Iraq Isis Crisis: Medieval Sharia Law Imposed on Millions in Nineveh Province

[zolace]

There are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you. Once again, the interahamwe were perfectly content to both see themselves as soldiers of God and as good Christians, while simultaneously engaging in genocide. The same could be said of the Chetniks in Bosnia, or the NLFT in India, etc.

But the point still stands, these are perversions that ignore the teachings. On the Islam side, they are following the playbook. Mohammad was a General while Jesus was the complete opposite.

Once again, they would completely disagree with you. Just like you and radical Muslims ignore Islamic scholars who call groups like Boko Haram un-islamic.

But the core of Islam is in full support of ISIS, which this thread is about.You don't see the Pope or any other prominent christian leader supporting warfare or genocide in today's world. Imam's around the world are in support of what is happening right now

[sana8410]

There are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you. Once again, the interahamwe were perfectly content to both see themselves as soldiers of God and as good Christians, while simultaneously engaging in genocide. The same could be said of the Chetniks in Bosnia, or the NLFT in India, etc.

But the point still stands, these are perversions that ignore the teachings. On the Islam side, they are following the playbook. Mohammad was a General while Jesus was the complete opposite.

Once again, they would completely disagree with you. Just like you and radical Muslims ignore Islamic scholars who call groups like Boko Haram un-islamic.

But the core of Islam is in full support of ISIS, which this thread is about.You don't see the Pope or any other prominent christian leader supporting warfare or genocide in today's world. Imam's around the world are in support of what is happening right now

I would strongly disagree, hell even Al Qaeda would disagree with you on that note. The ISIS is one of those organizations that even makes other Salafi radicals cringe theologically.

[umair127]

Just heard CNN say that the US and Iran might have to work TOGETHER to protect Baghdad.

[zolace]

There are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you. Once again, the interahamwe were perfectly content to both see themselves as soldiers of God and as good Christians, while simultaneously engaging in genocide. The same could be said of the Chetniks in Bosnia, or the NLFT in India, etc.

But the point still stands, these are perversions that ignore the teachings. On the Islam side, they are following the playbook. Mohammad was a General while Jesus was the complete opposite.

Once again, they would completely disagree with you. Just like you and radical Muslims ignore Islamic scholars who call groups like Boko Haram un-islamic.

But the core of Islam is in full support of ISIS, which this thread is about.You don't see the Pope or any other prominent christian leader supporting warfare or genocide in today's world. Imam's around the world are in support of what is happening right now

I would strongly disagree, hell even Al Qaeda would disagree with you on that note. The ISIS is one of those organizations that even makes other Salafi radicals cringe theologically.

ISIS is a Wahhabist based movement, which is one of the strongest branches of Islam in that area. Saudi's, Qataris, and Emirates are large portions of these and they have DEEP pockets.

[sana8410]

There are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you. Once again, the interahamwe were perfectly content to both see themselves as soldiers of God and as good Christians, while simultaneously engaging in genocide. The same could be said of the Chetniks in Bosnia, or the NLFT in India, etc.

But the point still stands, these are perversions that ignore the teachings. On the Islam side, they are following the playbook. Mohammad was a General while Jesus was the complete opposite.

Once again, they would completely disagree with you. Just like you and radical Muslims ignore Islamic scholars who call groups like Boko Haram un-islamic.

But the core of Islam is in full support of ISIS, which this thread is about.You don't see the Pope or any other prominent christian leader supporting warfare or genocide in today's world. Imam's around the world are in support of what is happening right now

I would strongly disagree, hell even Al Qaeda would disagree with you on that note. The ISIS is one of those organizations that even makes other Salafi radicals cringe theologically.

ISIS is a Wahhabist based movement, which is one of the strongest branches of Islam in that area. Saudi's, Qataris, and Emirates are large portions of these and they have DEEP pockets.

Not really. That's a pretty shallow classification of the organization. Al Baghdadi himself isn't a very strong theological leader and has had trouble organizing a coherent theological policy. They are much more so focused on the fighting and pillage of war, as well as power grabbing. It's one reason why they broke with al-Qaeda in the first place. They've never been particularly pious which caused Osama bin Laden to regret allowing them into Al Qaeda pretty much as soon as AQI was formed.

But, a couple of other points:

1.) The vast majority of the world's Muslims are not Wahhabi, so your notion that it is a fundamental aspect of Islam is a bit off.

2.) Being able to secure money from Wahhabis or gulf actors doesn't make their organization Wahhabi. that just means that gulf actors are interested in utilizing them to check political rivals in the region, which isn't a heavenly concern, it's an earthly political one.

[Rigon]

There are big differences between that Christianity and Islam. they are able for compensations but at a much smaller scale than it actually happens. and from the religious point of view Christianity is weaker than Islam, much weaker, proof being their status today.

Agreed. Christians need to stop turning the other cheek, start beheading people in the name of their God, and seek solace in living in dirt floored hovels in between their calls to prayer to honor their God. Better yet, they should all just be killed in the name of hollow snackbar.

Personally speaking, I'd favor Western countries taking the gloves off when it came to dealing with Muslims.
For instance. Why not target Afghans suspected of collaborating with Taliban insurgents for reprisals? You could flatten the villages which provide aid to the insurgents, then execute the male population in a mass shooting. It would probably drive a more effective point home since they only respect extreme violence and force.

[noviapriani]

Didn't work out too well for us in Vietnam, nor did it work out for the French in Algeria and Chad; are you really naive enough to think that it would work out that way in Afghanistan if we just tried it one more time?

[Rigon]

It doesn't work for us because we capture and move without leaving a stabilizing force behind.

[Ekaros]

There are big differences between that Christianity and Islam. they are able for compensations but at a much smaller scale than it actually happens. and from the religious point of view Christianity is weaker than Islam, much weaker, proof being their status today.

Agreed. Christians need to stop turning the other cheek, start beheading people in the name of their God, and seek solace in living in dirt floored hovels in between their calls to prayer to honor their God. Better yet, they should all just be killed in the name of hollow snackbar.

Personally speaking, I'd favor Western countries taking the gloves off when it came to dealing with Muslims.
For instance. Why not target Afghans suspected of collaborating with Taliban insurgents for reprisals? You could flatten the villages which provide aid to the insurgents, then execute the male population in a mass shooting. It would probably drive a more effective point home since they only respect extreme violence and force.

You don't think that wouldn't leave to more attacks against enemy combatants like 9/11? Keeping on giving reasons for revenge is a good idea?

[umair127]

Didn't work out too well for us in Vietnam, nor did it work out for the French in Algeria and Chad; are you really naive enough to think that it would work out that way in Afghanistan if we just tried it one more time?

The French were fine with doing brutality on a small scale. It's just that when they had to execute it on a wider scale, they backed down rather than keep up with a campaign of violence. The US didn't really use reprisal tactics in Vietnam.
I was thinking more like Russia in Chechnya, the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, or Genghis Khan in Afghanistan.
All very successful reprisal and violence-based strategies.

[Rigon]

There are big differences between that Christianity and Islam. they are able for compensations but at a much smaller scale than it actually happens. and from the religious point of view Christianity is weaker than Islam, much weaker, proof being their status today.

Agreed. Christians need to stop turning the other cheek, start beheading people in the name of their God, and seek solace in living in dirt floored hovels in between their calls to prayer to honor their God. Better yet, they should all just be killed in the name of hollow snackbar.

Personally speaking, I'd favor Western countries taking the gloves off when it came to dealing with Muslims.
For instance. Why not target Afghans suspected of collaborating with Taliban insurgents for reprisals? You could flatten the villages which provide aid to the insurgents, then execute the male population in a mass shooting. It would probably drive a more effective point home since they only respect extreme violence and force.

You don't think that wouldn't leave to more attacks against enemy combatants like 9/11? Keeping on giving reasons for revenge is a good idea?

They already have a lot of hate and revenge wishes on us,even if we give them more reasons or not........

[sana8410]

Didn't work out too well for us in Vietnam, nor did it work out for the French in Algeria and Chad; are you really naive enough to think that it would work out that way in Afghanistan if we just tried it one more time?

The French were fine with doing brutality on a small scale. It's just that when they had to execute it on a wider scale, they backed down rather than keep up with a campaign of violence. The US didn't really use reprisal tactics in Vietnam.
I was thinking more like Russia in Chechnya, the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, or Genghis Khan in Afghanistan.
All very successful reprisal and violence-based strategies.

This rather ignores history. The brutality completely backfired on them and mobilized large resistance forces against them that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with. there is a reason why the military tends to think such ideas such as yours are terrible ones.

I was thinking more like Russia in Chechnya, the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, or Genghis Khan in Afghanistan.

Oh, so Chechnya and Dagestan are pillars of stability now yeah? if that is your ideal outcome, then your goals are pretty low.

[zolace]

With the unquenchable thirst for blood that "modern" Muslims have, you can't really compare them to any modern opponent to the civilized world.

[bryant.coleman]

Oh, so Chechnya and Dagestan are pillars of stability now yeah? if that is your ideal outcome, then your goals are pretty low.

Chechnya and Daghestan are actually very peaceful now. And the insurgency has been crushed.

This was Groznyy in 2000:



And this is Groznyy now:

[umair127]

Didn't work out too well for us in Vietnam, nor did it work out for the French in Algeria and Chad; are you really naive enough to think that it would work out that way in Afghanistan if we just tried it one more time?

The French were fine with doing brutality on a small scale. It's just that when they had to execute it on a wider scale, they backed down rather than keep up with a campaign of violence. The US didn't really use reprisal tactics in Vietnam.
I was thinking more like Russia in Chechnya, the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, or Genghis Khan in Afghanistan.
All very successful reprisal and violence-based strategies.

This rather ignores history. The brutality completely backfired on them and mobilized large resistance forces against them that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with. there is a reason why the military tends to think such ideas such as yours are terrible ones.

I was thinking more like Russia in Chechnya, the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, or Genghis Khan in Afghanistan.

Oh, so Chechnya and Dagestan are pillars of stability now yeah? if that is your ideal outcome, then your goals are pretty low.

Actually, brutality-based, enemy-centric counter-insurgency is pretty much the most effective way of dealing with resistance forces. Indeed, the Russian state has been far more successful in counterinsurgency campaigns than most of the West. Aside from Afghanistan and the First Chechen War, there hasn't been a single example of an insurgent campaign successfully defeating the Soviet or Russian military.

(See here: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/zhu...r_PREPRINT.pdf)

Even looking at Western history, the successful counterinsurgency campaigns of the 20th century tended to be nasty and brutal. The British used mustard gas on Iraqi tribesmen. They also relocated Malay peasants to prison villages. They used carpet bombing on Somali towns. Hardly a hearts and minds strategy, is it?

The real reason Western military leaders have low regard for reprisal tactics and collective punishment has absolutely nothing to do with its effectiveness. It's simply not politically possible for Western democracies to use massive firepower on civilian targets (like Grozny) or use directed violence against the population. Any reasonable interpretation of history can point to brutal reprisal campaigns like Germany's destruction of Lidice or massive collective punishment like Stalin's deportation of the Chechens to be the ultimate in counter-insurgency, it's just not something Americans are willing to stomach.

As for Chechnya and Dagestan. The Russian state has effective control of the region. That is far more than can be said about Afghanistan.

[noviapriani]

ISIS has captured U.S. made Humvees, Iraqi tanks, missiles, rifles, helicopters, airplanes, and 400 million dollars.

[bryant.coleman]

Ethnic cleansing occurring in ISIS controlled territory in Northern Iraq. Christians are being butchered in hundreds.

Iraqi Christians flee homes amid militant push

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2659021/Iraqi-Christians-flee-homes-amid-militant-push.html

[umair127]

Yes. Which is exactly the problem caused by this "hearts and minds" nonsense.
Toss out Maliki, put in a Kurdish strongman who aligns his country with the US, and encourage him to start butchering Sunni Arabs who resist. Saddam could have EASILY put this nonsense down with a bit of well placed brutality. I mean, look at the Anfal campaign to see how to properly do counter-insurgency in the Muslim world. People like ISIS don't understand anything except brute force, which is exactly why they need iron fisted dictators like Bashar Assad or Saddam Hussein to keep them in line.

[bryant.coleman]

Here is the status as of now. See how close they are to Baghdad. Only 20 or 30 km away from the capital. 

[sana8410]

Yes. Which is exactly the problem caused by this "hearts and minds" nonsense.
Toss out Maliki, put in a Kurdish strongman who aligns his country with the US, and encourage him to start butchering Sunni Arabs who resist. Saddam could have EASILY put this nonsense down with a bit of well placed brutality. I mean, look at the Anfal campaign to see how to properly do counter-insurgency in the Muslim world. People like ISIS don't understand anything except brute force, which is exactly why they need iron fisted dictators like Bashar Assad or Saddam Hussein to keep them in line.

I agree. Nobody wants to f.... with the Kurds, and they will fuck with anyone. It may be hard to accomplish anything with them because we fucked them under George Bush 1's incursion into Iraq, and instead of getting help from the US, they got gassed by Saddam.