The war on ISIS.

  • Thread starter mister dog
  • 3,128 comments
  • 131,326 views
There are reports that the Kurds, can see an influx of weapons coming in from the West to battle IS, after the current situation in Paris.
 
Err ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34814203

ISIS?


I have been working around in an idea of how would a 3rd world war be, the war on ISIS has probably become one. Where states still exist and they want to stay intact, from a subversive force that might taking them from power, the only difference is that one these systems have to unite in order to destroy this thing, extremism.

Just like everyone fought the Nazis, these are worse, they torture, slave and then kill. Islamic sectarian extremism absolutism needs to be destroyed.


And I hate to be that guy, but I'm pretty sure the Russians themselves warned us from this thing back when they were fighting Chechens Islamist and saw all that horror.
 

Likely, but there's a dedicated thread for these particular attacks.

I have been working around in an idea of how would a 3rd world war be, the war on ISIS has probably become one. Where states still exist and they want to stay intact, from a subversive force that might taking them from power, the only difference is that one these systems have to unite in order to destroy this thing, extremism.

Just like everyone fought the Nazis...

To picture a "third world war" it probably makes some sense to understand the first two. If you thought everybody was fighting the Nazis then you'd be wrong. Some weren't engaged against them, some were on their side. What you do have as a parallel is the arming of the Nazis by Britain and America beforehand when the law said they shouldn't do it :)

Just like everyone fought the Nazis, these are worse, they torture, slave and then kill.

That's the Nazis you're talking about though.


Islamic sectarian extremism absolutism needs to be destroyed.

Yup, but that sentence works just as well without the word "Islamic".


And I hate to be that guy, but I'm pretty sure the Russians themselves warned us from this thing back when they were fighting Chechens Islamist and saw all that horror.

Source required, and aren't they terrible at taking their own advice?
 
I really wish the USA and Russia would put their conflicts aside and join forces in the fight against ISIS and terrorism in general. If America, Europe and Russia would all work together as one unit, we would have a real chance getting rid of ISIS.
Politics and religions, always in the way of peace...
 
I really wish the USA and Russia would put their conflicts aside and join forces in the fight against ISIS and terrorism in general. If America, Europe and Russia would all work together as one unit, we would have a real chance getting rid of ISIS.
Politics and religions, always in the way of peace...
Not going to happen. U.S. is more interested in ousting Assad then it is in fighting ISIS.

Oh , I'm still searching for ethnic cleansing claims in de provided documents. It must be somewhere...
 
Likely, but there's a dedicated thread for these particular attacks.
I know, however this is a war, and is worth considering the significant events that happens on it. Specially such an event in which multilateral countries will find a common reason to engage with a common enemy.
To picture a "third world war" it probably makes some sense to understand the first two. If you thought everybody was fighting the Nazis then you'd be wrong. Some weren't engaged against them, some were on their side. What you do have as a parallel is the arming of the Nazis by Britain and America beforehand when the law said they shouldn't do it :)
The problem of considering a new world war is that the whole world is connected to it, is very shallow to consider that "All the world joint against Nazism", which is not what I'm saying. WWII is characterized by the nations that were involved on it, and the repercussions that it had on a global scale (the creation of the cold war, as well as the complete independence of the former European colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, which coincidentally are the places where we see the Islamist Extremism phenomena occurring in a most pronounced way such as Boko Haram, ISIL, ISIS and BIFF in southeast Asia).

-WWI saw the rise of nationalism and the decay of the former Empires systems (British, Russian and Ottoman).
-WWII saw the rise of racial extremism and the decay of national colonialism (British mandate of Palestine,
French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, among others).
-WWIII is seeing the rise of cultural pluralism and the decay of theological fundamentalist organizations (Salafi movement, Westboro Baptist Church, among others).

Non religious views on society gives an insight in which religious organizations are nothing more but socio-political institutions, and as such they are a prototype of a state on themselves, hence why ISIS is pushing for a so called "Caliphate".

What people fail to realize (and this happened during Crusades too) are the differences between church and state, and how a political interest can be achieved through the use of religion. Islam is a religion of peace, just like Christianism, however just like the Westboro Baptist Church the ideology that funds a religion can be twisted for a political gain , the problem of reducing ideologies to achieve a political goal will result in the dehumanization of others to not be seen as equals (racially, intellectually or morally), hence the worst human atrocities occur during ideological clashes (during Crusades the Islam was besieged endlessly, as such a small portion of the Islamic population has fundamental to execute the same practices used by crusading states, differences are that they are supported by a half a century conflict in the region).

World War II is well remembered as the first time in which mankind united against a common enemy, it was united against not Germany as a nation, but it was against the ethnic supremacy that the Nazis created and by which it used to decimate a particular ethnic population, the UN was created at that time because it was perceived that a global superpower cannot be based on principles that go against the basic human rights (even though the USSR might have done the same, it wasn't as known due to the secrecy that a totalitarian state impulsed. Part of the reasons why the cold war existed, is because of the unknown activities against each party).

This global conflict is just as worse as world war II, because of the dehumanization that occurred on these states.
That's the Nazis you're talking about though.
Point taken, they are just as bad and the US is doing nothing about it. Until another "Pearl Harbor" happens, 9/11 did happened however and yet is not enough to form a joint effort to get rid of this problem.

Yup, but that sentence works just as well without the word "Islamic".
It does, however Islam hasn't gone through a similar process as the Christians did with the Crusades, and humanistic values are not as widespread in that religion, taking ISIS or ISIL out of existence might make other islamic nations self aware of the potential threats that de-humanizing a population implies, and how many of the Alla teachings must be taken less literal and more as a figure of speech to create a society of equals.

Source required, and aren't they terrible at taking their own advice?

- Beslan school siege
- Moscow theater hostage crisis
- 2004 Russian aircraft bombings
- 2003 Stavropol train bombing
- February 2004 Moscow Metro bombing

Around 600 to 800 civilian population killed in a 2 year period.


The perpetrators of these attacks are the same veteran fighters and mercenaries who train and combat with IS troops nowadays.
 
This was Hillary two days ago at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on a formal declaration of War against ISIS:

Reuters
"If you have a declaration of war, you'd better have a budget that backs it up."

Sadly, the saying that a blind squirrel can find a nut every once and a while applies here.
 
Let's hope that the rest of the politicians keep their word and back up France.

One would hope. But I unfortunately doubt that any nation save Russia is quite as serious as France is at this point. I fear that it will take an equal or greater attack on my home soil for my country's government to stand up and fight with more than a spear tip.
 
I wonder about this "no-fly zone" idea now is even an option in some of the candidates mind now.

A coalition of masses (unlike Iraq which wasn't exactly a huge force from separate nations) from western nations would hopefully end all this...
 
I wouldn't be surprised if France and Russia would work together. France was building them a boat, but after pressure from the US, UK and probably NATO, they didn't go through with it. After these attacks, plane bomb and Paris shooting, maybe....
 
NATO treaty may force Obama to strike ISIS hard.

Article 5: NATO treaty
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.”

However he has an "out":

NATO website
Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
 
Well this might be an issue
“The most difficult communication between these terrorists is via PlayStation 4,” the minister said, three days before the terrorist attacks in Paris. “It’s very, very difficult for our services — not only Belgian services but international services — to decrypt the communication that is done via PlayStation 4.”

They say that ISIS communicated through PS4 before the attacks. So maybe that's why my PS4 is delayed.
 
Let's hope that the rest of the politicians keep their word and back up France.

And

@Rage Racer

Is it true that Russia is getting ready to deploy 150000 soldiers to Syria?
Well I haven't heard anything like this. And I can't say it sounds believable. 150,000 is a huge number. Putin promised that there'll be no ground operation, then suddenly a massive number that wasn't even in Afghanistan? Nope, I don't think so.

There may be reinforcement of the airforce group in Latakia or increased aid to the Syrian Arab Army though, uh, couldn't those 150,000 soldiers you heard about be Syrian soldiers?
 
Is it true that Russia is getting ready to deploy 150000 soldiers to Syria?
I have heard that the US and Russia agreed in Vienna to crush ISIS between a hammer and an anvil. A Russian hammer in Syria and a US anvil in Iraq. Although maximum effort must be made for indigenous troops to carry the load, surely greater numbers of Russians and Americans on the ground will be needed. 150,000 sounds way too high.
 
Last edited:
Well I haven't heard anything like this. And I can't say it sounds believable. 150,000 is a huge number. Putin promised that there'll be no ground operation, then suddenly a massive number that wasn't even in Afghanistan? Nope, I don't think so.

There may be reinforcement of the airforce group in Latakia or increased aid to the Syrian Arab Army though, uh, couldn't those 150,000 soldiers you heard about be Syrian soldiers?

The FSA and SA personnel together just passes that number so I assume that isn't possible.
 
DK
The Atlantic asks: what do Daesh want? Be prepared for a lengthy read.


Going to quote this from the sister thread here, since the same article was posted there.
"We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world."
Not going to disagree with the fact that they reject peace and hunger for genocide. It is obviously true and scary. Religious views make it incapable of certain types of change? Maybe in the evil minds of ISIS yes, but NOT in Islam itself.

"The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam."
What? That the Prophet Muhammad and his Earliest follows sought out to suicide bomb everyone, destroy everything in their path, rape women and get AIDS, behead people etc etc? Strange... this is the same Muhammad that signed a treaty IN Madinah that swore that he would protect the lives, property, wealth and religious freedoms, among others with the Jews, Christians, and Zorastrians? This is the same Muhammad who shed a tear when the funeral of a Jewish man passed? The same Muhammad who gave visiting Christian preists access to his mosque so they could pray? The same Muhammad who helped an old lady on her journey although she cursed him the whole way without knowing that it was Muhammad who she was talking to Muhammad about? The same Muhammad who let his cousin jump on his back whilst he was in prayer? The same Muhammad who said that if war did occur then there were very specific rules that should never be broken, of which some were never to harm crops, destroy a religious building, fight beyond a permitted battlefield and without an official warning of at least four lunar months. The Muhammad who was known for his qualities that any bickering between the tribes was sorted by him on the tribes request? That Muhammad? That's the one they are following with the traditions of Islam? Really? The hell they are.

"The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."
I call BS of the highest level. IS are as far from Islam as you can get. They are devils in human form, they are the lowest of the low and they are a disgrace to humanity. Every one of you here could be considered more Muslim than they are in many ways.


They know just as little about Islam as ISIS do, and for the second who seems to have got his knowledge FROM ISIS, well that is just the worst place to get knowledge from.

I'm sorry but on one side you have the ISIS devils destroying Islam and humanity, and on the other side you have people like these who are just spewing out whatever junk that comes out of their mouths. In the middle you have us, who try to make heads or tails of all of this and if we don't have the knowledge, what are we to believe.




What ISIS want is far from 7th Century Islam. What they want is 21st Century Hell. And we cannot and will not let them have it.
 

Latest Posts

Back