ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
What is so saddening and new about Clivex revelations?
This is a forum. Sadly people have to say something for it to work, you miserable twats
Last edited:
Very simply Marb, Clive being right about anything is always a cause for sadness and regret (nothing more than that) but it can occasionally happen. You're quite right to say there's nothing new about what he says in this case (as in original) but then I doubt very much he'd try and claim the observation as his own unique contribution
There are thousands of studies that examine anthroprogenic behavioural typologies and try and categorise them. Typically people are sifted in line with certain common traits they exhibit. We've all seen these types of 'models ' before. Such analysis is usually applied to organisational structures (often the workplace) and how certain people perform better at certain tasks with it, because they exhibit certain traits etc If you wanted to invoke its broadest application you could equally roll this out to life generally.
It's nothing more than that
There are thousands of studies that examine anthroprogenic behavioural typologies and try and categorise them. Typically people are sifted in line with certain common traits they exhibit. We've all seen these types of 'models ' before. Such analysis is usually applied to organisational structures (often the workplace) and how certain people perform better at certain tasks with it, because they exhibit certain traits etc If you wanted to invoke its broadest application you could equally roll this out to life generally.
It's nothing more than that
Last edited:
A two-year-old girl was placed inside a tin box and, in the punishing August heat of Raqqa, was left in the middle of a courtyard for seven days. Try to rescue your daughter, her mother was warned, and your other two children will die. Having seen her husband and father executed by Isis the woman knew this was not an empty threat. The toddler perished, of course, but only after she had also been beaten and had her tiny back broken. This haunting story was recently told by the human rights lawyer Philippe Sand
And we have rubbish on forums moaning about drone strikes taking out those that commit these acts
It still begs the question as to what on earth do you do with all those for whom this is completely justifiable and acceptable behaviour? that will the vast majority of women men and children within ISIS.
And we have rubbish on forums moaning about drone strikes taking out those that commit these acts
It still begs the question as to what on earth do you do with all those for whom this is completely justifiable and acceptable behaviour? that will the vast majority of women men and children within ISIS.
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Appalling.
I'm not well after reading this.
Corbynites tell me that we should 'engage in talks' with this filth.
I'm not well after reading this.
Corbynites tell me that we should 'engage in talks' with this filth.
You can't can you? You are dealing with those who are off the edge of a cliff.
One of his senior team refused to answer questions about Jihadi john unless he was addressed by his true name in a respectful fashion. Journalists were open mouthed at that one
I agree. I can't stop thinking about it I must say
One of his senior team refused to answer questions about Jihadi john unless he was addressed by his true name in a respectful fashion. Journalists were open mouthed at that one
I agree. I can't stop thinking about it I must say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...cted-nus-president-after-causing-controversy/
The warning signs have been there for years for all to see. It was Malia Bouattia who led the charge at the NUS to block a motion that sought to condemn ISIS and show solidarity to the Kurds fighting them, because it was deemed “Islamophobic.”
At this same meeting the NUS did pass a motion to boycott UKIP, and agreed to email every student in the country on polling day telling them to do likewise. Thus, in a sign of the terrible times in which we live, Britain’s student leadership found it easier to condemn UKIP than ISIS.
isis have one defender at least. Apparently criticism of Isis is islamaophobia. Naturally she is a committed anti Semite too. But that's more of less standard on the far left now. Compulsory even
she claims that terrorism does not exist in the uk. I wonder if someone could slice of her head very slowly to prove otherwise?
The warning signs have been there for years for all to see. It was Malia Bouattia who led the charge at the NUS to block a motion that sought to condemn ISIS and show solidarity to the Kurds fighting them, because it was deemed “Islamophobic.”
At this same meeting the NUS did pass a motion to boycott UKIP, and agreed to email every student in the country on polling day telling them to do likewise. Thus, in a sign of the terrible times in which we live, Britain’s student leadership found it easier to condemn UKIP than ISIS.
isis have one defender at least. Apparently criticism of Isis is islamaophobia. Naturally she is a committed anti Semite too. But that's more of less standard on the far left now. Compulsory even
she claims that terrorism does not exist in the uk. I wonder if someone could slice of her head very slowly to prove otherwise?
Last edited:
A solid shoo-in 1.01: a black Muslim woman candidate standing for leader of the ultra-PC National Union of the Young & Daft
Had she been a white Christian man she'd have been a poor value 999.99 and been banged-up in Belmarsh nick for inciting racial hatred soon after Freshers' Week
Or am I just Old but still Daft?
Had she been a white Christian man she'd have been a poor value 999.99 and been banged-up in Belmarsh nick for inciting racial hatred soon after Freshers' Week
Or am I just Old but still Daft?
Not at all.
I wonder if if a white male candidate who complained about the number of blacks at a university (as she did about Jews) would get a look in?
in fairness she's playing the longer game quite skilfully. Her views would make her a perfect labour candidate in the current labour party of national socialists
my take on it is that the vast majority of MPs are pretty horrified at recent events but the bulk of the new membership is delighted.
I wonder if if a white male candidate who complained about the number of blacks at a university (as she did about Jews) would get a look in?
in fairness she's playing the longer game quite skilfully. Her views would make her a perfect labour candidate in the current labour party of national socialists
my take on it is that the vast majority of MPs are pretty horrified at recent events but the bulk of the new membership is delighted.
Last edited:
ISIS now under attack from 'porn bots'
http://en.abna24.com/service/america/archive/2016/06/08/758962/story.html
Col, I've had an idea about making TH more interesting!
http://en.abna24.com/service/america/archive/2016/06/08/758962/story.html
Col, I've had an idea about making TH more interesting!
Last edited:
Reports suggesting that the al Baghdadi has been killed in the last few hours.
Now I'm not going to make any claim for the authenticity of this, it seems to originate to a questionable Turkish source. It might very well be a complete fake
Anyway watch this space, we should no more with 24 hours, but if its starts to disappear we can assume its just some hysterical click bait, but I'm not aware of multiple false dawns on the Caliph that we saw with other Jihadi leaders.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/isis-leader-al-baghdadi-killed-air-strike-report-682585
Now I'm not going to make any claim for the authenticity of this, it seems to originate to a questionable Turkish source. It might very well be a complete fake
Anyway watch this space, we should no more with 24 hours, but if its starts to disappear we can assume its just some hysterical click bait, but I'm not aware of multiple false dawns on the Caliph that we saw with other Jihadi leaders.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/isis-leader-al-baghdadi-killed-air-strike-report-682585
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Fingers crossed.
Is it possible that we're now entering a new phase in Syria?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...utin-syria-remove-rebel-backing-a7413346.html
Trump is signalling a complete realignment and adopting a position that should have been taken years ago. It was obvious a long time ago what the natural direction of this war was. During the last 3 months in particular when the 'rebels' refused to move back east of the Euphrates (remember how the BBC used to tell us they were the Free Syrian Army?). It's obvious the American's were having less and less influence on them. Then came the Kerry/ Lavrov peace deal. The rebels were asked to disentangle themselves from what used to be Jabat al Nusra and other Al Qaeda affiliates. They didn't. Last week they began a joint operations with some elements of the Islamic State, but have otherwise been fighting alongside Al Qaeda
This has actually been going on for years though. I think America (or the Clinton world view of Syria anyway) is on its fourth set of pro democracy rebels that its identified now. One group was scattered and never really happened, another joined the Al Nusra Front, and another sold their weapons to IS. It is nothing short of remarkable that David Cameron (then a British Prime Minister) as recently as 12 months ago, wanted to support and arm a group that barely existed, and the rump of it that did, has now gone full on Islamist. Before that of course he wanted to bomb the people who were putting up the most resistance to IS
Trump seems to have finally decided that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
I've become more and more aware over the last 18 months (largely due to the efforts of dissenting Americans) that this has got a lot to do Qatar wishing to run a gas pipeline to eastern Europe that would go through Syria. Qatar and Saudi Arabia proceeded to solicit support amongst western leaders, particularly Hillary Clinton. The problem came however when Bashar al Assad wanted to run a rival pipeline in partnership with Putin. Why can't they let Europe decide who we buy our gas off please. I don't want to risk a conflict over Syria because Hillary Clinton has preferred bidder who has been able to incentivise her to advocate that we buy our gas off these states
Enemy identification and a sense of priority has stalked the American position for years. Gradually however their position has fallen apart and been exposed for the folly that it was. It'll be interesting to see if any one digs deeper into some of the relationships that existed that led the Obama White House into this. For now at least Trump appears to be calling time on America's support for Al Qaeda and saying 'over to you' to Russia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...utin-syria-remove-rebel-backing-a7413346.html
Trump is signalling a complete realignment and adopting a position that should have been taken years ago. It was obvious a long time ago what the natural direction of this war was. During the last 3 months in particular when the 'rebels' refused to move back east of the Euphrates (remember how the BBC used to tell us they were the Free Syrian Army?). It's obvious the American's were having less and less influence on them. Then came the Kerry/ Lavrov peace deal. The rebels were asked to disentangle themselves from what used to be Jabat al Nusra and other Al Qaeda affiliates. They didn't. Last week they began a joint operations with some elements of the Islamic State, but have otherwise been fighting alongside Al Qaeda
This has actually been going on for years though. I think America (or the Clinton world view of Syria anyway) is on its fourth set of pro democracy rebels that its identified now. One group was scattered and never really happened, another joined the Al Nusra Front, and another sold their weapons to IS. It is nothing short of remarkable that David Cameron (then a British Prime Minister) as recently as 12 months ago, wanted to support and arm a group that barely existed, and the rump of it that did, has now gone full on Islamist. Before that of course he wanted to bomb the people who were putting up the most resistance to IS
Trump seems to have finally decided that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.
I've become more and more aware over the last 18 months (largely due to the efforts of dissenting Americans) that this has got a lot to do Qatar wishing to run a gas pipeline to eastern Europe that would go through Syria. Qatar and Saudi Arabia proceeded to solicit support amongst western leaders, particularly Hillary Clinton. The problem came however when Bashar al Assad wanted to run a rival pipeline in partnership with Putin. Why can't they let Europe decide who we buy our gas off please. I don't want to risk a conflict over Syria because Hillary Clinton has preferred bidder who has been able to incentivise her to advocate that we buy our gas off these states
Enemy identification and a sense of priority has stalked the American position for years. Gradually however their position has fallen apart and been exposed for the folly that it was. It'll be interesting to see if any one digs deeper into some of the relationships that existed that led the Obama White House into this. For now at least Trump appears to be calling time on America's support for Al Qaeda and saying 'over to you' to Russia
EC1
On a break
a simplified version is that Isis are getting their arse handed to them on a plate and that the only threat to western democracy is the stupidity of those within it.
One of the most controversial incidents of the Syrian war occurred in 2013, the Sarin chemical attack in Damascus. Anyone who recalls the debate, (OK let's call it what it was) anyone who recall the argument will know that it divided opinion on here along the usual predictable lines
A new site has attempted to solve who committed this attack
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...y-blamed-wrong-side-for-syria-chemical-attack
I should also say that a lot of the propaganda about the Syrian opposition that began falling apart a few years ago, is starting to collapse in a heap now. Even the ever loyal BBC are finally having to report what has been widely reported elsewhere for months, and that's that 'rebels' (the good guys) have started shooting civilians. Will Boris Johnson call for protests outside the American embassy? I doubt it
Basically they've completed the journey from 'pro democracy protesters', 'Free Syrian Army', 'Moderates', 'Anti Assad forces', 'The opposition' and now finally 'rebels'. The truth is they morphed into Islmaists along time ago. Russia has tried opening aid corridors on four occasions now only for the rebels to fire on them. The American's asked the 'moderates' to separate themselves from the militants in the last ceasefire, and they didn't. The SAA observed the ceasefire for a prolonged period, the rebels continued firing. I think there's a tacit rowing back now of the western position as they're slowly reclassifying the rebels
As the radicals gain the upper hand on the moderates and pretty well dominate the opposition now, I would point incidentally that this is what would have happened had Assad been replaced (as some were arguing 2-3 years ago), and had the Russians not intervened. Without the Alawite to fight we can pretty safely assume that ISIS/ AQ would now be in control of Syria, the front line would have pushed onto Jordan, and we'd be seeing many more deaths, human rights abuses, and refugees in flight than we have
A new site has attempted to solve who committed this attack
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...y-blamed-wrong-side-for-syria-chemical-attack
I should also say that a lot of the propaganda about the Syrian opposition that began falling apart a few years ago, is starting to collapse in a heap now. Even the ever loyal BBC are finally having to report what has been widely reported elsewhere for months, and that's that 'rebels' (the good guys) have started shooting civilians. Will Boris Johnson call for protests outside the American embassy? I doubt it
Basically they've completed the journey from 'pro democracy protesters', 'Free Syrian Army', 'Moderates', 'Anti Assad forces', 'The opposition' and now finally 'rebels'. The truth is they morphed into Islmaists along time ago. Russia has tried opening aid corridors on four occasions now only for the rebels to fire on them. The American's asked the 'moderates' to separate themselves from the militants in the last ceasefire, and they didn't. The SAA observed the ceasefire for a prolonged period, the rebels continued firing. I think there's a tacit rowing back now of the western position as they're slowly reclassifying the rebels
As the radicals gain the upper hand on the moderates and pretty well dominate the opposition now, I would point incidentally that this is what would have happened had Assad been replaced (as some were arguing 2-3 years ago), and had the Russians not intervened. Without the Alawite to fight we can pretty safely assume that ISIS/ AQ would now be in control of Syria, the front line would have pushed onto Jordan, and we'd be seeing many more deaths, human rights abuses, and refugees in flight than we have
Some suggestion tonight on social media that the siege of Aleppo is coming to an end?
The rebels have agreed to withdraw in return for safe passage (we've seen this before in other urban areas)
The real sting however is that this was apparently brokered by Turkey, Russia, Syria, and rebel representatives with the expressed demand that America be kept out of the discussions due to a complete lack of trust in them by all parties, and because they've acted in bad faith too many times now. If true (and I'm not prepared to call it yet) this would be significant. It potentially lays out a roadmap to resolve the whole thing (minus ISIS). The real revelation however is that America proved to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It does of course remain to be seen. Social media reporting has a habit of hysterical over reaction, so I'm still waiting to see it confirmed, but if indeed the relevant parties minus the US have agreed a deal then its certainly a humiliation for America. Looking forward though, it does begin to create all sorts of seriously volatile scenarios if the same coalition of peacemakers become the architects for the post war settlement.
Lucky America has a temperate sort who revels in the surgical analysis of complexity and deep nuance coming into the White house
The rebels have agreed to withdraw in return for safe passage (we've seen this before in other urban areas)
The real sting however is that this was apparently brokered by Turkey, Russia, Syria, and rebel representatives with the expressed demand that America be kept out of the discussions due to a complete lack of trust in them by all parties, and because they've acted in bad faith too many times now. If true (and I'm not prepared to call it yet) this would be significant. It potentially lays out a roadmap to resolve the whole thing (minus ISIS). The real revelation however is that America proved to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It does of course remain to be seen. Social media reporting has a habit of hysterical over reaction, so I'm still waiting to see it confirmed, but if indeed the relevant parties minus the US have agreed a deal then its certainly a humiliation for America. Looking forward though, it does begin to create all sorts of seriously volatile scenarios if the same coalition of peacemakers become the architects for the post war settlement.
Lucky America has a temperate sort who revels in the surgical analysis of complexity and deep nuance coming into the White house
And finally the ever loyal BBC get round to reporting (sort of) about 9 hours after it began
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38233962
Loyally they omit the names of the two architects of the negotations (Russia and Turkey) and also fail to inform us that the American's were excluded from the deal. Instead they fall back on the so-called 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights'. Let's just remember that despite it's grandiose name, this 'observatory' is one guy who owns a clothes shop in Coventry and has access to a Skype phone!
So far as I can establish at least (piecing things together) a majority of the rebel groups were bused out of Aleppo hours ago, probably heading to Idlib. Basically they ran out of ammunition and supplies. This is interesting as a few weeks ago America announced that they would stop supplying rebel groups, and despite Qatar emerging from the shadows to say they would, they don't appear to have been able to. It kind of begs the question of how many people might have been saved had America taken this decision years ago?
There is a small splinter group who are closer to a death cult who are holding out, but no one expects them to present any problem. Now we'll see the evil butcher Assad kill all the civillians in the rebels area won't we? Or perhaps we won't!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38233962
Loyally they omit the names of the two architects of the negotations (Russia and Turkey) and also fail to inform us that the American's were excluded from the deal. Instead they fall back on the so-called 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights'. Let's just remember that despite it's grandiose name, this 'observatory' is one guy who owns a clothes shop in Coventry and has access to a Skype phone!
So far as I can establish at least (piecing things together) a majority of the rebel groups were bused out of Aleppo hours ago, probably heading to Idlib. Basically they ran out of ammunition and supplies. This is interesting as a few weeks ago America announced that they would stop supplying rebel groups, and despite Qatar emerging from the shadows to say they would, they don't appear to have been able to. It kind of begs the question of how many people might have been saved had America taken this decision years ago?
There is a small splinter group who are closer to a death cult who are holding out, but no one expects them to present any problem. Now we'll see the evil butcher Assad kill all the civillians in the rebels area won't we? Or perhaps we won't!
Perhaps closure of the civil war came a little bit nearer 48 hours ago with the surprise announcement that Putin has agreed to sell a 19% share of Rostnetf to the Qatari soverign wealth fund. Why?
Well basically Qatar wanted to run a gas pipeline to eastern europe that would go through Syria. Russia also wanted to build one that would go through Iran and Syria. The problem was that Assad wanted to back Putin's. America decided they wanted to back Qatar's
Qatar has been a lower grade and emerging problem in the region for a few years now. It was they you'll recall who led the arab support for overthrowing Gadaffi and flagged Libyan oil whilst also getting caught gun running to their preferred militas. They were also instrumental in the Egyptian spring supporting Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, before losing out to the Saudi backed el Sisi (who has in turn seemingly fallen out with Saudi since). Qatar's links to the Clinton foundation have also come under scrutiny, and don't even mention the world cup!
Anyway, this looks a little bit like a trial close deal to me. President Trump isn't believed to be as supportive of Qatar as the Obama white house has been, and certainly nothing remotely as supportive as secretary Clinton was. Trump has also indicated that he won't be supplying the 'rebels' with weapons any longer, and prolonging this war. A few weeks ago Qatar said they would do, but realistically they're going to come second to Russia in a fighting match without American support, and they know it
The tide of the war is turning in Assad's favour. Even the BBC narrative is shifting slightly with the first acknowledgement that the rebels might have more than just a couple of Islamists in amongst them, and have been shooting civilians in Aleppo who are trying to flee the east of the city (this has been widely reported in other regional media for months, but the BBC have been airbrushing it). If Qatar can be compensated for not getting the pipeline deal (the Rosnetf shareholding) then a big part of their objection is potentially satisfied even though they don't own the gas pipeline. It's in Putin's interest to close the deal too rather than risk any uncertainties that could derail it
Well basically Qatar wanted to run a gas pipeline to eastern europe that would go through Syria. Russia also wanted to build one that would go through Iran and Syria. The problem was that Assad wanted to back Putin's. America decided they wanted to back Qatar's
Qatar has been a lower grade and emerging problem in the region for a few years now. It was they you'll recall who led the arab support for overthrowing Gadaffi and flagged Libyan oil whilst also getting caught gun running to their preferred militas. They were also instrumental in the Egyptian spring supporting Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, before losing out to the Saudi backed el Sisi (who has in turn seemingly fallen out with Saudi since). Qatar's links to the Clinton foundation have also come under scrutiny, and don't even mention the world cup!
Anyway, this looks a little bit like a trial close deal to me. President Trump isn't believed to be as supportive of Qatar as the Obama white house has been, and certainly nothing remotely as supportive as secretary Clinton was. Trump has also indicated that he won't be supplying the 'rebels' with weapons any longer, and prolonging this war. A few weeks ago Qatar said they would do, but realistically they're going to come second to Russia in a fighting match without American support, and they know it
The tide of the war is turning in Assad's favour. Even the BBC narrative is shifting slightly with the first acknowledgement that the rebels might have more than just a couple of Islamists in amongst them, and have been shooting civilians in Aleppo who are trying to flee the east of the city (this has been widely reported in other regional media for months, but the BBC have been airbrushing it). If Qatar can be compensated for not getting the pipeline deal (the Rosnetf shareholding) then a big part of their objection is potentially satisfied even though they don't own the gas pipeline. It's in Putin's interest to close the deal too rather than risk any uncertainties that could derail it