ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Raz said:
In response ISIS has invoked verse 9.5 from the Quran leading to many Muslims to point to verse 2.256.

;)
Click to expand...

that's the good thing about religion - people can pick and chose

want to hate gays... pick the bits from the bible that support it... want to justify slavery... do likewise... chose to ignore the bits about not eating pork though as Christians don't bother with adhering to that any more... don't worry about any contradictions... some 'scholar' will tell you what to believe as he has a deep understanding etc..

muslims can claims Islam is the religion of peace because all the nasty bits of the quran should be interpreted the way they've chosen to do so (or basically ignored)... likewise fundamentalists will justify their actions with all the nasty bits and ignore the interpretations followed by moderates

religion is pretty silly
 
Mynight said:
Depends if the prevention was actually GCHQs involvement in spying or luck and police passed the details onto them.

Heck if it stops these people keep throwing money at them but I dont think they'll stop the next one :(. They've been banging on about internet spying too much recently for any aspiring pleb to risk using encrypted communication.
Click to expand...

Fortunately GCHQ deal in much more than just Internet surveillance.


dowie said:
well jihadi john was still more of a PR exercise - he wasn't fighting over there, they didn't want to put him at risk - he was just rolled out for the throat slitting videos
Click to expand...

That isn't correct. Sure, the slitty throats bit is, the rest is not.
 
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Click to expand...

That will be interesting for Cameron and his Pro Euro and Euro Sceptic MP's

Might be awkward for Corbyn. :D
 
RoboCod said:
That isn't correct. Sure, the slitty throats bit is, the rest is not.
Click to expand...

Nah it is correct AFAIK- why do you think it isn't? do you have evidence of jihadi john getting involved in serious combat after becoming famous or something? He was a PR tool and was kept out of danger as much as possible.
 
OldCoals said:
For along as non Mulsims bomb and kill Muslims they will have an enemy and a constant stream of people to replace their martyrs.
Click to expand...

they will anyway - they're trying to build an Islamist super state and are killing fellow muslims, they don't need any excuses to kill westerners too
 
dowie said:
Nah it is correct AFAIK- why do you think it isn't? do you have evidence of jihadi john getting involved in serious combat after becoming famous or something? He was a PR tool and was kept out of danger as much as possible.
Click to expand...

He wasn't a front line combatant. He was actively recruiting and plotting for further attacks on the UK though. As such he is still classed as "fighting". The fact he still posed a threat is exactly the reason why the UK could legally carry out a military strike against him. If he was just the PR man and not fighting (however you wish to class that statement) then the UK would not have struck him.

He certainly wasn't kept out of danger - his demise is proof of that.
 
no his demise isn't proof of that - he was kept out of danger as much as possible by ISIS... the fact he was killed by a drone strike doesn't contradict that

and he wasn't fighting... what I posted previously was correct and you've not posted anything to contradict it, yes he was a threat - he was slitting the throats of hostages... he was executing people - the fact he was from the UK was part of the reason he was chosen for that executioner role, it was a PR exercise to have him do it
 
nah, it was correct... you seem to have quoted me and told me I'm incorrect about jihadi john not being involved in fighting because somehow he was involved in recruitment... that is a rather convoluted argument... by fighting I was referring to... well... actual fighting

here is the quote again:

dowie said:
well jihadi john was still more of a PR exercise - he wasn't fighting over there, they didn't want to put him at risk - he was just rolled out for the throat slitting videos
Click to expand...

you can point out which bit is incorrect by citing an example if you like - 'he wasn't fighting over there, they didn't want to put him at risk' - what do you think that statement means?
 
Last edited:
It's a question of perspective, while my use of JJ was to demonstrate the difference between some western ISIS recruits being as Dowie suggested soft and others being like JJ-probably sociopaths. I agree with Dowie on the point that JJ was not a regular fighter in the front line grunt sense, more a poster boy for recruitment and such. He could also be termed as a 'fighter' being that he was an armed killer, it matters not, lets not argue over such things.
 
Jono said:
Probably thousands.
Click to expand...

Well I hope not.

Surely they could run a search for passport numbers to find how many people are producing the same documents.

I cant imagine why such passports aren't flagged anyway. The system should surely throw an error when trying to input the same details...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom