The IS Must Be Obliterated

Islam has a long history of invading Europe. Its often talked about as unfinished business, even in the OP video you no doubt didnt watch.

Take a look at the invasions mapped out along with a timeline in the following vid starting around 12.10. It should leave no doubt about what the intentions have always been

[video=youtube;t_Qpy0mXg8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&list=FL-9ZWa3xwj5awjeFzXnJDSQ&index=3[/video]

The commis call themselves progressives these days, alive and well.

Well Baghdadi has called it one, many Muslims are flooding to it believing its one. Btw he's done a master's degree and a PhD in Islamic studies what are your qualifications?

Perhaps you could pop over there and teach?

 

The Muslim world (*)(*)(*)(*) in their bed so they can sleep in their mess. Let ISIS cut a swath of destruction and death across the Middle East. Let the world know what Islam is truly about. It is NOT a religion of peace it is a religion of violence, intolerance, social control and ignorance.

I don't mind providing arms to the Kurds or some air protection but if the Muslim world really opposes ISIS then they could easily out man and out gun them. ISIS currently only numbers around 30,000 including the new Al Queda recruits that pledged last week.

 

That's an interesting video, but I don't think it's relevant to what's going on today. What happened to the Roman Empire, British Empire, the Soviet Union, etc. is not inspiring what is going on in the Mid-East today.

What is more relevant is recent history such as Operation Ajax where the US and Britain overthrew the only democratically-elected government in the Mid-East in Iran, the Shock and Awe on the totally innocent people of Iraq, and the night raids of US storm-troopers there.

The beheading of James Foley probably has more to do with the actions of Lynndie England and others like her at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere than it has to do with the Byzantine Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England

 

Agreed. If global community thinks ISIS needs to be stopped, then let the global community start sending their own troops into the region. The US gets lambasted for using our military on foreign soil but when something like this happens, as happened in Libya, those same people look to the US and say "Do something!". While I think the US should be involved in containing, if not eliminating, ISIS, our allies and other members of the free world need to carry their end of the burden.

 

Best ISIS documentary out there !

[video=youtube_share;AUjHb4C7b94]http://youtu.be/AUjHb4C7b94[/video]

 

Amen to that!!

 

Well the timeline starts around when Islam did, with Mohammed and then those that knew him and Islam best. Its always been about conquest, they've just been too weak and hamstrung by strongman dictators for some time.

One of the most prominent Islamic scholars, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in Islamic Law and Constitution, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states. Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

They havent changed the script, the Koran is the word of Allah himself - it can not and will never change. For example:

another

and of course:

The Quran says “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) – a verse much beloved of Western non-Muslim multiculturalists, but it also says that Muslims must fight unbelievers until “religion is all for Allah” (8:39). And it insists that Muslims should “slay them” wherever they’re found (cf. 2:191; 4:89; 9:5).

The beheading of James Foley is only the event that forced the US to wake up, they've been conquering, chopping off heads, taking sex slaves, forcing oppressive taxation, threatening conversion or death and so on for some time. All grounded in Islamic texts.

 

ISIS may indeed be the big threat everyone's been anticipating, but the American people are so jaded from over ten years of right-wing/neoconservative lies that they are too jaded and cynical to care. The fault lies 100% with the War Party.

 

Ever read Exodus and Leviticus in the Holy Bible? It says some pretty brutal things, many of which are often brought up by the anti-gay mob.

 

The WARMONGERS on the Right have cried "WOLF!!" so much, that it has in many ways led to what you describe above.

Remember, war brings MONEY to the pockets of certain interests, whether justifiable or not.

 

OT and old game. Who did Jesus murder, behead, keep slaves and conquer? Any of his instructions ask his followers to do so? No didnt think so.....

 

Jesus isn't in the Old Testament, Jack.

 

Is he supposed to do all of those things in his glorious return that Christians hope with joy happens soon?

 

Nobody .. certainly not Muslims.. listens to nuts like Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni .

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody .. certainly not Muslims.. listens to nuts like Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni .

 

It's in the interest of all free nations to stop the IS and bring stability to the region. Nobody gains anything from having an unstable middle east which produces endless humanitarian disasters, and an endless breedingground for terrorism. Especially not when they could instead be on their way towards prosperity and democracy, and be good partners in both trade and arms.

 

China went though the turmoil of revolution against the imperialists, and then the Cultural Revolution, and then turned to free enterprise with its selection of Deng Xiaoping as leader, and has become a prosperous economic giant.

Screw the stability. Bring down the kings and dictators, invite the Yankee and Russkie imperialists to go home, and the Mid-East might experience a renaissance, too.

 

You know you can't say phrases like it is what it is without the is in it.

 

Agreed. Does this mean you support sending Swedish troops into the breech?

 

That whole cultural revolution thing was a bit unnecessary though, wouldn't you say?

Yes, hence why I said "all free nations". All free nations interested in peace and trade would benefit from a stable middle east with which they can trade. It should preferably be an international force. And of course, the arab league, Iran and Turkey should probably do something too. But, the USA is in a much better position to deal with this than anyone else.

 

Agreed about an "international force". That is where the US was correct in the Gulf War but wrong in the Iraq War. Because the US is the world's premier superpower, both militarily and economically, it often falls to us to lead the way, but if others don't follow, should we go anyway? I think not. Time for the European and Asian powers that benefit from the American umbrella start doing more to support it.

 

I might agree with you if I could cut through the propaganda. Fact is, I can't. I remember hearing that Saddam's troops were bayoneting infants in their hospital cribs. Next thing I knew, $4,000,000,000,000 and 7,000 GIs were down the crapper.

 

The important thing is that something gets done. I don't really care who, but I'd prefer an international force.

The US benefits from that not all people are having as large militaries as the US. The way I see it, the USA gives some protection to asia and europe so that asia and europe won't have to have as big militaries. Which is good for the US because then it'll continue to be the military superpower. It's a way to keep their influence. If the EU had to fend completely for itself, it would get a much bigger military, and the US wouldn't have as much to offer, and other countries might prefer to work with the EU instead of the USA. It would in short cost the US influence if the EU got as big. And let's remeber, the EU economy is bigger than the US, so it clearly can grow a big military, and it's also geographically closer to the ME. As for asia, Japan could easily get nukes and a much bigger military, and it's the same thing with them. Americans complain about being the world police, but it's really a priviledge because everyone looks to you, wants to cooperate with you, be protected by you, trade with you. If there were other big fish around though, the US would get weaker.

 

Agreed about the benefits to the US as to why we keep footing the bill and sending US troops in place of Euro or Japanese troops to cover their butts. However, the world is changing over from the post-WWI/Cold War era and, as Fareed Zakaria pointed out in his book "The Post-American World", the rest of the world is catching up to the US. Although the EU's economy isn't larger the the US's, it's certainly getting there.

The problem with the UN is that two-bit clown nations have the same rights and powers as much larger, more stable nations, but there is no reason those larger, more stable nations can't form their own coalition to support each other and handle problems like ISIS in the ME.

 

Well, as I told you, an EU with a big enough army would pretty much be an equal to the US both in terms of economy and military. Obviously the US will have less influence on an equal than on someone less powerful. Also, other countries around the world might prefer the EU over the US, another loss in influence.

 

completely different. The propaganda against saddam was claims on our part - the IS takes great pleasure in announcing that it is killing infidels. Just watch the videos I posted, they are all too real.