Islam will mature and become the christianity we see today.
The Crusades were defensive conquest to stop the Muslims from further encroaching on Europe, not terrorism or some kind of global jihad. Also it was caused by the Church. Christianity became civilized when the laity became more aware of the message of the Bible after the Reformation (and Counter-Reformation for Catholics), which is a message of peace. Islam teaches the opposite, so every true believer will always be pushed to extremism.
"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Yes, you are quoting the bible to support your interpretations of the religion, and it is ludicrous to claim that the crusades were called in some brave, Teutonic defense of a Muslim-laden Europe. The majority were offensive wars that had the sole aim of wiping Islamism from the holy land. And Christianity at this this time had spread peacefully through Europe because it was the introduction of an almighty monotheistic religion adopted by Europes most powerful empire. Islam had none of the luxuries and so had to make its name through blood and conquest, much like ISIS aims to do now.
That looks closer to something the french would have made tbh... the turret is not from a PZ anything, too rounded at the front for example.. and the curves on the back end where the vertical armor ends, thats not really ww2 styling.
As for funding, Saudis are almost guaranteed to fund them, turks probably do and Im pretty certain myself that Israel and the US are behind them also.
Pic related, any explanation on that? Also, I have yet to see your definition for terrorism.
I'm sure you're right, I don't doubt for a minute that billionares in Yemen, the UAE and Saudi aren't funding ISIS. But the really upsetting thing is, there is nothing we can really do about it. After the list of Al-Qaeda funders was siezed in 2004, next to no action was taken ;(.
Not a panzer. Soviet Self Propelled Artillery, 2S1 Gvozdika. Question, how is ISIS internally organized? Is it franchised like AQ and composed of smaller groups with their own structure or is command and control centralized?
Something like this, notice the relation to the turrets boxish back design but more smoothed front end, also a bit the back angles.. obviously not the same tank however.
Is there any real point in fighting terrorism in Europe if those countries are doomed to have Muslim majorities, anyway? They don't need bombs or guns to take over. All they have to do is wait until there are more of them than anybody else. Terrorism is just their back-up plan.
Ah, thank you for the corrections on the vehicle, as I said, I have no idea about old era vehicles, but still my point still stands: How on earth did they get their hands on such a piece of kit. And ISIS is not organised like Al-Qaeda, one of the things Abu-Bakr hated about Al-Qaeda is that he believed there was little coordination, and huge imbalances of power. Abu Bakr hopes to achieve a more stable militaristic form of State, with a centeral power. Interestingly, there are rumours that if he (and he blieves he will) established a caliphate, he will take on a stalinist GOSPLAN style of power and chain of command in both industry and military industry.
Syria is in chaos with a civil war, they were just taking advantage.. its the same reason they are in Libya.
The Syrian rebels are mostly foreign imported terrorists in reality, the actual rebels are being given amnesty and mostly came back to fight FOR Assad. They know if ISIS takes control it will be much.. much worse than anything else.
>Implying they could
>Implying they wouldn't all freeze to death the first night
>Implying they wouldn't get lost in infinite snowy forests
>Implying you aren't yet another butthurt Achmed Ontario SJW libtard who will spread his cheeks for Trudeau.
They do know that, and the backlash of anti-ISIS appeasement is only just starting to hit the smaller rebel groups in syria as at first everybody was too scared to fight them. But sitting here at my computer, it seems to me that with the seemingly unlimited backing from unknown rich funders, the smaller rebel groups who control some border and valley areas of syria are no match for ISIS.
Middle eastern countries use all sorts of old tech, Egypt still uses US sherman tanks from ww2.
Heres one with an AMX turret on it.
That video shows Ukrainian rebels starting an IS-3 which is a ww2 tank for the first time in however many decades.
>and it is ludicrous to claim that the crusades were called in some brave, Teutonic defense of a Muslim-laden Europe.
What started the Crusades? Emperor Alexios' letter to Pope Urban II to defend Constantinople from the Turks. What was the objective of the Crusades? To repel the Turks and reconquer the Holy Land to free Eastern Christians from Muslim rule. You say wiping Islamism from the Holy Land like it's a bad thing, as if Islam hadn't conquered the land from the Christians. It was Christian land first. It was very much defensive and it's dishonest to say the Crusades were to wipe out Islam when it was simply a reconquest of lost land.
>And Christianity at this this time had spread peacefully through Europe
No it did not. Christians faced extreme persecution and it was a miracle that God caused Emperor Constantine to have a change of heart and legalize worship.
>Islam had none of the luxuries and so had to make its name through blood and conquest, much like ISIS aims to do now.
Neither did Christianity. Christianity was a religion that accepted persecution instead of attempting conquest. I would argue that its acceptance by the Roman Emperors was a miracle. You are also justifying Islamic radicalism by saying that because no one wants to accept the religion that it somehow makes ISIS and other terrorist groups' violence justified. So you think a religion founded upon violence and conquest and encourages it in its holy book will be civilized? Hilarious, friend.
Can you briefly characterize the following groups (philosophical and religious differences/similarities, funding sources, motivations, strategies, structure, etc. Whatever you think is relevant)
a. Al Qaeda
e. Muslim Brotherhood
Now obviously we can all agree that the US-led Iraq campaign is a key factor in explaining the rise of ISIS. To what extent would you however agree that internal Shia-dominated policies of the Maliki government contributed to ISIS' rise.
Would you agree with the statement "Resistance isn't terrorism"?
Would you say that most moderate Muslims actually support Islamic terrorism to some degree? I'm asking because hundreds attended the funeral of that guy in Denmark (no not Hamlet).
No such thing as moderate muslims bro, stop being a hateful bigot. Islam is Islam, the Quran gives orders and they are all equally valid.
You dumb, lying fuck-faggot. All these armchair analysts. laugh out loud
But you're still ignoring the main difference, that the holy book of Christianity explicitly calls for peace and the holy book of Islam calls for conquest. How can you say that Islam will ever be civilized if it only takes one true believer to read what it says in his holy book and he will realize what his religion's god tells him to do is kill others?
>Ok, Let's have some more terror questions, maybe some moving away from ISIS. I spent eleven years of studying before I'd even heard of ISIS ;(.
Studying in your bedroom on the internet all day. Muh smiley to show I'm ah old dude! >-<
Yea those are just simply not muslims. Its like Christians who dont believe in Christ. Not a religion, fake muslims.
Moderate muslims or moderate islam is ugly and offensive, please refer to these people as imposter muslims.
Well like I wrote in the beginning I do agree with You. However to say that Maliki's policies, which left only the Shiia in charge do play a role, if only a marginal one. If you have majority Shiia representation, you're undoubtedly going to experience alienation of the population. That isn't really that hard to grasp.
That's why I'm asking about the extent to which it contributed
Answering two questions in one:
Mosul hopefully will fall within a month, but it may take longer as these things tend to. And if it does that will be a huge blow to ISIS but again i'm into the terror aspect, not sure knowledgeable on the current ground war going on in tactical terms.
Al Qaeda, one of the fathers of modern Islamic terrorism, active from 88 after soviet invasion. It has died down now in Pakistan after Osama's death. Still very much prominant and dangerous in Yemen, Saudi, they also have a huge (but ever decreasing) influence over many other Jihadism and Salafist terror groups.
Taliban were first rebels, then they had a government in Afghanistan from 1996-2001 after a miltary takeover and then officialy enforce shariah law. They were taken out of power in 2001. They are entering a new phase as troops leave Afghanistan and it is too early to tell what they will do in Afghanistan. They are a huge threat in Pakistan (the pakistani taliban in the modern era) and control large areas in north pakistan.
Isis is summarised earlier in various comments.
Hezbollah is another very old (less religiously motivated) Lebanese political party that have been on and off global terror lists many times. They became armed in the 80s, they are not so dangerous but they are closely allied to many palestinian groups as they are anti-zionism.
Muslim brother is a huge mess that has politcal influence in Eygpt and across the sinai peninsular. Although the new Eygptian government has taken a zero tolerance approach and sentenced many of their members (hundreds) to death earlier in 2014, although it is almost certain that none of the executions will be carried out, it was merely a deterrant to be shown as serious on groups promoting jihadism and islamic statism.
Hey OP, I don't care much about Middle East... but I do care about Europe. What happens to France, UK, Sweden as Islamists keep on breeding and having 5+ children? Will European whites be pushed out like those Muslims in Kosovo pushed out Serbs?
Iraq Afganistan and Iran are pretty much the only Shia dominated countries in the region, the rest is like a vast ocean of sunni's. Saudi Arabia wants it to be all Sunni. So does Turkey for example and Israel works with the Saudis, I dont pretend to know whats really going on but I wouldnt be surprised if greater israel forms from a failed ISIS attempt at a caliphate.
Pic related, you see how easy Israel could take control of those muslim countries in chaos under biblical "promised land" horseshit.
Suicidal terrorism has been around for a long time, before Islam existed. It was first known as "dying to achieve victory". But there are examples of zealots in ancient rome going to public places, in full knowledge that soldiers would kill them, commititng murder in public. You could argue that this is suicidal terror. Also, suicide squads were popular in Asia from before the first world war. But the really "explosive" forms of suicidal terror have only become popular since the rise of Islamic terror. Not because it if effective of killing people, but because it it terrifying. It shows in the plainest form to your political or religious enemy, that you are willing to kill them, and you do not care if you die. This spread of fear encapsulates what terrorism is.
I can see that there may be Israelis who would want to see a greater Israel. But it would never happen because it is a silly political and strategic move. In some of Israel's greatest victories, they have won because of small areas of defense, concentrated forces and the ablitity to utilise a vast army for suprise attacks. None of these are possible with a country covering large areas of desert.
It would be easy for them to get some UN soldiers to come in and defend the territory until they could stabilize it. Syria is extremely weak and Israel is already attacking them, libya has no government and is in ruins, Egypt is extremely volatile, the Saudis are on Israels side.. Iraq is in the middle of its civil war and Turkey is on Israels side too... the whole area is set up for that shit to happen in a power vaccume left by ISIS.
Answering a very interesting question asked at the beginning: of what is terrorism. I consider it to freedom fighting (fighting a larger or more power opponent with the aim of destroying corruption or achieving rights) but with added terror. Utilising unconventional, often brutal tactics to install fear and terror into people's minds. That is a very basic view on terrorism, but I want to answer more questions.
The UN would never defend (even in a humanitarian crisis) a hypothetical greater Israel when the UN hates Israel after it has repeatedly ignored their demands to stop settling, abused the international laws laid by them and finally not responding to sanctions and making them look weak.
Can you respond to this: >>41756253
How do you think Islam can be civilized if its holy book explicitly calls for violence against nonbelievers whereas the Bible condemns violence and the Jewish Holy Texts condemn forceful conversion? How can you say that just because they are Abrahamic religions that Islam must also eventually become civilized even though there is that fundamental difference between Islam and the religions of Christianity and Judaism?
why did IRA stop? could it be a model for the islamics? saudis did 9/11 right?
Mainly because as religions age, and their interpretation of their original holy text develop, they become much less attached to a direct following of their religions teachings. I firmly believe that Islam will eventually move on. But I agree that in its current global form, even what we might call he moderate muslim, is not acceptable by civilised standards.
rather significant ideological differences, stemming from Al-Nusra's loyalty to Al-Qaeda's ideas and who their bayah (oath) is given to. When Baghdadi claimed he had established a "united caliphate", al-nusra rejected his claims of leadership over the land he controlled as much of it was divided among many factions and not solely IS. They believe IS to be much too boastful of themselves
IS and BokoHaram are allies. BH gave their bayahs to baghdadi a while back.
They already have begun their expansion into Pakistan, and have already had skirmishes with the Taliban on the border of afghan/paki. problem is, the Afghani people aren't willing to accept more extremists - there is a sizeable amount of shia followers in Afghanistan now and they would never accept more Sunni islamists than they already have. Even the Sunni islamists in that country don't want IS.
There is the scandalous new evidence linking Saudis to 9/11, and this could open up new possibilities in how relevant Al-Qaeda has ever been in terror.
Funny thing is, a die hard neo (but practically silent) brand of the original IRA still exists, naming themselves ""The real IRA". Bobby sands praising people who are more religiously motivated that the provisional IRA (The origional IRA). After the good friday agreement, the British tried to forget the IRA mainly because of many miscarriages of justice committed against northern-irish people that made the Brtis look bad, and example being "the Gilford four". That is one of the main reasons that the IRA seemed to fade.
whats your favorite terror group? fav terrorist? best terrorist of all times?
Some may disagree that he is a terrorist: Yasser Araft is my favourite because in a UN meeting (I believe it was a UN meeting) in Eygpt, one of the things promised to be on the agenda was Palestine. It never seemed to crop up. So Yasser Araft wrote a letter in his own blood using three words: "Don't Forget Palestine"(not sure who to). That shows commitment.
I still do not see where you have the idea that ISIS has spread to Pakistan, having to move through: Iran and Afghanistan. I did not ask if you were sure, I politely said that you are talking rubbish.
are you daft? the Pakistani Taliban already had IS supporters in it. They've already begun an insurrection within the ranks. This has nothing to do with land borders of IS in syria or iraq - they had supporters in their home countries already because of the matter of the Taliban not being extreme or going far enough
but the coalitions' bombing campaign has impeded ISIL's growth.
ISIL wasnt able to hold on to Kobani, a huge blow to them.
since November 2014, ISIL has only gained 1 new territory: Baghdadi town
Regardless, no military force in Mesopotamia is up to the task of retaking Mosul even with American air support. Mosul is a very large city and the whole of ISIS is concentrated there. A fight for Mosul is like Fallujah x 1000. You're a talking about block to block door to door raids and urban warfare. It would take months for even a western Army to retake it.
Question: Will Israel and the USA allow Iran time to get to the point where they can produce bomb-grade fissile material? Where do we stand on such a timetable, how long before Iran can cobble together a nuke?
>Mainly because as religions age, and their interpretation of their original holy text develop, they become much less attached to a direct following of their religions teachings.
When has this ever happened? Sure some people like cultural Christians in the US just completely ignore the teachings of their religion but as long as the religion is around there are people who believe what the holy texts say. Why would Islam be different? Why do you depend on them throwing away what their religion tells them to do very clearly.
>I firmly believe that Islam will eventually move on.
How would it move on? It's religion is centered around a book. That book calls for conquest. Moving on means no more Islam. The only way for people to not do what the Koran says is to destroy Islam because the very foundation of Islam is the Koran.
No it hasn't it's the greatest recruiting tool they have.
It's lost them physical ground... But that is not what they're about.
Understand. There is no "win" in this "war". It can only end. The solution, from our point of view is not to fight.
The brown goat enthusiasts will kill each other over the interpretation of what Alan said in less than a decade.
As long as infidel/kufir/crusaders/jehud/outsiders are involved.... Eternal conflict.
Islam does not revolve around a book in greater terms at all, that is a juvenile understanding of it. The grander scheme of Islam revolves around the pillars of Islam, right from the decisions made by an Imam, to everyday life.
Yes. The tehrik e talibani is the wing of the Taliban that is fighting the Pakistani government mainly on the northern Pashtun tribal regions. Pakistan is a near failed state with nuclear weapons and the extremists vying for control. That as why we will not entirely leave Afghanistan. If Pakistan becomes chaos and some nukes get proliferated it will the happening of happenings.
>why did IRA stop? could it be a model for the islamics?
The IRA's aims were fairly modest. They never aimed at genocide or ethnic cleansing. Nor is it helpful to imagine them as especially 'catholic' - the Troubles were much more of an ethnic conflict.
>Says he studied terrorism for 8 years
>doesn't explain how the hell he studied terrorism
i mean, we all watch the news, does that count as studying?
i feel sorry for you, you never actually read the Quran, you just found this picture and considered it as the ultimate source for "Violence in Quran".
if you want to see what's in the book, grab one and read, idiot.
You have plainly said that the Taliban have fought in Pakistan and that the Pakistani Taliban has Isis elements. Yes, of course it does as stated previously. I was responding to the laughable statement that Isis was engaging the Pakistani army on the border, which is about as far from reality as can be perceived.
yeah man, as someone that -actually- does analysis as a job on the syrian conflict there are a lot of things that stuck out to me from what this guy is claiming to know.
Mainly because (as I stated previously) Isis is entirely different to Al-Qaeda because Isis is effectively a land army fighting conventional warfare, Al-Qaeda attacks using small groups of men, moving through area undetected posing as civilians until ready to attack.
The First Pillar - Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger
Muhammad's message is contained within the Koran. Why are you doing all of these mental gymnastics? You know what the Koran says and you know that to be a Muslim it means to follow the Koran. Trying to separate conquest from Islam is impossible, it is a part of the religion no matter how much you try to dodge it and make excuses.
>It's lost them physical ground... But that is not what they're about.
It's exactly what it's about. As long as they hold land, there is an Islamic state. Without land there is no caliphate. Without land, they can't recruit with promises of settling the caliphate and living a life according to literalist Koranic interpretations. That's their whole shtick. Come fight for and settle the caliphate.
>Muhammad is God's Messenger
Tell me what does accepting Muhammad as God's Messenger entail? Where is his message?
If you accept the Quran as the message of Muhammad than by agreeing with the First Pillar of Islam you agree that the Koran is from God.
No, no it isn't.
It's a idealogical thing, the prophets of which predict they will be driven from "their lands".
They recruit every time a kufar kills a believer, even if it's a believer they would have killed too.
There is no victory for the west. Only eternal war.
If it is to end, it will end by smelly brown people who like goats and worship a god called Alan.
The USA, the EU, NATO, SEATO, China, Russia and the Association of global bingo callers do not get a say.
Come to peace with that.
I absolutely have no idea how you can mention the muslim brotherhood without saying its ties to uprisings in Syria and Palestine, as well as their massive current influence of Turkey, all since the 1950s. Their most telling involvement being the violent insurgency under Hafez Assad in the 80s. Come on m8, please.
No he's right. Al Qaeda is more of an underground terrorist network while The Islamic State is an Army. But the Islamic State and Al Qaeda share a history and network. The Islamic state in fact came about after a pact with Al Qaeda, and a merger of Ansar al Sunnah and the mujahideen shura council. It is not far fetched to think that the Islamic state still maintains much of the network and capabilities they had before they split with al nusra. The Islamic States goal is expantion and consoxidation, and a an underground militant terrorist network is essential to that along with their ability to hold land.
"Pulled weapons out of their ass"
Beware' this guy is rusing you. Where ISIS got its weapons is well kmown facr.
The precursors of ISIS originated in the FSA and the imported fighters from algeria, Libya and various other arab spring veterans.
Under this "professional" wing, many in the FSA were recruited for the greater purpose of establishing a caliphate in Syria's north.
These fighters brought with them their equipment and weapons gained from Syrian army and American weapons imported through Turkey and Jordan. Many FSA that became ISIS were also trained in Jordan.
When the time was right, and the USA had largely pulled out of Iraq, thousands of newly ISIS fighters amassed on the Syria border and staged their blitzkreig into Iraq. doing this, they captured weapons, equipment and vehilces meant for the Iraqi security force.
The fact that the CIA andMOSSAD gave weapons and training means they gave ISIS weapons and training.
Not OP but chucking it out there.
Likelyhood of major terrorist attack? Almost certain. That's the way it goes. You bomb people every day years, eventually they'll get a roll of the dice and a skyscraper falls down with the people still inside it.
US militias are VERY largely fat inadequates who want to play army after their age reaches double figures. There are however exceptions and they fall into the same category as the Boeing flying goat herders, eventually they'll slip their dick into your bum hole.
No. he's wrong.
ISIS, to a far greater degree than Al Q. (it's progenitor) is an ideological movement. It cannot be killed with guns, tanks & jets.
Attempting to do so fulfils its bullshit prophesy.
They're winning, not because they can fight or they're particularly popular ... But because we don't know how to disengage without a ticker-tape parade.
>It's a idealogical thing, the prophets of which predict they will be driven from "their lands". They recruit every time a kufar kills a believer, even if it's a believer they would have killed too.
The ideology is Salafism and qutbism. They call for an establishment of an expanding caliphate and a rejection of western liberal culture and values. They recruit with promises of life in an Theocratic state. It's plain to see in their writings and recruiting videos. ISIS is expanding in Muslim lands fighting Muslim armies and governments, not western ones.
So all these people blowing shit up and raping children all over the world just happen to all claim the same religion?!!
Wow! That is such a coincidence! Those poor "real" muslims.........
They are not true salafists, they're a doomsday cult.
They believe virtually every other Islamic sect to be apostate it's true, but they also expect them to fall in behind the Caliph in order to fight the "Armies of Rome". A fight which they expect to lose BTW.
Leave them alone and they have nothing.
That's why they're baiting the west, without us bombing them and bringing young radicals to their doors... They're gone in short order.
But our weak politicians (and stupid populations) cannot accept a resolution that hollywood can't make a film about.
Jesus fuck you're an idiot. The ideologies are qutbism, Salafist jihadism, and pan-islamism. They are common to both the Islamic state and al Qaeda which are an underground terrorist network spanning various countries and a jihadist rebel group that controls territory.
>gays cant get married
>women cant expose their bodies
>drugs,booze and cigs are banned
>inmoral music is banned
>AIDS is rightly seen as degenerates getting what they wanted
it IS more moral IT IS MORE MORAL
Roman persecution of Christians has been highly exaggerated.
For starters Romans where always known to be tolerant to other religions.
those tales of executions and burning of Christians was done a rare few times by Rome's mad emperors. and the roman population had actually been disgusted by their treatment and where so impressed by the strength of the conviction of those Christians that their religion was embraced.
Explaining the eventual adoption of Christianity.
morality is relative to the agent's interpretation of his own values. "morality" is different from one person to another.
killing someone or whipping him because he plays the piano is not moral in my eyes, but in the eyes of a strict wahabi it is justified as the piano represents the decay of the west's moral fibre
>They are not true salafists, they're a doomsday cult.
Islam itself is a doomsday cult. The only difference is that everyday Muslims don't recognize the Islamic state as the prophesied caliphate.
>they expect to lose
No they don't. They believe they'll expand, suffer some losses until their is a small group left, and Jesus will come and save them to bring about the apocalypse. They expect to win.
>Leave them alone and they have nothing... they're gone in short order.
Bullshit. Leave them alone and they continue to expand into Muslim countries. They'll be gone in short order? Exactly how? They're just gonna lay down their arms and give up the land they control and their salafist ideology? Ridiculous.
I'm more angry that they murder people that simply want to defend their homes (see: sinjar, western deir ezzor governorate). many militias had no affiliation with the syrian arab army or NDF, yet they were lined up and slaughtered anyway
They have done so to some extent, but many in the intel community are resistant because using tweets and email correspondences as evidence aren't always the best in the court of law. much of this has to be accumulated through entanglement or unwarranted supervision, even with the extensions to the patriot act these can hold operatives responsible
Islam is no more a doomsday cult than are those dodgy christians with their book of revalations.
Western engagement with ISIS gives them what they want.
There is no Western victory to be had in central South West Asia. The indigenous population will not do as they're told by us.
All we can do is disengage.
Personal liberty isn't big in that part of the world but cannot be imposed, only suggested.
They'll get there eventually, once people stop trying to forcefully impose foreign ideals upon them.
I can understand having popular support in areas and enforcing your values on your supportive populations. But the women and children.. bodies were cut in half.. I can't agree with that kind of ideology at all. Nothing in Islam condones the butchering of children in such a way
a while back there were -actual- IS supporters from argentina on here. when the guy on/int/ got v& they disappeared but I have a feeling they're re-surfacing.
but yeah this thread is b8 from the very start, the egyptian guy and I picked up on the red flags
The Intel community can't do anything except collect Intel. It's up to law enforcement like the FBI to bring these guys in, they just don't have the legal framework to do it with and western politicians don't have the political balls to give it to them because muh religion of peace. Are these guys inciting violence or not? They are? Arrest them.
no... these were yazidi children..
>Islam is no more a doomsday cult than are those dodgy christians with their book of revalations.
Incorrect. There is an end of days in Christianity, but there is no burden on Christians to make it happen. Christians don't strive to bring about the apocalypse. Christian doctorine says to wait. Muslims say make it happen. That's a fundamental and important distinction.
>Western engagement with ISIS gives them what they want.
Western engagement with ISIS is innevitable. It is only a question of engaging them in their weak infancy or after they have expanded.
m8 are you really going to tell me that the mass graves around mount sinjar are empty/fake?
there are videos of people digging up the sand-dried corpses of their families--
>problem is, the Afghani people aren't willing to accept more extremists
I read that some Taliban defected and signed a "Khorasan pact" with ISIL.
I was wondering why they haven't taken advantage of the fact that Al Qaeda is losing influence in some of these parts. Ayman Zawahari is old as dirt now, there's going to be a power vacuum when he kicks the bucket
I agree that images of westerners and 'westernized' muslims attacking jihadis is a great recruiting tool.
however, the caliphate must conquer new land in order to remain legit. if a caliph cannot conquer new land, he is deemed an apostate, I believe.
>In London, Choudary and his students provided detailed descriptions of how the Islamic State must conduct its foreign policy, now that it is a caliphate. It has already taken up what Islamic law refers to as “offensive jihad,” the forcible expansion into countries that are ruled by non-Muslims. “Hitherto, we were just defending ourselves,” Choudary said; without a caliphate, offensive jihad is an inapplicable concept. But the waging of war to expand the caliphate is an essential duty of the caliph.
>But the waging of war to expand the caliphate is an essential duty of the caliph.
the last sentence really breaks it down, at least for me, as whether or not ISIL can survive without splitting in half (Iraqi IS vs Syria IS -- 2 caliphs fighting for power, internal fights, etc)
if they're not expanding, they're not a real caliphate