ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Perhaps if I could summarise my opinion on the matter it would be thus:-

The problem is not bad people (Muslims), but, bad ideology.
 
but Muslims do not hold the same ideology as Isis..Isis ideology is how they want to interpret the Koran ..they have invented their own ideology twisting/ignoring the words in the Koran to suit murder...the violence they allude to is not suggested as being used as on the offensive in the KKoran..but as defensive

people read whatever they want into these religious guidelines and form whatever cult they want from it...the bible has cults in the same way as the Koran...are all bible cults to be classed the same?..and any violent actions to be blamed on everyone that believes and forms their cult on the bible?

ISIS want people to blame Muslims in general for their behaviour...i really do hope people have more about them than that..because if they don't..then Warbler may only be scratching the surface of doom to come
 
Last edited:
I think you have mis-interpreted The Atlantic piece which you linked.
The article, and Professor Hayken, makes it very clear that ISIS is correctly following the strictures of the Koran to the letter. And that it is "moderate" Muslims who are cherry-picking the texts in an effort to ignore the more savage passages.
The truly "devout" Muslim must abide by Koranic teachings, and by extension give his allegiance to the Islamic State caliphate and its caliph's directives.
That is the problem.
 
I'm with Ice on this one, EC1. The main message of the article is that ISIS apply Islam in its truest sense i.e. wholly in line with Koranic teaching - which rather exposes the mantra that Islam is "a religion of peace". In effect, that mantra only rings true if you choose to wilfully ignore certain aspects of the Koran. It's a bit like Christians choosing to eat shelfish, even though the Bible forbids it.....just with more limbs being lopped-off.

It was a tremendously informative read, and one of the best articles ever linked on here - thanks for posting it.
 
If most Muslims choose the peace option then where is the problem with them though?

Imo if Muslims of that way of following it are blamed for ISIS..what happens then?..exactly what ISIS wants to happen..people turn on Muslims and drive them towards them
 
icebreaker said:
I think you have mis-interpreted The Atlantic piece which you linked.
The article, and Professor Hayken, makes it very clear that ISIS is correctly following the strictures of the Koran to the letter. And that it is "moderate" Muslims who are cherry-picking the texts in an effort to ignore the more savage passages.
The truly "devout" Muslim must abide by Koranic teachings, and by extension give his allegiance to the Islamic State caliphate and its caliph's directives.
That is the problem.
Click to expand...

FWIW I am a subscriber and have it delivered. Its a fine magazine
 
EC1 said:
If most Muslims choose the peace option then where is the problem with them though?

Imo if Muslims of that way of following it are blamed for ISIS..what happens then?..exactly what ISIS wants to happen..people turn on Muslims and drive them towards them
Click to expand...


A fair enough question, EC........but, if you're going to be selective about it......then why proclaim to be a Muslim in the first place? Why not just ditch it altogether? And if you want to continue the observing on your own terms, why not have the cojones to accpet that some of Islam's teachings are indeed evil? The reason is that they can't, because to deny what's in the Koran, makes you a heretic.

There's an awful lot of wanting to have it both ways......and that's a fundamental (excuse the pun) part of the problem, imo.
 
I don't see any muslim ditching it..and i don't see anyone rewriting it for them.

My point is that most muslims i listen to on the radio..thats where i tend to hear real views..and on TV..are hppay to live within our communities,,are happy to co exist and with jewis communities as well. So where is the problem within with "normal" muslims?

Yes we have the radicalisation issue..but one thing that strikes me is that those who leave to join ISIS..and then come back..don't come back with stories of excitement..they come back with stories of fear and horror..thats why they have come back..so they will spread the word that its a shithole out there..word of mouth is a very strong medium
 
Last edited:
There is a fair bit of truth in this. There is a lot of speculation that that burning of the Jordanian pilot has rebounded on recruitment being seen as just too repulsive. Also seen as being a group that is rudderless. There is a tendency to see these things as one way traffic. It should be remembered that after 7/7 and 9/11 and bali, it was assumed that thousands would flock to the cause of aq. They didnt


I think they may well have peaked. Article from a military expert in the times today confirms that view
 
lets hope so Clive

its certainly not something you would expect people to queue up for is it?

well how did it go?..ooh it were awful..beheadings..people getting turned to pulp..just got out with me life...oooh i can't wait to get there now you've told me how good it is.
 
I also have a degree of hope that the hate inherent in ISIS, leads it to devour itself. Sooner rather than later would be fine by me.

As for those who allegedly go and then return to tell of the horrors......have there been any who have gone and returned? If passports are stolen, they'd have a hard job, and the only one who has made it all the way back, was hell bent on spreading the ISIS word, rather than distancing himself from Jihad.
 
well as with lots of stuff we don't really know Grass..they are supposed to burn their passports as allegiance

i'd love to know how he sold it to people...and how many rushed to the airport in response
 
I've re-read the linked article again. It really is superb, and forces you to think about ISIS and Islam in general, in a different way. So much so, that I probably now disagree with some of my own previous statements on this very thread.......or at least I'm prepared to question the logic applied when I made them.

It was a hugely illuminating and educational acrticle, and I'm really very grateful to you for linking it. A brilliant peice of work.
 
I've had to read it in bits and pieces due to being continually disturbed and committed elsewhere, but agree that it's been hugely interesting and informative

What I'm taking from it at surface level is that there is a strong ideological believe behind it, and that the nearest we've seen previously was the Khymer Rouge as has been hypothesised before, albeit they obviously point out that ISIS can't accept an alternative authority other than Allah and so couldn't enter diplomatic relations in the traditional sense

The link between ISIS, AQ, and the stupidity of the interventions in Iraq in particular is blatant. With the removal of the dictators (third on the list of demands behind the removal of foreigners from the Arabian Peninsula and Israel) it beggars belief that we've gone and achieved this aim for them. We most certainly have been significant architects to the creation of ISIS through ill thought out, and poorly executed foreign policy which has been prosecuted on some extremely tenuous grounds

This in itself only serves to underline how seriously behind the curve our own political leaders are, as illustrated by Obama's crass comment about how a change of uniform doesn't make the player Kobe Bryant

If the first line of defence was the dictators that we've all but removed, the second line is the Shia muslims, the problem being that they don't appear to be strong enough. Interestingly Hezbollah are the only group that enjoyed any success against ISIS. I'm suspecting the third line is Israel. We simply have to work with Assad now and quite probably Iran too

The immediate territorial threat isn't to us. But that will come later and especially since their interpretation expects them to break treaties and fight jihad every year. The Caliph needs to expand in order to survive and feed itself

The bit I found particularly interesting though is that the life source of the Caliph is its territory. Without that it falls apart and people can unpledge allegiance to it as fast they did do originally. It also seems to back up Assad's assertion that the people living in it now, are doing so increasingly with a sense of conviction, as it becomes a magnet

I realise the article tries to finally present an optimistic possible scenario, but it's clearly terrified (and doesn't rule out) the possibility of an AQ / ISIS reproachment



The bit I find saddest of all though, is that anyone who is able to read that article and commit it to memory, probably possesses a greater insight than about 90% of our own strategic leadership
 
Last edited:
i wonder if the US is happy to let the cancer spread out..let them have a large slab..then remove it overnight with an "accident"

it wouldn't be too hard to actually nuke them and not get blamed..then afterwards say..ooh it looks like they were messing with nuclear capability and it must have gone wrong

The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor.

an ideal arena for a nuclear accident i would think

it could happen..the old WMD with a twist scenario
 
Last edited:
Ultimately you've got an enemy that is spoiling for a fight and believes (with good reason) they can replenish their number

By contrast the vast majority of the west are decadent and hopelessly equipped by way of training, fitness, and experience to fight it. At some point the populations of the west are going to realise that there is a growing likelihood that they may be required to fight themselves in some type of capacity rather than pontificating about others doing so. That will be a sobering moment. Governments who possess superior weapons capability will come under pressure from their populations to use them rather than risk exposing their populations to an enhanced risk on a leveller playing field

All of this assumes a third world war scenario of course. I believe it's the natural direction travel, just don't know when
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
So much so, that I probably now disagree with some of my own previous statements on this very thread.......or at least I'm prepared to question the logic applied when I made them.
Click to expand...

Curiousity has certainly prevailed. What specifically? I wouldn't have thought your views on the Iraq/ Syria/ ISIS 'thing' are dealt too bad a blow by this paper other than perhaps wanting to intervene (you were an advocate of UK intervention weren't you?) Having said that, I also recall you being an early advocate of a serious international response of 'the capable'. I'd have said your diagnosis of the root course (floored western foreign policy opening up a vacuum) is pretty well vindicated by the article. In fact the author could hardly have made it more transparant
 
Warbler said:
By contrast the vast majority of the west are decadent and hopelessly equipped by way of training, fitness, and experience to fight it.
Click to expand...
We are also hamstrung by a weak leadership. Obama just hasn't stepped up to the mark-- his presidency seems marked by indecision and a sense of not knowing what to do; the other western leaders seem riven with inertia.
In these days of growing crisis, the solution offered this evening by the U.S. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf is "job-training and better employment prospects for ISIS jihadi's". Aye, I'm sure a career with Starbucks will persuade the "boys" away from all that nasty beheading thang they do.
You couldn't make it up. ISIS now control ports on the Libyan coastline only 100 miles from Italian Lampedusa, and, nothing but clear water to cross, yet this clown reckons jobs is the answer.
 
Marie Harf said, "We cannot win the War on Terror, nor can we win the war on ISIS by killing them. We need to find them jobs. We need to get to the root cause of terrorism, and that is poverty and lack of opportunity in the terrorist community."
MSNBC


The "terrorist community" ! Harfharfharf
 
icebreaker said:
Aye, I'm sure a career with Starbucks will persuade the "boys" away from all that nasty beheading thang they do.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if you know the hostages name is clive*, then you'll be less inclined to behead him.

*No idea why the name clive sprang to mind in relation to beheading at all. Pure coincidence.
 
The 'Terrorist Community' - love it! they'll be getting consultation rights before long.

One of the guys who was involved in the Hebdo shootings was a product of minimum wage labour who perhaps didn't necessarily see working for a western franchise like Starbucks as his raison d'etre. She's probably oblivious as to just how offensive, insensitive, and inflammatory such a suggestion is to the 'Jihadist community'. As regards giving them control of coffee shops, or supermarkets, I don't suppose she noticed what happened in Sydney or Paris

Ultimately it isn't too hard to work out some of the end game as the Jihadists start to line up. If they're paired off in equal numbers with equal weaponry, they'll likely win. Their motivated and trained youngsters are going to be more effective than those that we've allowed to self-teach their way up to level 7 on Street Figther 3. The west is therefore duty bound to utilise it's superior weapons technologies. The more numbers the Jihadis put into the field, the more destructive these weapons will need to be. The question then starts to revovle around what you're prepared to use, and where do you draw the line? Or do you say, look war is nasty, people get killed, but the victors write history and that looks like a better proposition than losing?

I think the principal things that the 'Atlantic' article has caused me to reappraise have been

1: The role played by Saddamists wasn't really mentioned. Have I over-estimated it? has the article overlooked it? Is it simply not much of a factor?

2: I was starting to lean towards involvement, whereas my initial reaction was to keep out. I've now probably reverted more to my original position. Moving troops to Mesopotamia would be a strategic mistake. We need to keep everyone capable of protecting us in the UK whilst also clandestinely bolstering our domsetic capability. Therefore we need to re-double our efforts to involve the countries of the world who can project military power to take a stake (and that doesn't mean looking to economic indicators as a proxy of capability, Clive). I'll back Russia in a fist fight against Italy anyday

3: Europe needs to concentrate on trying to bring Russia in from the cold and muzzle David Cameron. She also needs to look at her southern coastlines and pay particular attention to north Afrcia

4: The caliph is predicated on the occupation, control, and growth of territory. If we can restrict and start to shrink this, ISIS starts to wither with it. It's their kryptonite

5: We might have a bigger window to work in than I realised, as it would appear that fellow muslims will be the next in the cross-hairs before they turn to the ultimate showdown with the west. This buys us time, but also allows us the potential to defeat them through a third party actor

6: We need to start advertising in the jobs bulletin for brutal dictators with moustaches and an unhealthy obsession with Josef Stalin
 
We do actually have a "secret" army of millions of under 16 year olds who are SAS trained on XBox and Playstation which we could use?
 
Warbler said:
Curiousity has certainly prevailed. What specifically? I wouldn't have thought your views on the Iraq/ Syria/ ISIS 'thing' are dealt too bad a blow by this paper other than perhaps wanting to intervene (you were an advocate of UK intervention weren't you?) Having said that, I also recall you being an early advocate of a serious international response of 'the capable'. I'd have said your diagnosis of the root course (floored western foreign policy opening up a vacuum) is pretty well vindicated by the article. In fact the author could hardly have made it more transparant
Click to expand...

I guess I'm slightly less pessimistic about the Armageddon scenario, and more optimistic about the ISIS-will-eat-itself scenario.

Should we be worried about Dabiq, and the apocalyptic references to 'Rome'.....when there Italians are pushing for ground troops? :blink:
 
Last edited:
I'm no less pessimistic as I do believe there's a much longer temperol horizon at play here and I wouldn't frame the Armgeddon scenarios through ISIS necessarily. I'm actually more concerned about the threat from north Africa where natural opposition is lower and proximity to Europe nearer. I've always felt ISIS could be defeated and probably will be, but that they might be a spark for something bigger.

The forces of 'Rome' is frequently used by prophets and is normally felt to be a reference to the church and christianity rather than Italy (which wouldn't have existed at the time as a nation state when most prophets were in their heyday anyway). I doubt a single volunteer will come forward to join any Italian led expedition. The very most they'll do is try for some naval blockade which could actually be defeated without top level cover

As regards Dabiq (another new name I've got to learn!!!!) it's interesting that the only MP I've ever heard refer to ISIS as a "death cult" has been Galloway. Should we really be surprised though? Probably not. Of all the self regarding doughnuts sitting in parliament lobbing nice friendly questions at our George Bush, I could easily be persuaded that Galloway is likely to be the most in touch with what ISIS is about and probably possesses the most accurate analysis. He could perhaps make the most informed contribution from a parliamentary perspective, but of course we ostracise him.

I'm slightly disturbed to see western pressure potentially leading to Assad trying to introduce a ceasefire around Aleppo in the news this morning. Any ceasefire is predicated on boundaries, and now that we're all experts on the ISIS interpretation of the Quran, we know that they can't accept borders and that they're not duty bound to honour treaties. This whole thing about 'barrel bombs' has been completely over played. What exactly are they? Blast proximity fragmentation weapons. These sorts of things have been around ever since the first canon was wheeled onto medieval battlefields. It's the same principle as field artillery, or what the RAF was happy to dump on Germany 70 years ago (albeit we lobbed incidenaries into the mix). It's war, that's what Assad is fighting, and there is no rule that I'm aware of that says you must restrict your choice of weapon to match that of your opponent. As Sean Connery would say, "typical Italian, brings a knife to a gun fight"

Interestingly (or not, as such discussions can never really go anywhere conclusively) Nostradamus predicts the fall of Rome, the flight of the Pope, and the destruction of catholicism at the hands of the crescent. He also seems to indicate that an invasion of southern France by the Moors occurs after the French are defeated in a naval enmgagement in the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Turkey. The Moors then advance rapidly and brutaly, slaughtering the French from within, and turning the countryside to fire, before eventually meeting a superior force somewhere east Paris with reference to the new world coming to the rescue (assumed to be America). Albion (us presumably) don't get involved as we're too busy tied down domestically. Control of Albion passes between the cross and the crescent on seven occasions in a bitter and bloody civil war that eventually sees the cross prevail
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
1: The role played by Saddamists wasn't really mentioned. Have I over-estimated it? has the article overlooked it? Is it simply not much of a factor?
Click to expand...

Actually, perhaps this isn't too hard to explain. The Saddamists gave the Iraqi putsch it's momentum. It was their presence that caused the fledgling Iraqi army to flee. With the Calipate declared in the aftermath of Mosul though, the professional Jihadists started to flock in from all round the world, which is when we saw the western analysis of ISIS fighting strength rise from 10,000 to 30,000 to numbers unspecified

The thing is though, for such time as they control territory this relationship will continue. Devout males who've been grown, nutured, and ultimately harvested like crops will continue to make their way to the Islamic State in order to fulfil their destiny and appointment with glorious martyrdom. We can kill as many as we like using conventional weapons as their re-supply is guaranteed for such time as they hold territory. They could potentially exhaust a country under sanctions who can't produce enough munitions to keep up the kill rate, or replenish their own army at the same rate for having to draw on a much smaller pool, once they've got that crucial foothold that acts as a recruitment calling
 
Back
Top