ISIS...Islamic State Victims

[Warbler]

Thats a ridiculous point. Plenty of Muslims have adopted our way of life in the uk and have no desire whatsoever to live in a Caliphate . The vast majority in fact. They are far from all being radicalised.

no one is saying that they should "throw off their religion" but there has to be acceptance of our freedoms.

Plenty have, and plenty remain to be convinced. How confident are you about which way they'll dive? If you were truly confident, then you'd be advocating an open door policy to the west for anyone felt to be at risk of radicalisation. That you aren't doing though does lead me to suspect that you're not completely confident. FWIW, I wouldn't be either.

I do think there is a numercial consideration here Clive. The IRA were only ever felt to be between 300-500 strong at any given time. You can do a hell of a lot with just a small number of people. There's about 4M muslims in the UK and growing. If just 0.5% were radicalised, you'll be close to 25,000. That's a very potent enemy to have living amongst us

I accept that you aren't asking them to throw off their religion. The UK are being much more accommodating than somewhere like France who are adopting a more forceful conform or consider proposition, but there is also an emerging rift so far as I can see where so much of the foundation of our society is incompatibale with theirs

 

[clivex]

Why would I be suggesting an "open door" policy? What's that got to with it?

i agree that it's still a significant number and can't underestimate a threat.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yep. Sarkozy and Cameron "cheerleader" - that's me all over.

PS. Go 'anticipate' your rear-end with a cold-stone, you supercilious, saddo, twat.

 

[Warbler]

This is nonsense. The regimes in Egypt got huge aid from the west (have you seen Russia's overseas aid budget? It's tiny) and unlike gadafi have no record or declaring war against western interests.

Rightly the west didnt trust gadafi. Not the other way round.

The aid was conditional. The Egyptians wanted to clamp down on their own domestic Islamist threat. The west were pussy footing over this, so naturally they turned to Putin who was a lot more pragmatic. Plenty of people would do the same

The whole U-turn on Libya will have served to underline this. The west deals in democracy which means its prone to violent changes of policy direction and the intrdocution of expedient factors.

Gadaffi was the subject of a peace deal in effect when he abandoned his own WMD programme (they've been made throughout history - as indeed treaties have been broken too).

There can be little doubt that Nicolas Sarkozy having got himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Egypt and Tunisia, and due to face the electorate in May trailing in the polls, saw in Libya a chance to pull a self-serving foreign policy coup. That was his primary reason. The American's weren't convinced. They had Iraqi detainee data to go off, as indeed they had accounts of what actually happened in Benghazi in the lead up to this. At this point Cameron and the British Intelligence entered the fray playing the Rwanada card which is particularly sensitive with Democrats. The White House wobbled, even though subsequent events proved that the British were wildly off the mark (they weren't listened to again over Syria)

Basically at a stroke western policy was reversed 180 degrees. It sent out a terrible message to the likes of North Korea and Iran.

The west had come to an accommodation with Gadaffi up until this point. So they did trust him (to some extent). They changed their position when they changed administrations and when Nicolas Sarkozy worked out he was losing the election. That's a terrible reason to risk destabalising an entire region. Quite what Cameron was doing joining in God only knows?

Lets put it this way, Libya today is everything and more that Cameron said he was going prevent it being when gaining authorisation for a military campaign. In any reasonable language its been a complete failure, and we still might be seeing just the tip of this iceberg

 

[Warbler]

Yep. Sarkozy and Cameron "cheerleader" - that's me all over.

PS. Go 'anticipate' your rear-end with a cold-stone, you supercilious, saddo, twat.

:lol: Ducks back Grasshopper,

or are you going to treat the forum to another Icebreaker tirade?

 

[icebreaker]

Plenty have, and plenty remain to be convinced. How confident are you about which way they'll dive?

As I see it, there is one enormous problem at play in this regard -- and it is Koranic-based.
The holy texts of Islam demand that the devout Muslim must pledge allegiance to the caliphate. Failure to do so means living an "un-Islamic" life and infers a post-life eternity in a sort of Limbo. Now, we know that for a thousand years there hasn't been a "Caliphate" in anything other than name, but, there is a growing sense amongst many sectors of the global Muslim community that the current Islamic State (ISIS) is the true caliphate for our times. And that the murderous dog al-Baghdadi is a legitimate Caliph. He ticks all the boxes of legitimacy -- he is of Mohammed's Qurayshi tribe; he holds territory ( a fundamental aspect of a caliphate); and he wages holy war (jihad). The pledges of allegiance ( 'baya, I think) are coming in thick and fast -- from Boko Haram, from Afghanistan, from Libya).
The Koran also requires that the devout Muslim emigrates to, and lives in, the caliphate. We are seeing this movement of many young Muslims from the West into the territory of ISIS.
All of this seems madness to us. But it gets worse. For the devout Muslim, a strict following of the strictures laid down in the holy texts is mandatory. There is no interpretation. Beheading and crucifixion are mandated punishment for non-believers and apostates; sex-enslavement of your enemy's women is approved. If the devout Muslim ignores and disregards the teachings of the Koran and if he does not obey the rule of the Caliph, then, he is an apostate.

All of this leads me to believe that there can only be one outcome. Someone on here (Warbler, I think) suggested that what is need is a re-writing of the Koran. I agree, but that's not going to happen. The devout Muslim, by definition, cannot but oppose the values of the West. A war of civilisations is inevitable, and it will be fought both on the macro-level between armies in the field and in the asymmetric fashion on the streets of western cities.

 

[Warbler]

I confess to not having a command of the detail to that level, but it's a powerful post Icebreaker and chimes very much with my read of the emerging situation (minus tribal thingys and precise Koranic mechanisms). It's obvious that there is something very powerful at play beyond that of the revolutionary type of thing that the west is perhaps used to framing these things in.

It's why I don't share the western optimism that our own system will be so demonstrably superior that the muslim can't help but be seduced by it

I think we're fast approaching the point (if we haven't already passed it) where the jeanie can't be put back in the bottle. Once we go beyond this, then we'd be better served accepting the inevitable and preparing for it. Christ, it's a gawd awful prospect, but .....

 

[EC1]

If the devout Muslim ignores and disregards the teachings of the Koran and if he does not obey the rule of the Caliph, then, he is an apostate.

The Koran does not allow killing of any kind...so the apostates are ISIS and other groups of murderes themselves

i'm a bit confused by your post because we have Muslims who live quite happily..they don't like cartoons..fair enough..and co exist with other religions within our society...we then have Non Muslims who cannot be Muslims as they have broken the main rule in the Koran ..who want to go and join murderes abroad

where is the problem?..we have a golden opportunity here..let them leave and join the murderers..and be rid for good.

what we should actually do is offer to pay for the flight for them..put an ad on twatter or arsebook...free flights..when they claim their flight their passports are destroyed..and we wave goodbye to them.

at some point in the future they will probably get liquidised when just about every nation on earth comes a knocking the way they are going

you and Warb really do look on the black side tbh

 

[Warbler]

All of this leads me to believe that there can only be one outcome. Someone on here (Warbler, I think) suggested that what is need is a re-writing of the Koran.

I think I ought to perhaps say that I've mentioned Islam needing a reformation, but I'm not sure I was the originator of the observation. Got a feeling it might have been Grasshopper in fairness to him?

 

[Warbler]

The Koran does not allow killing of any kind...

Are you sure? I thought it permitted retalitory punishment of equal severity or the payment of blood money. This then transfers to interpretation and conscience the issue of justification

 

[icebreaker]

The Koran does not allow killing of any kind...so the apostates are ISIS and other groups of murderes themselves

I'm sorry for sounding contradictory, EC, but I believe the evidence proves the above to be incorrect.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them",

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

​Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides"

Just three of many such diatribes to be found in the Koran.

 

[Warbler]

you and Warb really do look on the black side tbh

Yes I think we probably are doing, but believe me, I've tried to sketch out the plausible happy ending scenarios based on the direction of travel and the likely prevailing winds, and I'm just finding the dismal analysis a lot more persuasive at the moment.

I think we could easily find the generation who will ultimately be asked to take this fight quite furiously asking why their feckless forefathers failed to do so at the time they held weapons and demographic advantage

The gap between us is going to narrow in this area

As I've said previously, I think we lived through a decade of error charcaterised by particularly poor strategic decisions with personal agendas and self-interest having an unhealthy bearing. I think we're now starting to move into a decade of inertia where slightly cowed western powers in particular are a bit disorientated in so far as everytime they've identified an enemy they've got it wrong.

I think we'll probably have another decade of hearts and minds to follow as battelines and preparations are made. So far we've failed to take other major blocs with us who we're going to need ultimately. Then I think it will be war of the type I've described previously and which Icebreaker has also leant to

I note for example that the Royal Navy is currently developing an anti shipping weapon not of the traditional sea skimming variety, but something capable of hitting multiple small fast moving targets simultaneously (what the Iranians call Boghammers). This is an example of the aysmmetrical warfare that will be practised. Hundereds of RIB boats crewed by just two people each, can sink a capital ship if packed with explosives (remember what happened to the USS Stark). An exocet will simply fly over the top of a RIB boat or need to get so low to the water that it runs the risk of hitting waves and crashing.

As I said, they aren't going to roll their Subarus against our tanks and attack helicopters on open plains are they?

 

[icebreaker]

As I said, they aren't going to roll their Subarus against our tanks and attack helicopters on open plains are they?

Although such a scenario is a crucial aspect of their overall strategic planning.
They want you ( The West) to come to the plains of northern Syria in the area around Aleppo to fulfill the end-of-times prophesy of the Prophet Mohammed. The texts prophesize that the Muslim Malahim (Armageddon) will come to pass with a mighty showdown between the armies of the West and the Muslim forces at the town of Dabiq, and be a precursor to the appearance of Allah on earth. The scary thing is that ISIS firmly believe this, and are willing it to happen -- hence the regular goadings to "come with your soldiers and fight us".

 

[icebreaker]

The gap between us is going to narrow in this area

I think the gap is very narrow as it is. I think pessimistically that the war has already been lost.
They have the invigoration and traction at present; the West is paralyzed with inertia and fear. We don't have the will to confront whereas they have an unshakeable belief in their cause. They control vast swathes of territory in Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent in Libya. They are gaining adherents and affiliates in other regions worldwide. They are on an upward curve. They are well dispersed, so carpet bombing, nuking, or Abrams tanks won't be effective. Over 2,000 bombing missions and a decent fighting force of Peshmerga and Iranian-backed Shia militia's haven't made a dent on them in Iraq whatever the Pentagon propaganda claims. They have a substantial army of zombies backed-up by a supply-chain of new recruits weekly who enthusiastically embrace dying and martyrdom, and an embedded cadre of supporters in Western cities who only await the call to activate as a fifth column.
The eventual outcome is anybody's guess, imo. I wouldn't like to take odds on the likely victor.

 

[Warbler]

Crikey you're darker than me, although you've been monitoring the Arab news networks by the sound of it too and are aware that ISIS are a lot more entrenched in North Africa than the ever loyal BBC and western media are telling us

The embedded cadre is how ISIS advanced in Iraq of course. A sudden uprising behind the lines in amongst an ill prepared civilian population in the rear, followed by a simultaneous blitzkreig on the front. It's why I was asking months ago (probably advocating it in truth) about weapons training a civilian force (minutemen in effect). America with its weaponised civilian population is the nearest the west has. We're hopelessly prepared by contrast. It's why I laugh at the sort of boastful Brit who likes to brag about "what I'd do if I got my hands on them". I could tell you if you wanted. 80% of the time, you'll lose. You're ill prepared, we all are.

The WMD option we do have though is genocidal and won't discriminate between innocent and islamist, but if we are facing a kill or be killed scenario, it's a no brainer. Most wars are won by scientists. We have biological wepaons that can attack and kill people by ethnic coding. I'm not sure where the current arms race is at the moment, but my last understanding was that we'd definitely need to take the Russians and Chinese onside, and possibly the North Koreans too

 

[Grey]

Warbler, you've gone plain mad.

From a reasonable starting point a few weeks ago, emphasising the need to concentrate on the security within UK borders, you're now talking about dropping a big one.

Keep some bog roll at hand in case of splashback.

 

[Warbler]

Perhaps ISIS will stop if the EU hits them with a strongly worded Directive?

 

[EC1]

I'm sorry for sounding contradictory, EC, but I believe the evidence proves the above to be incorrect.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them",

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

​Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides"

Just three of many such diatribes to be found in the Koran.

There was a muslim on the radio who clearly stated that if a Muslim kils ANY living thing they have broke the main rule of their faith.

I think you are selectively quoting out of context as well..as this section from the site below suggests. Basically ISIS is doing what many people do with the Bible..they pick bits out..out of context ..and base their code around it..it doesn't make them mainstream followers ...but a small..relatively... cult..who use the Koran incorrectly to justify murder..they are not true Muslims.

http://www.quora.com/Does-Islam-ever-advocate-or-condone-killing-non-believers

So what about all of those verses that people quote from the Qur'an?

Context does matter. In particular, approximately half the quotes verses about fighting non-Muslims come from chapter 9. Chapter 9 is a very particular chapter of the Qur'an: it covers a situation where a peace treaty was violated. The chapter's name is "the Ultimatum" -- it was saying in view of the violation of the peace treaty, a period of four months was to be given for re-negotiation. After the four months were up, then the non-Muslims would be fought.

In the same chapter, an offer of asylum is made to non-Muslims. This is inconsistent with the idea of fighting and killing simply for not being Muslim.

Another common confusion is "selective translation." In particular, there is a difference between qatl (which means killing) and qitaal (which means fighting).

I also looked up some of the verses that are quoted by others, but sometimes I can't find them. E.g. one answer mentions 8:36, but that doesn't have anything to do with fighting (http://quran.com/8/36).

Or sometimes people just selectively quote and misquote for their own purposes. This is intellectually dishonest. For example, 2:190 is translated by anti-Muslim critics as:

Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme.​

But let's see what the verse actually says (http://quraan.com/2/190):

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.​

Notice, that (a) they use "slay" to make it sound more bloody (b) they drop the bit about "those who fight you," which seems like a much more reasonable statement.

You can do the same with the Bible, but it is equally intellectually dishonest. For example, Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."​

It would be hard, however, to simply take that statement at face value given everything else that Jesus did and said.

 

[clivex]

The aid was conditional. The Egyptians wanted to clamp down on their own domestic Islamist threat. The west were pussy footing over this, so naturally they turned to Putin who was a lot more pragmatic. Plenty of people would do the same

The whole U-turn on Libya will have served to underline this. The west deals in democracy which means its prone to violent changes of policy direction and the intrdocution of expedient factors.

Gadaffi was the subject of a peace deal in effect when he abandoned his own WMD programme (they've been made throughout history - as indeed treaties have been broken too).

There can be little doubt that Nicolas Sarkozy having got himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Egypt and Tunisia, and due to face the electorate in May trailing in the polls, saw in Libya a chance to pull a self-serving foreign policy coup. That was his primary reason. The American's weren't convinced. They had Iraqi detainee data to go off, as indeed they had accounts of what actually happened in Benghazi in the lead up to this. At this point Cameron and the British Intelligence entered the fray playing the Rwanada card which is particularly sensitive with Democrats. The White House wobbled, even though subsequent events proved that the British were wildly off the mark (they weren't listened to again over Syria)

Basically at a stroke western policy was reversed 180 degrees. It sent out a terrible message to the likes of North Korea and Iran.

The west had come to an accommodation with Gadaffi up until this point. So they did trust him (to some extent). They changed their position when they changed administrations and when Nicolas Sarkozy worked out he was losing the election. That's a terrible reason to risk destabalising an entire region. Quite what Cameron was doing joining in God only knows?

Lets put it this way, Libya today is everything and more that Cameron said he was going prevent it being when gaining authorisation for a military campaign. In any reasonable language its been a complete failure, and we still might be seeing just the tip of this iceberg

so egypt is really going to dump aid from the usa of how many billions and get into bed with a devious scumbag without a pot to **** in

i dont think so

and the aid was NOT conditional. Egypt has had huge aid for decades

 

[clivex]

Crikey you're darker than me, although you've been monitoring the Arab news networks by the sound of it too and are aware that ISIS are a lot more entrenched in North Africa than the ever loyal BBC and western media are telling us

The embedded cadre is how ISIS advanced in Iraq of course. A sudden uprising behind the lines in amongst an ill prepared civilian population in the rear, followed by a simultaneous blitzkreig on the front. It's why I was asking months ago (probably advocating it in truth) about weapons training a civilian force (minutemen in effect). America with its weaponised civilian population is the nearest the west has. We're hopelessly prepared by contrast. It's why I laugh at the sort of boastful Brit who likes to brag about "what I'd do if I got my hands on them". I could tell you if you wanted. 80% of the time, you'll lose. You're ill prepared, we all are.

The WMD option we do have though is genocidal and won't discriminate between innocent and islamist, but if we are facing a kill or be killed scenario, it's a no brainer. Most wars are won by scientists. We have biological wepaons that can attack and kill people by ethnic coding. I'm not sure where the current arms race is at the moment, but my last understanding was that we'd definitely need to take the Russians and Chinese onside, and possibly the North Koreans too

fcking hell

 

[harry]

It may seem doomsday but Ice and Warbler are bang on correct (apart from germ warfare) ISIS are committed to starting WW3 and to them it is a war between Islam and everyone else. Virtually all the weaponry we have is useless against them. Have no armies learned from Afghanistan? The Taliban are still there and always will be. The rules of engagement have completely changed. Two Islamist lunatics shut down London when they murdered Lee Rigby, Paris was on lockdown, Denmark, Australia, all with under 20 people combined? Small numbers make no difference, it's how aggressive they are that gets results, ISIS, Nazis, Taliban, Boko Harem etc etc.
Muslims in the West may not want to follow ISIS but when faced with a threat, what do you think?
all those moderates in ISIS controlled territory don't seem to be fighting back do they?

 

[EC1]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

[icebreaker]

That is a truly excellent article from the "The Atlantic", and it would benefit anyone interested in the current issues to read it.
It is a long and scholarly article, but it is worthwhile and rewarding to spend the time on it.

I would also say, EC, that it undermines and even disproves your theory on "The Religion Of Peace".

"Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.
In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves".

 

[EC1]

Those acts of violence are when themselves being attacked though..again its out of context..Muslims who are integrated within societies are not being attacked.

you are just doing what the previous article stated..quoting out of context to suit argument

to me its demonising the many for the few ..and imo is a dangerous and foolish road to go down.

there will always be religious fanatics who take bits out of context to support what they want from a religion

this is what jehovah's witness do ..pretty much weighs up what Isis has done with their religion..does that mean that all readers/believers of the bible MUST also be Jehovah's witnesses too?

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:

• Taking verses out of their immediate context.
• Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
• Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
• Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
• Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
• Changing the meanings of words.
• Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
• Adding to the Word of God

 

[icebreaker]

I am assuming that you have read the article in full, EC, the article which you yourself linked to?
Please show me where Professor Haykel has "altered the text to suit his needs". (Or where I in previous posts have also done so).


There are two issues which differentiate between the Bible and the Koran ...............
1) Really very few modern Christians take the Bible as a guiding manual for living their everyday lives; an overwhelming percentage of Muslims aspire to a conduct as laid down in the Koran.
2) The very few exhortations to violence in the Old Testament are constrained by and subjective to the historical context of the times in which they were written; the many instances of violence-encouraegment in the Koran are open ended -- intended as a modus operandi for devout Muslims for the entire period of humanity on earth.