ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

manoz said:
Well they benefit from this nonsense in the middle east so why not? Actually the blame is on Israel and the people who run it ie the Rothschild banking Cartel. Jews there are caught up in the fascist state, mostly brainwashed to hate the Palestinians but true Jews hate Israel even from within.
Click to expand...

No, it's just typical hand washing. There is absolutely no way it could be a perfect Islamic nation messing things up, it has to be the evil Isrealis! Let's completely ignore the complex geopolitical nature of the area and make it nice and simple instead.

You like that video because it fits your bias not because it says anything close to reality.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Till so chap decides its time to shout Allah Akbar! The Pavlov effect means he will fire his AK around the same time, and that'll be the end of that.
I'd say right after prayers finish.
In fact, its probably over already.
Click to expand...

They can't hit the broad side of a barn, amazed they've still got any rounds left in those countries.
 
ThestigGT999 said:
Click to expand...

Without watching the video, I can suggest one reason that "Nato bombs good, Russian ones barbaric".

IIRC Russia is largely using unguided bombs and wide area artillery.

So when Russia wants to hit a target it throws a whole barrage of cheap shells or a plane load of cheap bombs at it hitting everything around the target.

NATO on the other hand tend to be far more aware of how much public opinion hates civilian casualties and will try and hit just the target, often using a single very expensive missile or guided munition as opposed to WW2 era tech munitions.

Which if you actually care about the civilians in the area, and a lot of the time it is happening in areas with them, NATO's choice of weapon is likely to be far better in terms of avoiding civilian casualties.
It doesn't stop them, but it means that you're unlikely to get large numbers of civilian casualties whilst the targets walk away.
 
Werewolf said:
Without watching the video, I can suggest one reason that "Nato bombs good, Russian ones barbaric".

IIRC Russia is largely using unguided bombs and wide area artillery.

So when Russia wants to hit a target it throws a whole barrage of cheap shells or a plane load of cheap bombs at it hitting everything around the target.

NATO on the other hand tend to be far more aware of how much public opinion hates civilian casualties and will try and hit just the target, often using a single very expensive missile or guided munition as opposed to WW2 era tech munitions.

Which if you actually care about the civilians in the area, and a lot of the time it is happening in areas with them, NATO's choice of weapon is likely to be far better in terms of avoiding civilian casualties.
It doesn't stop them, but it means that you're unlikely to get large numbers of civilian casualties whilst the targets walk away.
Click to expand...

Drives civilians away, forces them out of areas, more refugees puts Europe under more strain.
Destabilises the West, cheers up Putin.
 
scorza said:
Problem is Russia classes anyone who isn't on their side as an Islamic State terrorist - women, children, babies included.
Click to expand...

Yawn, yawn.

You really don't have a clue about the situation over there do you. I keep asking you to name me these moderate groups, but you never do and just ignore the fact you are clueless.

The other day Division 13 a group who is " moderate" attacking the YPG with a tow missile. The YPG have done more against the Islamic state than anyone else.

I have place other example earlier in the thread as well.

According to your logic so do we and so do America etc. in respect to children and babies.

I have zero problem with Russia bombing quite a few of the radical women over there. As they are simply as bad as the men.
 
What is a moderate Muslim?

“I see it as a criticism,” one woman in Luton told me. “You are giving me this label based on how I look and how I dress.” Her male friend said he found the word “offensive”, adding: “Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.”
Click to expand...

But if by being moderate we mean believing in freedom of expression and an acceptance of equality in gender and sexuality, it is by no means certain that the majority of Muslims are moderate, as the word is commonly used. One young student in Leicester told me that unlike many of his fellow Muslims he would shake a woman’s hand. He still believed in gender segregation at public events but his stance on handshaking meant he defined himself as a moderate.
Click to expand...

When they say moderate in terms of terrorists attacking in Syria, I bet they do not shake women's hands...
 
Last edited:
Hikari Kisugi said:
Drives civilians away, forces them out of areas, more refugees puts Europe under more strain.
Destabilises the West, cheers up Putin.
Click to expand...

The thing that i always find amusing about the civilian situation is that pre war there were around 22 million people in Syria pre war. There have been around 6 million people who have left the country so that gives a population of around 16 million.

There are large numbers who have been displaced inside Syria around 8 million I think if I can remember correctly. The vast majority have moved within or moved to government controlled areas. Then taking account the government already protected the largest proportion of the population anyway around 60-70%. There are relatively few civilians in these area that are areas that are getting bombed anyway.

Take the humanitarian air drop in Deir ez-Zor which was attempted the other day. Aid agencies were quoting over 200,000 people trapped there, but that was the pre war population so are they saying not a single person has fled?

Same same as other areas i have seen Aleppo being quoted as pre war civilian numbers, are they also saying zero people have fled? A lot of these agencies are Quoting pre war figures of civilians in an attempt to "shock" when in effect most have long since gone.
 
Last edited:
The distinction is not between those who are moderate and those who are dangerous extremists. It is between those who continue to insist that Islam can somehow be disentangled from culture, geography and history – on issues such as female dress, gender mixing and homosexuality for example – and those who recognise that Islam has always adapted and incorporated the specific culture of the country where it is practised. These are not lesser Muslims so rather than using “moderate”, let us call those who follow an Islam that is open-minded, liberal and tolerant what they actually are: British Muslims.
Click to expand...

Which is what I always said, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western values. Sucks but it's true and to try and pretend otherwise, is to pretend that shariah doesn't exist in the uk etc.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
They'll all break it.
Click to expand...

As most ceasefires all over the place.

scorza said:
Problem is Russia classes anyone who isn't on their side as an Islamic State terrorist - women, children, babies included.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's difficult to work out who is who, even for the west. Just about the only ones we know aren't are the Government and the Kurds.

The Running Man said:
Which is what I always said, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western values. Sucks but it's true and to try and pretend otherwise, is to pretend that shariah doesn't exist in the uk etc.
Click to expand...

Arbitrary quotes are arbitrary...
 
Amp34 said:
As most ceasefires all over the place.
Click to expand...

Eventually you usually get a ceasefire that holds though - unfortunately I don't think any sides are quite ready for peace yet.

Amp34 said:
Unfortunately it's difficult to work out who is who, even for the west. Just about the only ones we know aren't are the Government and the Kurds
Click to expand...

Well the UK seems to have no trouble, with zero civilian casualties so far against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Russia's policy is just to bomb anyone who "looks like a terrorist", which would be literally anyone in that awful war.
 
Agreed, this will be the first of many 'ceasefires', but hopefully it's a step in the right direction.

I was more suggesting the problem is the definition of terrorist, it all depends on which side you stand and how much you know about them. We already know Camerons claim of "70,000" moderates is false, so how many actually are there and have we been helping those that aren't actually secular rebels/
 
It seems Turkey are up to their old tricks by providing artillery support for ISIS in Tel Abyad against the YPG and allowing ISIS to pass through to attack from behind as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom