ISIS...Islamic State Victims

a spoon fed oik who obediently laps up uncritically whatever the Murdoch press tells you


go **** yourself

and as an aside ... bit of disappointment perhaps? isis on retreat? no fantasies about race bombs and the uk supposedly grovelling to a potless state on the decline with an economy smaller than italys?

i said take it or leave it. very predictable that you would be a bit deflated
 
Sorry, I've replaced oik with oaf, as I realise oik might have been a little harsh, but no worse than the sort of playful banter that all good Chelsea fans are familiar with hey

I realise you said take it or leave it, which is why I said I'd choose to leave it for now (especially as your account is so clearly contradicted by both the words and actions of the Pentagon). I honestly thought I was doing you a favour by pointing out the glaring error in the Times reporting about the version of Islamic law.

If you want my honest opinion Clive, I think a lazy Times jounralist has likely spoken to a mainstream Islamic scholar who has told them that burning the pilot was unIslamic. However it's totally irrelevant given that ISIS are living by a totally different code, and under their interpretation his burning is not only justified, but it becomes a duty
 
Well I haven't read it, and I don't have a Times account, so aren't likely to either, so don't mind admitting that I'm guessing as to the story's structure based on what you're telling us. I do know however that this week the American's have told us they can't win the war against ISIS (that did surprise me, as I can't believe we can't close this caliphate down from a territorial perspective) and they've also announced that they've trained an army of 25,000 to launch an offensive in April/ May into the Mosul area to dislodge 1000 ISIS defenders. Again this looks odd. I'm inlcined to ask what the hell they were doing for 10 years when they were supposed to be training and equipping the post Saddam Iraqi army? This army was the most expensively one ever assembled by a third party in history, and yet it disintegrated and ran the moment ISIS growled at them.
 
- public disobedience
- strikes
- growing numbers of deserters
- corruption amongst isis officials

from two activist groups

the journalist who wrote this is tom coghlan who is pretty well known

you wont believe it of course but i wouldnt surprise me if they are a bit of a mess.

if mosul is just 1000 "defenders" then it will be recaptured
 
Last edited:
- public disobedience
- strikes
- growing numbers of deserters
- corruption amongst isis officials

you would think with these being the well organised military crack unit we are told they are..they wouldn't suffer from this sort of indiscipline would you?


 
We will have to see how credible it is but it's not the first report. Ultimately isis expanded very quickly (although as has been pointed out, a lot of the ground gained is nothing but desert) and that's hard to manage under any circumstances. I believe extreme brutality ultimately "eats itself" (as mentioned here). I do believe that that horrific video could well have been the beginning of the end.
 
EC1 said:
- public disobedience
- strikes
- growing numbers of deserters
- corruption amongst isis officials

you would think with these being the well organised military crack unit we are told they are..they wouldn't suffer from this sort of indiscipline would you?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said they were a crack unit, what has been said though is that they are fanatical and able to replenish from a production line of young men who've bred to sacrifice themselves like farmers harvest crops. Having said that, weaponised fighting is practically all they've ever known, so they'll be pretty useful in the art of street gun battles, more so than their average western counter part. If the two ever squared up to each other on equal terms with equal weapons capability, your Jihadi volunteer would win.

You should be able to do the maths though and work out that something doesn't add up. If Mosul really is only defended by 1,000 corrupt deserters, don't you think that after 9 months they might have been able to wrest control of by now? Why is it necessary to train 25,000 if they're only facing 1,000 who continue to slaughter people. Wouldn't it be humane to act now? They've added the additional rider incidentally that they might not be ready by the spring and this will lead to postponement because it's too hot afterwards. That doesn't sound like an army gearing up to wipe away a bit mild resistance to me. If they were really facing such a poorly equipped enemy with such small numbers they'd turf them out relatively easily

Western journalists aren't embedded in the Islamic State, so anyone writing articles is forced to use third party accounts. We'll see.

FWIW, I don't expect the Islamic State to expand much further, and I don't think history will record them as much more than a catalyst that contributed to a rising consciousness which helped to grow more powerful adversaries. I am surprised however that they aren't in full headlong retreat by now. I certainly expected them to be. I still regard north Africa as the bigger threat. I was reading stuff months ago that their more capable fighters had started to move into North Africa anyway. True? I don't know, your guess is as good as mine on that, but I can see that it makes strategic sense, even if the land concerned is nowhere near as symbolic

There are some interesting angles though about how ISIS will finally pan out. Who is going to defeat it? The Peshmurga won't. They've already stated very clearly that they have no aspirations beyond their own mountainous homelands. They don't want to pursue ISIS onto the plains of Iraq. At the moment, there is little evidence that the Iraqi army is up to the task either. It wouldn't be beyond the realms of misguided possibility that they try and do a deal, despite the fact that ISIS can't accept the concept of Gods will being limited by man made borders. The only army that's making slow progress against them is the Syrians reinforced by Hezbollah

The problem this caliphate has (as Icebreaker has said) is that it must wage Jihad once a year, and has to carry on expansion in order to meet it's terms. I think Galloway understood this when he repeatedly called it a death cult. There is no way it can compromise, so ultimately someone has to destroy it. It might destroy itself, but that could take quitye a bit of time, and the longer it hangs around the more symbolic significance it assumes
 
Typical bbc hand wringing wishy washy reporting this morning.

isis victims family's want to see the pig "brought to justice". No. They largely said they wanted a "bullet between his eyes" . Don't report that will you?
 
clivex said:
Typical bbc hand wringing wishy washy reporting this morning.

isis victims family's want to see the pig "brought to justice". No. They largely said they wanted a "bullet between his eyes" . Don't report that will you?
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder with him now being so high profile if ISIS themselves won't off him in case at any point he is caught
 
clivex said:
Typical bbc hand wringing wishy washy reporting this morning.

isis victims family's want to see the pig "brought to justice". No. They largely said they wanted a "bullet between his eyes" . Don't report that will you?
Click to expand...

This isn't true....at least not in the case of every victim's family.

At least one family - reported by the BBC - has said they would prefer if Jihadi Co*cksucker John did not die a martyr's death, and instead rotted slowly in a Supermax Prison over the next however many years.

The Beeb has it's faults, but this smacks of baiting them for the sake if it.

BTW, who was the apologist cu*nt who said that Jihadi Co*cksucker John was a "beautiful man", inferred that he had been harassed by policing/security service actions, and that it was therefore only natural that we should expect him to behead innocent civilians, because of this harassment?

We want to harass that fu*ckers hole right to the bottom of the Channel, if you ask me.
 
That's a typical example of its everyone's fault but our own sect's. Sickening frankly.

It was also extremely offensive to the victims and possibly deliberately so.
 
I'm surprised that MI5 have sought to implicate him as an informer. Organisations like ISIL are nomrally paranoid. It would only take MI5 to repraise one of these alleged attacks that they've disrupted that we're never told about, and leave enough clues leading back to Jihadi John as working for them to cause him a great degree of discomfort
 
There have been a good number of planned attacks scuppers by mi5. Some have resulted in convictions. Clearly they cannot reveal every last bit of information.

No one can doubt that attacks have been far less frequent than most expected, so someone is doing something right.

they have a pretty thankless task IMO. Anything slips through they get the blame but little credit otherwise.

I am certainly not going to sneer at their achievements
 
Who said this early this week

"Aside from God almighty, what is the only force strong enough to keep this barbaric tide at bay?" XXXXX asked. "It's the red, white and blue; it's the United States military."
 
Read her full speech and you will find that much of what she says on the issue of ISIS is very similar to views expressed by your own good self on this thread.

I'm no fanboy of her's, btw.
 
Such as:
"Only in Egypt is jihad in retreat, and that’s no thanks to the Obama administration. Remember, they supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which was finally toppled by the people in one of the largest popular revolts in history. Now, in ’09 when Obama took over the war on terror, Islamists were in retreat and al Qaeda was a broken force. Now Islamists, they control more territory than ever".

and:

"We are in a long term civilizational struggle against the forces of evil. If we intend to beat them, we better get serious about victory. The consequences of weakness, it’s retreat and defeat. In the past, our leaders confronted evil with moral clarity, eliminating fascists and the Nazis".

"Stop blaming the victim and wake up, Mr. President. While Christians bow our heads to pray for you, radical Islamists want to cut off your head. The world that they want is a world that would submit. We will never submit to evil. We will continue to assign radical Islam to the ash heap of history, just like the Nazis before them".
 
Last edited:
Right I'm a convert. I'm for Sarah (without the God bit, or the isolation bit). I would also point out to her that America only got involved with WWII because they were attacked by Japan, not because they were on some righteous crusade of good against evil. Indeed, the American's sanctioned fundraising for the Nazis through the 'American bund' whilst stripping the 15,000 or so American nationals who presented to Canada of their citizenship.

Otherwise, Sarah for Pres, you know it makes sense
 
An interesting idea? what you mean like using countries in an international coalition who have the military might (and not "prowess" what ever that's supposed to mean?) and motivation to do something. Now I wonder where I've heard that before on this thread?

There could of course be an issue to do with Russia in so far as it's quite difficult to get someone's co-operation when you've put stupid sanctions on them!!! Has Cameron thought that one out, as he was the principal driver behind it in the EU.

As I've suggested on the FIFA thread though, don't under estimate the levearge that 2018 might give them in a small 24 month window leading up until about Summer of 2017 at the latest. This is Putin's personal showcase after all, and in the finest traditions of Robspierre (who increasingly reminds me of) I think it's probably a more powerful bargaining chip then it's basic description of a 'football tournament' would perhaps lead us to think. The UK could easily find we're 'played' a little bit in this as a plausible alternative host

Clearly the strategy of trying to train and arm so called moderates hasn't worked. They outnumbered IS 10 to 1 at Ramadi and had the superior weaponry, but still ran away. They actually had the termerity to blame America for not putting enough air strikes in.

Cameron's attempt to train a Libyan army of course ended up as another disaster, (well it ended up in Cambridge magistrates courts) those who weren't arrested for sexual predation, or disappeared into the population as illegals, were deported. Still, he hasn't learnt his lesson (again) and is sending 125 trainers to Iraq now
 
Last edited:
Well, we're all entitled to word things how we want, we're all different.

To cut to the chase....
This latest possibility would/could prove us both right and wrong, in the sense that I supported removing Assad whilst you didn't, whilst you supported a Western coalition with Russia against Isis where I didn't see is a possibility! :)

I never thought in a million year I'd see a report where Putin would support the removal of Assad.
As The Torygraph article indicates, Putin may separate his problems with the West in terms of Ukraine and the Middle East.
The idea Cameron or the EU should have seen this possibility three years ago and backed off with Ukraine is a bit unrealistic.

It's all good news to my ears. Start with the most heinous middle eastern dictator Assad then move against ISIS. A perfectly legitimate and moral standpoint, imo, and really...we've only needed Putin to back off or join in to actually make it happen.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
The idea Cameron or the EU should have seen this possibility three years ago and backed off with Ukraine is a bit unrealistic.
Click to expand...


Why? Are you seriously suggesting that this kind of accommodation was unforeseeable? Oh pleeeeeease

Putin will do deals based on his perceptions of what's expendable and when it's sensible for him to do so. Putin is a tough negotiator as he's proven before and will hardly allow his own troops to get sucked into a middle east quagmire to make up the shortfall of British and French without extracting a price for doing so. To expect him to do this whilst simultaneously being the subject of sanctions is frankly naive, and the Telegraph are being wishful based on little else (they've been calling the outcomes wrong in the Middle east for well over a decade too). At the very least the west are going to have to have something on him by way of leverage

The Russians have manpower and weapons. The British have marching bands. What are we going to do? Hit them with 'Trooping the Colour' or re-runs of Michael Caine singing 'Men of Harlech'?

Have you worked out what you're going to replace Assad with yet? (please don't make the mistake of using the phrase 'moderate muslims' - or if you do, try and tell me who they are, and what's moderate about them)

The west is making a massive mistake in failing to realise what the perceptions are in this part of the world by attaching inappropriate labels to the possibilities. The Muslim Brotherhood is the natural gravitation of the people, but if you let a void open up you'll let the conservatives in
 
Last edited:
i made this point earlier..it may be a ridiculous suggestion..but i'll make it anyway.

IS are expanding an area that will soon be feasible to ...have a nuclear accident ..basically we go to bed one night and next morning there are reports that some type of device has gone off...looks like they were dabbling with nuclear weapons..oh dear

i can easily see this thought going through the heads of certain people in power

is this a feasible outcome?...just keep letting them expand to gain a nice big area of mainly barren land..then..oops
 
Back
Top