What's new

IS Mega Discussion Thread

The ISIS being funded by the US theory has been debunked, Mehdi Hasan on Twitter retweeted an article about this - it was started in Egypt and turned out to be a fabrication. However there's no doubt American arms that were meant for the Free Syrian Army have fallen into the hands of ISIS who have completely outfought the so-called 'moderate rebels'. So its been an unintentional outcome.

But the Foley video was apparently 'staged' - experts aren't definitive on it but they're saying he was indeed murdered but the killing was done off-camera. The British guy was a frontman rather than the killer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/w...rported-american-plot.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The sudden rise of the militant group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has prompted a serious effort to make sense of the group’s appeal in the Arab world, the Syrian columnist Hassan Hassan wrote last week.

“Since ISIS took over large swaths of Iraq, in particular, Arabic media outlets of all types have produced reports about the nature of the group and the source of its ideology,” Mr. Hassan wrote in The Guardian. “There is a collective soul-searching in the region, coming from everyone from ordinary people to clerics and intellectuals.”

For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed wrote on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give birth to the militant movement, including “despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued the region,” as well as “the American invasion of Iraq in 2003,” and “a profound crisis, deeply rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh century.”

That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.

According to the theory, which appears to have started in Egypt and spread rapidly across the region, ISIS was created by the United States as part of a plot orchestrated by the former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton to replace the region’s autocratic rulers with more pliant Islamist allies. The evidence cited to back up this claim sounds unimpeachable: passages from Mrs. Clinton’s new memoir in which she describes how a plan to bolster the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was foiled at the last moment when the Egyptian military seized power on July 5, 2013, and deployed submarines and fighter jets to block an American invasion.

If that plot sounds like the stuff of fiction, that’s because it is. The passages described by supporters of the Egyptian military on Facebook as quotes from Mrs. Clinton’s memoir were entirely fabricated and do not appear anywhere in the text of her book, “Hard Choices.”

The fictional plot was reported as fact by Egyptian, Tunisian, Palestinian, Jordanian and Lebanese news organizations.

As the Egyptian blogger who writes as Zeinobia explained, Egypt’s new culture minister, Gaber Asfour, cited a version of the theory in televised remarks in which he said that he had learned from Mrs. Clinton’s book “that the Americans decided to support and create ISIS” to undermine the military-backed government that deposed the elected Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, last summer.

Although some writers, like the Jordanian journalist Lina Ejeilat and the Egyptian scholar Manar el-Shorbagy, tried to debunk the conspiracy theory after actually reading Mrs. Clinton’s memoir, the rumor that it contained an admission of American support for ISIS spread so far that Lebanon’s foreign minister, Gebran Bassil, boasted on Twitter that he had demanded an explanation from David Hale, the American ambassador in Beirut.

Hours after the foreign minister’s tweet, the United States Embassy in Lebanon posted a statement on Facebook denying that there was any substance to the rumors.


Though Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on the fake quotes attributed to her, one section of her memoir does describe her efforts during a visit to Egypt in 2012 to debunk a similar conspiracy theory: Shortly after the election of Mr. Morsi, opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated loudly outside Mrs. Clinton’s hotel, holding signs that accused her of a secret pact with the Brotherhood.

The former secretary of state explains that she tried to reassure members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian community, during discussions at the United States Embassy in Cairo. “In our meeting, one of the more agitated participants brought up an especially outrageous canard,” Mrs. Clinton writes. “He accused my trusted aide Huma Abedin, who is Muslim, of being a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

As Mrs. Clinton explains, this conspiracy theory “had been circulated by some unusually irresponsible and demagogic right-wing political and media personalities in the United States, including members of Congress,” and had spread to Egypt via the Internet ahead of her visit.

“I wasn’t going to let that stand and told him in no uncertain terms how wrong he was,” Mrs. Clinton recalls in her book. “After a few minutes of conversation the embarrassed accuser apologized and asked why a member of the U.S. Congress would make such an assertion if it wasn’t true. I laughed and said that unfortunately plenty of falsehoods are circulated in Congress."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali.../Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html

The video of James Foley’s execution may have been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, it has emerged.

Forensic analysis of the footage of the journalist’s death has suggested that the British jihadist in the film may have been the frontman rather than the killer.

The clip, which apparently depicts Mr Foley’s brutal beheading, has been widely seen as a propaganda coup for Islamic State miltant group.

But a study of the four-minute 40-second clip, carried out by an international forensic science company which has worked for police forces across Britain, suggested camera trickery and slick post-production techniques appear to have been used.

A forensic analyst told The Times that no blood can be seen, even though the knife is drawn across the neck area at least six times.

“After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” the analysis said. Sounds allegedly made by Foley do not appear consistent with what may be expected.

During Foley’s speech, there appears to be a blip which could indicate the journalist had to repeat a line.

One expert commissioned to examine the footage was reported as saying: “I think it has been staged. My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.”


However the company, which requested anonymity, did not reach a definitive answer. It concluded: “No one is disputing that at some point an execution occurred.”
 
The irony of your position Jadz is you always seem to argue that Muslims shouldn't seek scholarship yet you play the scholar on this forum...you tell people scholars are wrong and then provide your own interpretations...just because your views are lighter doesn't mean you yourself are not trying to impose or indoctrinate people with your own views...

There is a difference between sharing of opinion on a forum (that's what a post is, isn't it?) and imposing it on people
 
There is a difference between sharing of opinion on a forum (that's what a post is, isn't it?) and imposing it on people

She says scholars are wrong and her opinion is correct...she speaks about scholars indoctrinating people yet she expects people to follow her fish...

She is no different from the scholars she criticizes...
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-syria-crisis-usa-risks-idUSKBN0GS0AA20140828

U.S. air strikes on Syria would face formidable obstacles

(Reuters) - American forces face formidable challenges as President Barack Obama considers an air assault on Islamist fighters in Syria, including intelligence gaps on potential targets, concerns about Syria’s air defenses and fears that the militants may have anti-aircraft weapons, current and former U.S. officials say.

The Pentagon began preparing options for an assault on Islamic State fighters after the militants last week posted a gruesome video showing the beheading of American photojournalist James Foley. Deliberations by Obama’s national security team on expanding the campaign against Islamic State from Iraq into neighboring Syria gathered pace in recent days, officials say.

While it is unclear how soon strikes might be launched, Obama’s go-ahead for aerial reconnaissance over Syria has raised expectations he will approve the attacks rather than back off as he did last year after threatening to strike Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Any air offensive would likely focus on Islamic State’s leadership and positions around the city of Raqqa in their stronghold of eastern Syria, and border areas that have served as staging grounds for Islamist forces that have swept into Iraq and taken over a third of the country.

But every option carries significant risk.

"There are all kinds of downsides and risks that suggest air strikes in Syria are probably not a great idea," said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "But that doesn’t mean they won’t happen anyway."

Efforts to hit the right targets in Syria will be more difficult than in Iraq, hindered by a shortage of reliable on-the-ground intelligence, in contrast to northern Iraq where Iraqi and Kurdish forces provided intelligence.

U.S.-backed moderate rebels who could provide intelligence in Syria have yet to coalesce into a potent fighting force. It is unclear, for instance, if they can provide forward spotters needed to help guide any air strikes in territory held by Islamic State.

RUSSIAN-BUILT AIR DEFENSES

Syria’s Russian-built air defense system is another concern. It remains largely intact more than three years into the country’s civil war.

Assad may opt not to use it, mindful that he could benefit from a U.S. assault on Islamic State. He has struggled to fend off advances by the radical offshoot of al Qaeda, which has taken three Syrian military bases in northeast Syria in recent weeks, boosted by arms seized in Iraq.

He could also face U.S. retaliation for any Syrian government interference in a U.S. air campaign.

Of greater concern to Western military planners is anti-aircraft weaponry Islamic State fighters might have acquired.

"Flying aircraft over Syria is very different than in Iraq," said Eric Thompson, senior strategic studies analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, which advises the U.S. military as part of the CNA Corp think tank in Virginia. "There are more sophisticated air defenses, some in the hands of ISIS,” he added, using an alternative name for Islamic State.

In a recent report, Small Arms Survey, an independent research group based in Geneva, detailed a range of shoulder-launched missile systems in the hands of the militants. Known as MANPAD, or man-portable air defense systems, some were apparently stolen from government stockpiles while others were supplied from outside sources in other countries.

INTELLIGENCE GAPS

The Pentagon has publicly conceded it has less-than-perfect information about the movements and capabilities of Islamic State fighters, a limitation reflected in a failed attempt by U.S. special forces to rescue Foley in July.

Intelligence gaps raise the risk of civilian casualties from any U.S. air strikes in Syria, especially given that the militants are highly mobile and intermingle with the civilian population in urban areas like Raqqa.


From unmanned armed drones to powerful Stealth bombers, a wide range of U.S. airpower is at Obama’s disposal, including possible missiles fired from warships at sea or from aircraft flying outside Syria’s borders.

Drones, Obama’s weapon of choice in the fight against al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen, could also be used, but possibly more for surveillance than missile strikes. Given the risk of missed targets and civilian casualties, U.S. forces typically prefer to operate drones in tandem with intelligence operatives on the ground.

Islamic State leaders' use of encryption in communications is highly sophisticated and hinders efforts to track them, according to U.S. officials familiar with the group’s tactics. As a result, Islamic State leaders such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are expected to be hard to find.
 
What sort of name for a country is Islamic State? Imagine if Israel was called Jewish State or India was called Hindustan? How absurd would that be?
 
There have been more reports today that these loons have massacred captured Syrian Soldiers. I hope that these lunatics and their backers rot in hell.
 
Sad.

In a video obtained by CBS News, Shirley Sotloff, mother of journalist Steven Sotloff, urges extremist leader to "follow the example set by the Prophet Muhammad." Her plea initially aired on Al Arabiya in the Middle East.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DmxcvPr6sE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
U.S. should send more support to FSA so they can defeat IS. Recently IS attacked FSA's areas and captured few areas. While sunni tribes in Iraq should stop supporting IS.
 
It's incredible that so many are willing to swear allegiance to Caliph Abu Bakr*alBaghdadi, a man they have not even met.






Vice make the best documentaries hands down...considering what happened yesterday its incredible that a journalist managed to get access to an embed himself with ISIS in their so called Caliphate...Medyan Dairieh is one brave man...

And this was a fascinating watch...i think ISIS would be happy at how they were portrayed...and whats chilling is just how many children they have indoctrinated with this dogmatic, expansionist, Islamic ideology...some of the stuff coming from children's mouths was awful to see...
I think what is certainly evident from watching this...is this isn't a rag tag group at work but they are actually running a state...and worryingly it looks like they are here to stay...
 
Outrage of whom? The people on this forum? I guess they are pretty busy with the Pakistani threads to worry about Iraq or Syria.
 
پاکستان میں دولت اسلامی کا کتابچہ
<object width="640" height="360" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf">

<param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf" />

<param name="quality" value="high" />

<param name="wmode" value="default" />

<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />

<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" />

<param name="flashvars" value="playlist=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/meta/dps/2014/09/emp/140901_rifat.emp.xml&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/scripts/core/2/emp_jsapi_config.xml?666&config_settings_autoPlay=true&domId=emp-34404173&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/journalism-pc/transferformat/plain/vpid/{id}&config_settings_showFooter=false&config_settings_language=en&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/&relatedLinksCarousel=false&messagesFileUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/emp/3/vocab/en.xml&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2014/09/140901_rifat.shtml&config.plugins.fmtjLiveStats.pageType=t2_eav1_Started&showShareButton=true&uxHighlightColour=0xff0000&config_settings_showPopoutButton=true&config_settings_displayMode=standard&config_settings_autoPlay=false" />

<embed src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/worldwide/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360" FlashVars="playlist=playlist=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/meta/dps/2014/09/emp/140901_rifat.emp.xml&config=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/scripts/core/2/emp_jsapi_config.xml?666&config_settings_autoPlay=true&domId=emp-34404173&mediatorHref=http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/select/version/2.0/mediaset/journalism-pc/transferformat/plain/vpid/{id}&config_settings_showFooter=false&config_settings_language=en&embedReferer=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/&relatedLinksCarousel=false&messagesFileUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/emp/3/vocab/en.xml&embedPageUrl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2014/09/140901_rifat.shtml&config.plugins.fmtjLiveStats.pageType=t2_eav1_Started&showShareButton=true&uxHighlightColour=0xff0000&config_settings_showPopoutButton=true&config_settings_displayMode=standard&config_settings_autoPlay=false"></embed>

</object>
They are trying to come to Pakistan...this should be take care of now before it spreads further.

Serious Issue for Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Another American hostage has been beheaded.



Steven Sotloff: Islamic State 'kills US hostage'



An Islamic State video has appeared which purports to show the beheading of Steven Sotloff, a US journalist being held hostage by the militants.

Mr Sotloff disappeared in Syria in 2013. He appeared at the end of a video last month showing fellow US journalist James Foley being killed.

After Mr Foley's death, Mr Sotloff's mother appealed to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to save her son's life.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said US officials were checking the reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29038217
 
I just saw the gruesome video on twitter .. it's a carbon copy of the last one where the entire beheading isn't shown but just the first two slices across the neck ... and the final scene is the next victim David cawthorne haines , a brit (looks likes joey barton).
RIP Sotloff :|
 
Just another disgusting act from these knuckle draggers. What was this guys crime? I hope we muslims in the more enlightened parts of the world see these loons as enemies of Islam.
 
They are trying to come to Pakistan...this should be take care of now before it spreads further.

Serious Issue for Pakistan.

For that reason Pakistan should work with Afghanistan and even help them to make their security stronger. It should be moral obligation since Pakistan use proxies in Afghanistan to achieve their interests.
 
Sad.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DmxcvPr6sE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Commiserations to his family. I wonder how long before they start to execute American aid workers as well, since those are easier to get hold of than American soldiers I guess.
 
ISIS has apologised...for releasing Sotloff's execution video early. Apparently they weren't supposed to release it till later. So they have apologised for their followers.

Islamic State 'sorry' for releasing Steven Sotloff beheading video early

Megan Levy
Published: September 3, 2014 - 11:49AM

Graphic video shows beheading of Steven Sotloff
Islamic State militants have issued an apology following the release of a horrific video that appears to show the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff.

But the jihadist group was not apologising for the terrifying death of the 31-year-old freelance journalist, who was kidnapped in Syria last year.

Instead, it appeared someone within IS had published the video of Sotloff's apparent execution online ahead of the intended time, according to the online news website Vocativ.

And, for that lack of discipline, the group was sorry.

"We tried to remove the video after we understood that this was published by mistake, and we are sorry to the followers of Islamic State," the group said in a message, in Arabic, posted on Justpaste.

Vocativ, a New York-based company that says it uses "deep-web technology" to report the news, said chatter in IS forums suggested the initial video release was an unintentional leak from the militant group.

The website reported that an IS-affiliated Twitter account, which has since been suspended, first published the video, before another IS-affiliated account, @Khattabyaz pointed out the error.

"A clarification about the mistake was made by 'Uyun al-Ummah' account, that has published the video before the official time," IS said on Justpaste.

"The user saw a tweet with the video and thought it was published officially. We tried to remove the video after we understood that his was published by mistake, and we are sorry to the followers of the Islamic State."

In the video, Sotloff says he is "paying the price" for the US government's decision to strike IS targets in Iraq.

A masked fighter with a British accent, who is believed to have appeared in the video of American Journalist James Foley's beheading on August 19, also stands beside Sotloff.

He says: "I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State."

Some Western intelligence officials have said they believed Sotloff may have been executed on the same day as Foley, and that the propagandists at IS had decided to space out the publicity of each one.

However, the most recent video shows Sotloff with a small beard and some hair on his head, in contrast to the August 19 video, in which he is shown as nearly bald and clean shaven. The contrast in his appearance suggests the videos were not taken at the same time.

Sotloff's family issued a statement via a spokesman, Barak Barfi, that suggested they believed the video was authentic.

"The family knows of this horrific tragedy and is grieving privately. There will be no public comment from the family during this difficult time," Mr Barfi said.

The SITE Intelligence Group, a research organisation that tracks jihadist web postings, said IS was threatening to behead a third captive, British man David Cawthorne Haines.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamic...ff-beheading-video-early-20140903-10bobd.html
 
The IS is doing this with a firm & definite purpose behind. A few of them may be:-

1) They are trying to get into a direct confrontation with the world super powers.

2) It raises their profile as they're taking on the US directly, which other Terror groups did but not in such direct manner.

3) It's done in a manner which would attract more & more Jihadists towards them.

4) More attention would mean more recruitment & heavier donations.

List is long but just a few to be named above.

Now alongside the above points, what it's doing is making the KSA sweat over the prospect of these murderers having their eyes set on Saudi Arabia as well. The Sunni world is beginning to realize that a small difference of opinion or a minor resistance towards this group would result in disaster.

Also the US has realized that the menace of IS can't be wiped off with mere air strikes. Ground operations are a must if this group is to be checked. But the major question is, who would make the sacrifice? The US already has it's hands full with the Ukraine crisis & the wobbling economy back home.

No one knows where this conflict is headed.
 
Andrew Neil said Britain "should stop caring about the niceties of international law" and make people stateless if necessary - which is illegal under a UN convention.

What a wonderful precedent to set. If we do that, then I hope the likes of Neil and the UK govt. shuts up about China and North Korea doing similar to their dissidents.

As for the latest beheading, its truly barbaric behaviour and Obama's indecision is getting ridiculous. He's basically admitted the US has no action plan on the matter. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...513d94-2ed5-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html).
 
If even one of these guys came back and did something here then we will have a large and peaceful majority under attack, so if it became a choice between these knuckle draggers losing their statehood and loss of liberties of the innocent people, then the choice is simple .People will criticise the Americans for whatever they do; if they attack they these loons, they are bad people and if they don't attack theses loons they are also at fault.Personally I hope they bomb the %^** out of these people.
 
If even one of these guys came back and did something here then we will have a large and peaceful majority under attack, so if it became a choice between these knuckle draggers losing their statehood and loss of liberties of the innocent people, then the choice is simple .People will criticise the Americans for whatever they do; if they attack they these loons, they are bad people and if they don't attack theses loons they are also at fault.Personally I hope they bomb the %^** out of these people.

Ironically the only reason I could see for any ISIS Brits returning here is if their rudimentary state is broken up and they come here looking for revenge assuming Britain was party to the bombing. As far as I know from their public statements they have no intention of returning to the UK so the only repercussion on removing their citizenship will be to alter future British rights of the individual who are not ISIS connected.
 
As for the latest beheading, its truly barbaric behaviour and Obama's indecision is getting ridiculous. He's basically admitted the US has no action plan on the matter. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...513d94-2ed5-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html).

Are you really surprised [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION]? Obama is the most isolationist president in the past 50 years. His primary focus is his domestic agenda. He is a true pacifist Democrat in the mould of FDR just before WWII. It took a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before FDR decided to involve the US in WWII. Prior to that he wanted the US to stay out of it at all costs.

Obama is cut of the same cloth. He was one of the few who didn't vote for the invasion of Iraq, he ran on a platform of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, he will only involve the US in foreign adventures where there is absolutely zero risk of American casualties and zero risk of inflaming the local populace (people with views similar to [MENTION=78856]akheR[/MENTION] - no offence Akher - whose memories of America are mainly of neocon Imperialist America interfering everywhere and landing troops in foreign countries to fly the US flag) with fungible American intervention. So its ok to bomb Libya because all the Arab countries were ok with it, its ok to use drones in Pakistan because the Pakistan government is ok with it, it's ok for limited airstrikes at ISIS in Iraq only because the Iraq government is ok with it. But because he doesn't have permission from Syria to bomb ISIS in Syria and he doesn't want to make the Iranians and Putin mad so he won't do it. He wouldn't even bomb Syria when the Assad government used chemical weapons on its own people and his own "red line" had been crossed.

Likewise he will build an international coalition against ISIL and "lead from behind" (an Obama term for the US involvement in Libya) so enraged Muslims, Communists, Arabs etc won't be mad at the US for interfering where it shouldn't again. Under no circumstances will he put American lives at risk for Israeli or Saudi interests the way that the Bush government was taken for a ride by Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress in the prelude to the Iraq invasion. No sh!t he doesn't have a strategy. He could care less what happens. As far as he is concerned the Middle East is a den of vipers and if they want to kill each other due to sectarian or tribal hatreds then so be it.
 
Last edited:
ISIS trying to expand its influence in Pakistan, distributes pamphlets

ISLAMABAD: The dreaded Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is trying to expand its influence in Pakistan, with pamphlets being distributed in Peshawar and border provinces of Afghanistan, seeking support for jihad.
A booklet titled 'Fatah' (victory) in Pashto and Dari languages was distributed in Peshawar, the provincial capital of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, as well as in Afghan refugee camps on the outskirts of the city, the Express Tribune reported.
READ ALSO: ISIS inspiring Pakistani militants, says expert
The logo of the pamphlet has the Kalma, the historical stamp of Prophet Muhammad and a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Some copies were also mysteriously sent to Afghan journalists working in Peshawar, the paper said.
On the last page of the pamphlet, the editor's name appears to be fake and where the document has been published cannot be ascertained, it said.
Since long, Afghan militant groups, including Haqqani Network and Hizb-e- Islami, have been publishing similar pamphlets, magazines and propaganda literature in Peshawar black markets.
Formerly known as the ISIS, the group introduced itself as Daulat-e-Islamia (Islamic State) in the pamphlet and made an appeal to the local population for supporting its jihad (struggle) for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
A number of hardline groups operating in border areas have already announced support for the outfit. Among them, Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost and Maulvi Abdul Qahar, stalwarts of Saudi Arabia- backed Salafi Taliban groups operating in Nuristan and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan, have extended support to the self-styled caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
[image]
In this June 16, 2014 file photo, demonstrators chant pro-Islamic State group slogans as they carry the group's flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, 225 miles (360 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad. (AP Photo)
Besides distribution of its literature and pamphlets, some of the ISIS supporters have also made wall chalking, asking locals to join and support the group. Some cars and vehicles also have ISIS stickers pasted on them.
Recently, established Ahrarul Islam, a faction of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, is already working on the lines of ISIS. Similar is the status of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, also known as Hizb-e-Islami Turkistan.
Ahrarul Islam doesn't believe in boundaries between Islamic countries, therefore, it is working for the establishment of a network throughout South and Central Asian regions.
The group doesn't recognize al-Baghdadi as the caliph, but considers Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar as 'commander'.
ISIS or IS is an al-Qaida splinter group and it has seized hundreds of square miles in Iraq and Syria. Al-Qaida has distanced itself from the group, chiding it for its lack of teamwork in its aggressive, brutal expansion.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...istributes-pamphlets/articleshow/41618755.cms
 
All this talk about Jihadists...there are distinctions that need to be made...

There are those fighting against Assad for instance who are doing so out of a desire to protect Muslim blood etc...its worth watching an interview with this Dutch Jihadi who says he has no interest in Jihad in Holland but is in Syria to fight for the Muslims...these guys if they survive may very well return to their countries of origin if they survive and its actually possible imo that they can be reintegrated just like soldiers of an army can...

Then you have the likes of ISIS who have pan Islamic aims who are openly anti Western and have openly stated threats against states...the thing you have with foreign fighters there is why would they leave?....they have their Caliphate which they deem to be the best of all states...they aren't leaving an Islamic state for a Kufr state...and if they do the likelihood is it is cos they have seen the error of their ways or they are agents of ISIS operating on foreign soil...

Placing ISIS and other Jihadists groups together is a big simplification when we look at foreign fighters among their ranks...
 
All this talk about Jihadists...there are distinctions that need to be made...

There are those fighting against Assad for instance who are doing so out of a desire to protect Muslim blood etc...its worth watching an interview with this Dutch Jihadi who says he has no interest in Jihad in Holland but is in Syria to fight for the Muslims...these guys if they survive may very well return to their countries of origin if they survive and its actually possible imo that they can be reintegrated just like soldiers of an army can...

Then you have the likes of ISIS who have pan Islamic aims who are openly anti Western and have openly stated threats against states...the thing you have with foreign fighters there is why would they leave?....they have their Caliphate which they deem to be the best of all states...they aren't leaving an Islamic state for a Kufr state...and if they do the likelihood is it is cos they have seen the error of their ways or they are agents of ISIS operating on foreign soil...

Placing ISIS and other Jihadists groups together is a big simplification when we look at foreign fighters among their ranks...

I asked this question on another thread (maybe it was merged into this thread). What would be the ramifications of foreign fighters leaving the caliphate? Would they be disowned by Caliph Ibrahim if they chose to go back to their home countries? Or they just decided they miss cable TV and porn and pizza delivery?
 
ISIS has now threatened Vladimir Putin and Russia, saying they will take Chechnya back for their Caliphate.

Isis Tells Vladimir Putin: 'We are Coming to Russia' to 'Free Chechnya'
Jack Moore By Jack Moore
September 3, 2014 18:44 BST

The radical Islamist group Isis (now known as Islamic State) has released a new video threatening Russian President Vladimir Putin that it plans to come to Russia and "free Chechnya".

The video footage, believed to be filmed in the Taqba airbase captured from Syrian government forces in Raqqa, shows an IS fighter in a military jet.

"This message is for you, Vladimir Putin! These are the aircraft you sent to Bashar [Assad], and we're going to send them to you. Remember that!" he said.

"This is Russian technology," said a militant with a Russian voice, according to The Moscow Times.

"We will with the consent of Allah free Chechnya and all of the Caucasus! The Islamic State is here and will stay here, and it will spread with the grace of Allah!" another militant warns.

The militant then addressed Putin, adding: "Your throne has already been shaken, it is under threat and will fall with our arrival [in Russia] ... We're already on our way with the permission of Allah!"


While the terror group has declared war on the United States for its air-strike campaign in northern Iraq, Russia has provoked its ire for supporting and supplying the Assad regime. The militants in the video refer to Assad as a "pig".

Russia's security services believe hundreds of militants from the Caucasus regions have fled to the Middle East to fight with the group.

One of the group's prominent military commanders, Omar al-Shishani, is a Georgian-born ethnic Chechen. With a deep hatred for the Kremlin, he played a role in the 2008 Russia-Georgia War, spying on Russian tanks and relaying their positions back to Georgian artillery.

Some social media users have called Shishani "Tarkhan the Rodent" in reference to his real name, Tarkhan Batirashvili. Shishani itself translates as "the Chechen" in Arabic.

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov wrote on Instagram the group's warning was a "childish threat".

"These jerks have nothing to do with Islam. They are the blatant enemies of Muslims all over the world. Naive people decided to threaten Chechnya and all of Russia with two aircraft. They can sit in 2,000 aircraft and still not make it to Russia," he wrote.

"I declare, with all responsibility, that whoever gets it into their heads to threaten Russia and speak the name of President Vladimir Putin will be destroyed as soon as he says it." He added: "We won't even wait for him to sit at the helm of a plane."

Before the release of the video, Russia's Defence Ministry condemned the "horrific crimes" committed by the group and requested that China and Western nations battle to end IS's campaign across the Middle East.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-tell-vladimir-putin-we-are-coming-russia-free-chechnya-1463874
 
I asked this question on another thread (maybe it was merged into this thread). What would be the ramifications of foreign fighters leaving the caliphate? Would they be disowned by Caliph Ibrahim if they chose to go back to their home countries? Or they just decided they miss cable TV and porn and pizza delivery?

I would imagine so definitely...leaving a state of Islam for a state of disbelief would be deemed a punishable offense...they certainly wouldn't be able to flee knowingly...you are obliged to live under a state of Islam...
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rs_LXdSRttg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Barfi ended the statement with off-the-cuff remarks in Arabic, saying "Steve died a martyr for the sake of God."

He then challenged Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to debate Islam, saying, "Woe to you. You said the month of Ramadan is the month of mercy. Where is your mercy?"

"God does not love the aggressor," added Barfi, who is an Arabic scholar and research fellow at the New America Foundation think tank in Washington.

He went on, "I am ready to debate you with kind preachings. I have no sword in my hand and I am ready for your answer."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-syria-crisis-sotloff-family-idUSKBN0GZ00J20140904
 
Ironically the only reason I could see for any ISIS Brits returning here is if their rudimentary state is broken up and they come here looking for revenge assuming Britain was party to the bombing. As far as I know from their public statements they have no intention of returning to the UK so the only repercussion on removing their citizenship will be to alter future British rights of the individual who are not ISIS connected.

A fair few of them now want to come home. And the authorities are actually struggling to figure out what, if any, British law these chaps have broken lol.

Syria crisis: British jihadists becoming disillusioned at fighting rival rebels and want to come home



British jihadists fighting in Syria are increasingly disillusioned and want to come home, it has been reported.

The jihadists have become frustrated that instead of fighting President Assad’s forces they are finding themselves in fire fights with rival rebel groups.

Dozens of them are reported to want to return to Britain but are afraid they will be locked up for years if they do so.

One jihadist claiming to represent 30 British fighters with a group linked to Islamic State said they would be willing to undergo deradicalisation and submit to surveillance if they were assured of avoiding jail terms on their return, according to The Times.

“We came to fight the regime and instead we are involved in gang warfare. It’s not what we came for but if we go back [to Britain] we will go to jail,” he is said to have told researchers at the International Centre for Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) at King’s College London. “Right now we are being forced to fight - what option do we have?”

Peter Neumann, the director of ICSR, told the newspaper he believed up to a fifth of British jihadists could be looking for a way to disengage from the fighting in Syria: “The people we have been talking to... want to quit but feel trapped because all the government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”

He said the government should consider setting up a deradicalisation programme and suggested that disillusioned jihadists could become powerful spokesmen against Isis propaganda.

More than 500 British citizens are believed to have travelled to Syria as jihadists and 20 have been killed there, at least six of them in fighting between rebel factions. About 260 have returned, with 40 awaiting trial.

Social media posts have revealed that some jihadists fighting in Syria are concerned that if they are killed in fighting other jihadist groups rather than the Assad regime they will forfeit any chance of martyrdom and paradise.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ival-rebels-and-not-assad-regime-9713279.html
 
A fair few of them now want to come home. And the authorities are actually struggling to figure out what, if any, British law these chaps have broken lol.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ival-rebels-and-not-assad-regime-9713279.html

I would be very wary of any Jihadi looking to return, it could well be a ruse to get into the country then wreak havoc here. I know it will be tempting to bring them here and try to turn them into Ed Hussain/Quilliam types who can be used against ISIS propaganda, but is it really worth the risk? They chose their path, they should be made to follow it through.
 
willing to undergo deradicalisation

What does undergoing deradicalisation entail? Reading Dr Seuss books and watching reruns of Happy Days?
 
Iran 'backs US military contacts' to fight Islamic State

Iran's Supreme Leader has approved co-operation with the US as part of the fight against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, sources have told BBC Persian.

Ayatollah Khamenei has authorised his top commander to co-ordinate military operations with the US, Iraqi and Kurdish forces, sources in Tehran say.


Iran has traditionally opposed US involvement in Iraq, an Iranian ally.

However, Shia Iran sees the extremist Sunni IS group, which views Shias as heretics, as a serious threat.

Last month US air strikes helped Iranian-backed Shia militia and Kurdish forces break a two-month siege by Islamic State of the Shia town of Amerli.

IS has taken over swathes of northern and western Iraq and eastern Syria in recent months.

US forces began carrying out air strikes on IS positions in August after they took over several cities in northern Iraq.

This new-found cooperation with US forces indicates a change in Iran's policy in Iraq, albeit one borne out of necessity.

In 2001, Iran cooperated with the US in Afghanistan by arming and supporting the Northern Alliance which eventually overthrew the Taliban government.

Now, there is a similar need to stop a threat, which Iran by itself can only defeat by bringing in thousands of troops.

Defeating Islamic State will remove the threat on Iran's western borders and help stabilise Iran's two main allies in the region, Iraq and Syria.

Iran can also avoid large numbers of boots on the ground, as long as Iraqi Shia militias, loyal to Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, stand ready to take up the banner and fight.

Iran's change of heart will no doubt be welcomed in Washington and London, where a joint strategy is taking shape towards creating a broad alliance of international and regional players to deal with the IS threat.

Sources say Ayatollah Khamenei has sanctioned Gen Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force - an elite overseas unit of the Revolutionary Guards - to work with forces fighting IS, including the US.
 
I'll say it again...its not right to put all Jihadists in one category...

those who are becoming disillusioned cos they find themselves fighting other rebel groups aren't lost causes...and to be frank aren't necessarily doing anything wrong...although of course technically they are...

Its odd actually that they can legally fight FOR Assad but can't fight against him...but i digress...many of those fighting are doing so to defend Muslims...and don't necessarily have Islamic expansionist visions or even any visions for their home countries...defending Syrians is the extent of their attack...and now they are finding themselves fighting other Islamic organizations such as IS....

Then you have the likes of IS who are ideological organizations who directly pose a threat to Britain and in fact anyone who opposes their world view...their aim is Islamic expansionism...these are the guys who should be allowed nowhere near Britain unless of course it can be shown they have turned...
 
Last edited:
A second Lebanese soldier has been beheaded by ISIS. Guess they really don't care who they behead. ISIS seem to be the world's biggest snuff film producer and Caliph Ibrahim a director to rival the best in Hollywood. Your death record for viewing in primetime. Your head decapitated for the world to see and to act as a lure for people who want to do that sort of thing as well. Welcome additions to the Caliphate.

A second Lebanese soldier taken hostage by Islamic State (IS) militants has been beheaded, reports say.

Photos of the killing of the soldier - named as Abbas Medlej - were posted on social media networks.

The Lebanese military said it was investigating the reports.

Abbas Medlej was among a number of Lebanese soldiers seized by IS in August, after the militants launched an incursion into the Lebanese town of Arsal, near the Syrian border.

Some of the hostages are reportedly being held by IS and others by the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

IS earlier threatened to kill a soldier every three days if the Lebanese government did not agree to release the group's members detained in Lebanese jails.

Abbas Medlej's mother, Zienab Noun, said the pictures showing the beheading appeared to be real.

"My son was sacrificed," she was quoting as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

On Saturday Islamic State issued a statement saying the soldier had been beheaded after he tried to escape.

Last week, the Lebanese army received the remains of a missing solider believed to have been beheaded by IS militants.

Officials said the body of Sgt Ali Sayyed was handed over to the Lebanese Red Cross outside Arsal.

A video purportedly showing Sgt Sayyed being decapitated was also posted online.

The fighting in Arsal - which left 16 civilians, 20 soldiers, and dozens of militants dead - was the most serious incident along the border with Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011.

IS militants - who control large swathes of Syria and Iraq - have recently beheaded two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29096909
 
The ISIS being funded by the US theory has been debunked, Mehdi Hasan on Twitter retweeted an article about this - it was started in Egypt and turned out to be a fabrication. However there's no doubt American arms that were meant for the Free Syrian Army have fallen into the hands of ISIS who have completely outfought the so-called 'moderate rebels'. So its been an unintentional outcome.

No Mehdi Hasan only cleared up the false news regarding Snowden.

US, Saudi, Qatar are all allies who have financed, trained, armed most of these groups from Liyba to Syria. The name doesn't matter and neither does the frighting spin on this group, they call come from the same foundations of foreign state backing.

This group isn't a strong as the media have portrayed, it couldn't defeat Assad that's why it's formed in Iraq to cause a larger war.
 
Avoider-in-chief Obama about to reveal his "grand plan" to deal with ISIS shortly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
"America will lead a broad coalition to degrade and destroy ISIL"

"Systematic series of air strikes in Syria and Iraq"

"Increase support for forces on the group"

"No American combat troops on the ground"

"Work with Iraqi security forces"

"will provide the Syrian opposition with support and seek political solution"

"Will work with UN to mobilise international community"

Basically that's the new strategy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
He is putting the onus on the Arab nations to do more than they have already done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
He mentioned 3 times that "it will be air power and no American troops on the ground and mobilise partners"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
So they killed a bloke who was just there to help other people. Unless David Haines was really a spy as well?

There's an interesting report on Soltoff and how he was Jewish but a special team was paid thousands to make sure his captives never found out he was Jewish by erasing the link from every possible spectrum

Not that he being Jewish had anything to do with his unfortunate and untimely death



In other news British Muslims have petitioned for the 'Islamic state' to be reported as the 'Unislamic state'
Which would be a great move
 
There's an interesting report on Soltoff and how he was Jewish but a special team was paid thousands to make sure his captives never found out he was Jewish by erasing the link from every possible spectrum

Not that he being Jewish had anything to do with his unfortunate and untimely death
Considering that they almost certainly played mental torture games with him, by the time they decided to murder him in cold blood, they probably knew everything about him, his background, his family, friends, co-workers and anything else of interest they could get out of him.

Why would his captors need to trawl the internet to find out information about him when they already had him and could get it out of him directly? So if there was such a special team as you mention, the only people they could/would have hidden this information from was Joe Public.
 
Considering that they almost certainly played mental torture games with him, by the time they decided to murder him in cold blood, they probably knew everything about him, his background, his family, friends, co-workers and anything else of interest they could get out of him.

Why would his captors need to trawl the internet to find out information about him when they already had him and could get it out of him directly? So if there was such a special team as you mention, the only people they could/would have hidden this information from was Joe Public.


'Funny' how you immediately assume it's a conspiracy i'm stating




''Roman, who directs the Jewish Community Relations Council in Pittsburgh, assembled a group of friends and various web experts for one mission: To clean the internet of any mention that Sotloff was Jewish or Israeli.

One man recruited for the task was Michael Bassin, an American Jew based in Tel Aviv who travels throughout the Middle East as a trade consultant.



And on 2 September when IS released a video of Sotloff's beheading, his executioner made clear that his death was in response to US strikes on Islamic State militants - there was no mention of Sotloff's religion or Israeli citizenship.

In the end, Bassin believes his group spared Sotloff from being killed for his religion.

"Steven was brutally executed," he says. "But at the very least he was not executed because he was a Jew."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29120308
 
'Funny' how you immediately assume it's a conspiracy i'm stating
No such conspiracy rubbish even crossed my mind. I was merely pointing out that the killers would have extracted any information they needed from the hostage himself without needing to trawl the internet looking for info about him.

As for what the IS executioner said on the video, I have no doubt that every single word uttered was carefully planned for a purpose. I have no doubt that IS are playing mind games. For a group to take over such large swathes of territory from both Iraqi and Syrian forces means their leadership contains some callous but very astute individuals who are orchestrating and creating these beheading video's for some purpose that is not completely obvious.
 
No such conspiracy rubbish even crossed my mind. I was merely pointing out that the killers would have extracted any information they needed from the hostage himself without needing to trawl the internet looking for info about him.

As for what the IS executioner said on the video, I have no doubt that every single word uttered was carefully planned for a purpose. I have no doubt that IS are playing mind games. For a group to take over such large swathes of territory from both Iraqi and Syrian forces means their leadership contains some callous but very astute individuals who are orchestrating and creating these beheading video's for some purpose that is not completely obvious.

Muslims have been lambased over this for just leaving it aside as a conspiracy theory and not dealing with an 'internal' problem so i will reiterate a letter from British muslims where they ask for IS to be called the 'Unislamic state' which they see as the proper name for what has been established in parts of Iraq/Shams
 
Looks like things are about to escalate. Why is Australia so keen to get involved?

Australia says it is sending 600 troops to the Middle East ahead of possible combat operations against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the deployment, initially to the United Arab Emirates, was in response to a specific US request.

Nearly 40 countries, including 10 Arab states, have signed up to a US-led plan to tackle the extremist group.

France is hosting a regional security summit on Monday.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Paris late on Saturday after a four-day tour of the Middle East trying to drum up support for action against IS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29195689
 
Looks like things are about to escalate. Why is Australia so keen to get involved?
To please Britain and America? After all, the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II (or her representative, the Governor-General of Australia) is the official Australian Head-of-State. As for pleasing the USA ... need you ask?
 
Looks like things are about to escalate. Why is Australia so keen to get involved?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29195689

Why indeed. Why are the Arab countries doing nothing (as usual).

Fools rush in: Tony Abbott joins a war without definition

Paul McGeough
Published: September 15, 2014 - 2:06AM

The smart thing for Western leaders in the wake of John Kerry's session with Arab leaders in Jeddah on Thursday last, would have been to bide their time. And it would have been smart too to bide their time a bit more after Sunday's grim reports of another Westerner beheaded by these crazed thugs who strut as Islamic freedom fighters in the deserts of Syria and Iraq.

But Tony Abbott leapt straight in – committing 600 Australian military personnel and more aircraft to the conflict, thereby giving the Arab leaders good reason to believe that if they sit on their hands for long enough, the West will fight their war for them.

Even as Abbott made his announcement in Darwin, the US Secretary of State was trailing his coat-tails in Cairo, making little headway with pleas for assistance from a murderous military regime that will shoot its own people, but seemingly dares not volunteer to face the so-called Islamic State on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq.

Either collectively in Jeddah or in one-on-one meetings with Kerry as in Cairo, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Lebanon all have baulked at making explicit military commitments to confront a force that they all see as a direct threat to their thrones, bunkers and, in one or two cases, tissue-thin democracies. With the exception of Iraq, which has no option because it is under attack at home, none has publicly committed military support.

Conversely, Abbott was coy in claiming that this new deployment did not mean that Australia was at war. Australia has been at war since its first airlift of weapons and ammunition to the Kurdish Peshmerga in the north of Iraq last week.

Because they are on the ground in the UAE doing logistics and maintenance or in Baghdad and Irbil as military advisers certainly would not absolve any of them from being a target if IS fighters contrived to get access to them. The deployment is an escalation from the other side of the world that likely will put the IS madmen on the lookout for Australian targets.

It's also a dramatic instance of mission-creep in a conflict bedevilled by uncertainty and missing any clear sense of a timeline or even the vague contours of what "victory" might look like.

US President Barack Obama demanded that Iraq form an inclusive, representative government before he would commit. But just three days after the new prime minister said he would behave himself, Obama had aircraft over Iraq, and we still know nothing about how different this Iraqi leadership will be from the last. There is no certainty that it will win the confidence of the Iraqi Sunni tribes.

An air war cannot succeed without a substantial boots-on-the-ground accompaniment – and that part of what Obama calls a strategy is very much on a wing and a prayer.

The Kurdish Peshmerga can fight, but they can't defend all of Iraq. The Iraqi army, trained and equipped by Washington at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, is erratic and more likely to cut and run than to stand and fight. Next door in Syria, Obama is banking of the ranks of the Free Syrian Army – which for years he has complained could not be counted on, and which Washington now tries to convince us can be taken to Saudi Arabia, retrained and sent home to win the war.

More than a decade trying to wave a magic wand over the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan should have convinced the White House that relying on these newly trained forces qualifies for dismissal under the Obama dictum of "don't do stupid stuff!"

Abbott must have had his hands over his ears last week as Obama spoke to the US nation and analysts around the globe distilled his words to mean a conflict that will last for years.

Oddly, the Prime Minister warned Australians to prepare for a fight that might last "months rather than weeks, perhaps many, many months indeed…" Seems he's in as much of a hurry to get into this war, as he seemingly thinks he will get out of it.

It's not clear why. This "we must do something right now" response is likely to create a bigger mess than already exists in the region. Consider: the death of 200,000 locals in Syria failed to rouse much of a reaction in the West; but the deaths of two Americans – and now a Briton – has raised a crescendo for international war when it might have made more sense to tackle regional politicking and feuding first.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/world/fools-r...a-war-without-definition-20140914-10gtib.html
 
Why indeed. Why are the Arab countries doing nothing (as usual).

It might be due to sectarian issues. ISIS in their previous incarnation were driven from Iraq by their own community but then found themselves under the boot of the Shi'ite regime backed by Iran. It appears things got bad enough that ISIS were then welcomed back by the Sunni population of those towns where they hold fort. I can see why those Arab counties might be wary of being seen to back the Shi'ites after what happened the last time.
 
The US has killed millions of Iraqis, and have been launching wars (both militarily and economically) on the country since 20 years, using illegal weapons which transform newborn babies into monsters till today while their own can grow and reach obesity.

These few beheading are the tiniest price the US could pay, esp. when you know they're there to launch yet another war on Iraq, and now in Syria too, after fuelling (with its regional lapdogs) a bloody civil war through 'rebels' (will ask it again and again without expecting an answer ever : who finances a group against a sovereign nation-State ? Isn't that... State terrorism ?).

But I'm against the beheading of UK civilians.

Alan Henning seems like a cool guy

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4GDZk3VeF38" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Hopefully arab countries will not get involved. This has to seem like western countries attacking Islam and it won't happen if muslim countries get involved in this.
 
Hopefully arab countries will not get involved. This has to seem like western countries attacking Islam and it won't happen if muslim countries get involved in this.

They are already involved. It's all fair and well blaming America et al for the current mess (which is partly true) but if Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran etc hadn't been sponsoring and encouraging nefarious regimes and groups in the region things would not be as unstable and messy as they are now. They helped to create this situation so they should be part of the solution too.
 
They are already involved. It's all fair and well blaming America et al for the current mess (which is partly true) but if Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran etc hadn't been sponsoring and encouraging nefarious regimes and groups in the region things would not be as unstable and messy as they are now. They helped to create this situation so they should be part of the solution too.
If Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran have been sponsoring them then why would they unite to fight against these same groups? This makes no sense. On one hand people say that arab countries are sponsoring them to spread their wahabi ideology and then they want to fight these same people at the cost of their ideology? Whatever happens, arab countries should deal with these issues themselves. West is responsible for the huge mess that middle east is, starting from the creation of Israel to ISIS.
 
Because things have now gone a lot further than anyone envisaged. Iran eventually dumped their man Al-Maliki because he was such a divisive and sectarian figure. One imagines the same will eventually happen with Assad too. The Saudis too would not have expected a group like ISIS to have formed out of Al-Nusrah/Islamic Front (groups which they have funded).


If Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran have been sponsoring them then why would they unite to fight against these same groups? This makes no sense. On one hand people say that arab countries are sponsoring them to spread their wahabi ideology and then they want to fight these same people at the cost of their ideology? Whatever happens, arab countries should deal with these issues themselves. West is responsible for the huge mess that middle east is, starting from the creation of Israel to ISIS.
 
Because things have now gone a lot further than anyone envisaged. Iran eventually dumped their man Al-Maliki because he was such a divisive and sectarian figure. One imagines the same will eventually happen with Assad too. The Saudis too would not have expected a group like ISIS to have formed out of Al-Nusrah/Islamic Front (groups which they have funded).

Assad's family have been running Damascus for years, he is not someone like Al- Maliki that can be dropped so easily

As for IS forming out the Al Nusrah and Islamic front - why has there been so much fighting between IS and other rebel groups , IS has beheaded more sunni rebels than it has kurds/ christian or perhaps even shia


The real worry is that the rebels branch out into neighbouring countries and bring down the monarchies of the middle east
 
Isis has moved very fast and recruited very quickly. People from Waziristan and fata are already complaining about their pamphlets and radio shows. How long before they come to Punjab to recruit from Lashker. And other groups in India and Bangladesh.
Sadly many people won't say anything or blow of the danger as western conspiracies.
 
Hopefully arab countries will not get involved. This has to seem like western countries attacking Islam and it won't happen if muslim countries get involved in this.

Yes it won't work in ISIS' favour if Arab countries get involved because that would just be a return to the Muslim vs Muslim sectarian conflicts that have plagued this region for hundreds of years. But you're probably in luck - when have Arab countries ever gotten (overtly) involved in issues pertinent to their region? They will be hiding in the shadows like they always do. Just try and manipulate the West to do the heavy lifting for them and create ever more radicals to join the fight against the Dajjal. Clearly ISIS is trying to draw the US into a ground war, which would be their version of recruiting paradise. There is an entire generation of 20-somethings who have gone through adolescence only knowing of the neocon plan for Empire America during the Bush years. Unfortunately for them Barack Obama is the most antiwar president since FDR and it's going to take a lot more than some beheaded Seppos for him to be dragged into a Middle East ground war again. Maybe Billary - but definitely not Barack. The guy went to play golf after his press conference about James Foley. Maybe he was imagining Foley's head when he was teeing off, sailing away into the distance.
 
Last edited:
Yes it won't work in ISIS' favour if Arab countries get involved because that would just be a return to the Muslim vs Muslim sectarian conflicts that have plagued this region for hundreds of years. But you're probably in luck - when have Arab countries ever gotten (overtly) involved in issues pertinent to their region? They will be hiding in the shadows like they always do. Just try and manipulate the West to do the heavy lifting for them and create ever more radicals to join the fight against the Dajjal. Clearly ISIS is trying to draw the US into a ground war, which would be their version of recruiting paradise. There is an entire generation of 20-somethings who have gone through adolescence only knowing of the neocon plan for Empire America during the Bush years. Unfortunately for them Barack Obama is the most antiwar president since FDR and it's going to take a lot more than some beheaded Seppos for him to be dragged into a Middle East ground war again. Maybe Billary - but definitely not Barack. The guy went to play golf after his press conference about James Foley. Maybe he was imagining Foley's head when he was teeing off, sailing away into the distance.
Blaming it on the 100 year old sectarian conflict is an easy way out! NATO should have never gotten involved in this conflict or run behind those supposedly WMDs. But what happened, happened. After overthrowing Saddam, power should have been shared equally or sunnis should have had some representation, instead bigots like Maliki gained power. Why should arab countries get involved? To shift the power back to maliki's government so he can kill more Omar's and then 100 more ISISs pop up? Iraqis of all sect should themselves have a discussion on this instead of getting others involved.
 
Blaming it on the 100 year old sectarian conflict is an easy way out! NATO should have never gotten involved in this conflict or run behind those supposedly WMDs. But what happened, happened. After overthrowing Saddam, power should have been shared equally or sunnis should have had some representation, instead bigots like Maliki gained power. Why should arab countries get involved? To shift the power back to maliki's government so he can kill more Omar's and then 100 more ISISs pop up? Iraqis of all sect should themselves have a discussion on this instead of getting others involved.


With the Afg war coming to an end, the focus shifts to the middle east

If the Arab countries help against IS, make no mistake, they will suffer what Pakistan suffered from when they got involved in Afghanistan
The foriegners who have gone to Syria, will not fly back to the UK or US, they will move on to Lebanon, Jordan and eventually even the Gulf, if it fights against them

Do they have a choice, or do they let NATO deal with the problem
TBF , they have got involved in the past, they sided with Iraq against Iran and with Kuwait against Iraq
They didn't get involved in 2003 but i'm not sure they were offered the chance to join the coallition
 
Some of the younger members of our forum who have only known a decade of American neocon imperialism may be disappointed in Barack Obama who is living true to his reputation as the most conflict-shy president in the last 50 years.

President Obama doubled down Wednesday on an increasingly questioned pledge: There will be no U.S. ground combat troops back in Iraq.

"I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq," Obama told troops at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

After a briefing with military leaders at CENTCOM, Obama said forces in Iraq and Syria must fight ground battles against the Islamic State, a jihadist group also known as ISIL and ISIS.

Obama also said the United States — which is conducting airstrikes in Iraq and planning them in Syria — will be joined by a coalition of other nations under threat by the Islamic State.

"This is not and will not be America's fight alone," Obama said.

The renewed pledge of no U.S. combat troops came amid some skepticism over whether the United States can follow through on a plan that relies on Iraqi and Syrian forces to roll back the Islamic State.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...q-syria-tampa-dempsey-ground-troops/15766543/
 
With the Afg war coming to an end, the focus shifts to the middle east

If the Arab countries help against IS, make no mistake, they will suffer what Pakistan suffered from when they got involved in Afghanistan
The foriegners who have gone to Syria, will not fly back to the UK or US, they will move on to Lebanon, Jordan and eventually even the Gulf, if it fights against them


Do they have a choice, or do they let NATO deal with the problem
TBF , they have got involved in the past, they sided with Iraq against Iran and with Kuwait against Iraq
They didn't get involved in 2003 but i'm not sure they were offered the chance to join the coallition

Protecting their thrones basically. Something these Arab monarchies/dictatorships tend to be pretty good at since they have done it for the past number of decades or even centuries.
 
Some of the younger members of our forum who have only known a decade of American neocon imperialism may be disappointed in Barack Obama who is living true to his reputation as the most conflict-shy president in the last 50 years.

The Americans are smart, their population itself has been pro-isolation for the most part of its history (until the world wars), but the élite of the US knows that you can play your cards in 'proxy wars' : why waste money, blood, ... of your country when you have Jihad Joe nut-jobs doing exactly what you want, that is to destroy the States in the region ?

Of course, the US will target ISIS, but never erase it completely... why ? That's the concept of 'total war' : if you can't kill your enemy (Syria, which is being shielded by Russia and China, otherwise it would have known the Iraqi or Libyan scripts), well, try to bleed it indefinitely. A bit like the Iran-Iraq war, while these Third World untermenschen were killing each other for 8 years, the US sold weapons openly to its ally and less openly to its 'enemy', collecting money from both sides.

This strategy of 'permanent chaos' also helps Israel, which tries on its side to legitimize its role as a security state and the sole democratic sentinel in the region.

In fact, from a neutral POV, only Israel wins in this mess, and it's an old Jewish fantasy to keep the world in such state of war, because only then will their 'Messiah' ring the bells.

For instance, that's what 'moderate rebels' think of Israel:

Israel has the opportunity to win the hearts of all Syrians

http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-refusing-free-syrian-army-plea-for-anti-aircraft-weapons/
 
The Americans are smart, their population itself has been pro-isolation for the most part of its history (until the world wars), but the élite of the US knows that you can play your cards in 'proxy wars' : why waste money, blood, ... of your country when you have Jihad Joe nut-jobs doing exactly what you want, that is to destroy the States in the region ?

That's the same as every world power since time immemorial. Machiavelli wrote about it back in the 15th century. I would suggest that the Seppos are only the latest incarnation of that. Why do you think none of these Arab states will actively get involved in these Middle East issues? They will only get involved in "slam dunks" - like Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. They are masters at pulling strings behind the curtain.
 
Some of the younger members of our forum who have only known a decade of American neocon imperialism may be disappointed in Barack Obama who is living true to his reputation as the most conflict-shy president in the last 50 years.
Americans have probably got enough to handle on their own continent to keep fighting other's battles. If he's conflict shy there's probably good reason.
 
Protecting their thrones basically. Something these Arab monarchies/dictatorships tend to be pretty good at since they have done it for the past number of decades or even centuries.

No doubt but its not just about protesting their throne, like America, they are also looking at expanding

Syria seemed a good place to stop the Iranian empire which has took over Iraq and were causing problems in Yemen and Bahrain
Just as the MB were given a sanctuary by the Saudi regimes in the 50s and 60s when they were against Nasserism

Democracy would not work in the middle east, there has not been one success story yet, and the Americans have always helped protect the monarchies of the likes of Egypt, Jordam etc
and the world would much rather see trusted monarchies on thrones, rather than Islamists or even pan Arabists
 
Last edited:
Could you elaborate the point that if Iran is trying to gain its influence in Syria or in Southern Lebanon, how does that move is going to threaten another Arab country or monarch in Middle East?
 
Could you elaborate the point that if Iran is trying to gain its influence in Syria or in Southern Lebanon, how does that move is going to threaten another Arab country or monarch in Middle East?

Isn't it because of the Sunni-Shia thing? Iran v the House of Saud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That would just make everyone else afraid to leave their houses as well.

And a full blown ground war wouldn't make everyone afraid leave their houses? Drones would prevent the US from being dragged into another quagmire. Drones are the correct strategy in my opinion with heavy ground intelligence. Civilian casualties are unavoidable with boots on ground or with drones.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top