Boko Haram pledge allegiance to ISIS

IrishTrajan

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

FluffyAngel

Nope,if we Corkonians cant get our Republic these IS boys havent a chance

Roger Hassenforder

FluffyAngel wrote: »

Nope,if we Corkonians cant get our Republic these IS boys havent a chance

Cork is a lot more complicated than the ME in fairness.

FluffyAngel

Tell me about it..:P


http://www.nationstates.net/nation=democratic_republic_of_corkonia

Steppenwolfe

Possibly in Nigeria. Nobody in the west gives a **** about the Nigerians. Even their own govenment don't care as long as their Swiss bank accounts are safe. They are enslaving schoolkids and murdering whole communities with impunity. If they can get away with that while the west turns a blind eye who knows what might happen. However, the Americans have too many interests in the Middle East to let it happen over there.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Great bunch of lads.

Rabbo

FluffyAngel wrote: »

Nope,if we Corkonians cant get our Republic these IS boys havent a chance

Wait until Kerry pledges allegiance to us, then we'll get our Republic

Sir Osis of Liver.

Rabbo wrote: »

Wait until Kerry pledges allegiance to us, then we'll get our Republic

Tipperary says NO.

Sheep Lover

Somebody will get hurt or even worse, lose an eye, with all this carry on.

Roger Hassenforder

Rabbo wrote: »

Wait until Kerry pledges allegiance to us, then we'll get our Republic

west cork would immediately split

corner of hells

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

west cork would immediately split

Just like North and South Korea , lead by a Cork version of Kim Jong-un.

ScumLord

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

Second from the left, where'd you get those shoes?

Rabbo

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

west cork would immediately split

And would turn into a coastal tax haven like Monaco

Irish Guitarist

Did they not make enough money from the sales of their single A Whiter Shade Of Pale?

Son Of A Vidic

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

Yes.

Oh and it's better to call them by their real name - Daesh. This is what the Arabic speaking world calls them. Daesh generally means scumbags, blasphemers, bigots and oppressors. So don't grant legitimacy, by calling them by their own self-appointed delusionary name ISIS or IS. Call them by the proper title, the all encapsulating title that defines their psychotic evilness - Daesh.

IrishTrajan

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Yes.

Oh and it's better to call them by their real name - Daesh. This is what the Arabic speaking world calls them. Daesh generally means scumbags, blasphemers, bigots and oppressors. So don't grant legitimacy, by calling them by their own self-appointed delusionary name ISIS or IS. Call them by the proper title, the all encapsulating title that defines their psychotic evilness - Daesh.

"Real name". What?

Their name is the Islamic State. Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in Yemen, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ansar al-Sharia, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis.. They all exhibit similar goals, ambitions, thought processes and willingness to commit atrocities.

Surely we should refer to all of those groups as Daesh, right? But that wouldn't work because they have different hierarchies and members. They call themselves the Islamic State, so that is what I'll call them.

DarkJager

That's a shame, I really liked "A whiter shade of pale".

wretcheddomain

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Yes.

Oh and it's better to call them by their real name - Daesh. This is what the Arabic speaking world calls them. Daesh generally means scumbags, blasphemers, bigots and oppressors. So don't grant legitimacy, by calling them by their own self-appointed delusionary name ISIS or IS. Call them by the proper title, the all encapsulating title that defines their psychotic evilness - Daesh.

I see where you're coming from, but when you think about it, ISIS is correct.

Even though they are not, as of yet, an official state - there is no question in my mind that they really are "Islamic".

Most Muslims deplore their actions in the same way most Christians would deplore slavery. This psychotic behaviour is mandated by both the Qur'an and the Bible - all one needs to have is a predisposition to violence and a political excuse, that is to say, complaining about US foreign policy.

ISIS are more Islamic than most Muslims are.

Drakares

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

Yes you are the only one.

A couple of thousand nigerian scumbags added to the mix will just make their grave all the larger when they're eradicated.

They haven't become enough of an annoyance to the Western world just yet, but when they do, they'll be stomped out like the cancer they are.

IrishTrajan

Drakares wrote: »

Yes you are the only one.

A couple of thousand nigerian scumbags added to the mix will just make their grave all the larger when they're eradicated.

They haven't become enough of an annoyance to the Western world just yet, but when they do, they'll be stomped out like the cancer they are.

Closer to ten thousand by popular estimates.

Good luck trying to eradicate them, though. A decade of war in Iraq showed us that snuffing out insurgencies isn't as easy as it sounds.

Sir Osis of Liver.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

ScumLord wrote: »

Second from the left, where'd you get those shoes?

Adverts by the looks of it. http://www.adverts.ie/crazy-random-stuff/not-sure/7590724

reprise

I have yet to see evidence to convince me that Boko Haram, at heart, are much more than a warring ethnic group wearing religious clothes.

http://news.usni.org/2015/02/11/essay-boko-harams-campaign-ethnic-cleansing

In Nigeria, it is often said all politics are ethnic politics. So, for researchers to overlook the ethnic aspects of the insurgency—the ethnic identities of Boko Haram’s victims and the reasons they have been targeted—is an extraordinary lapse.

Steve_Carella

IrishTrajan wrote: »

A decade of war in Iraq showed us that snuffing out insurgencies isn't as easy as it sounds.

I'm kind of more inclined to think that it showed us how profitable war is. It's in the interests of war profiteers to keep wars going as long as possible. With the technology that's available now, and especially the manpower available if the various governments REALLY wanted to wipe out ISIS, the only apparent reason it hasn't been done yet must be because of a decision not to do so.

IrishTrajan

Steve_Carella wrote: »

'm kind of more inclined to think that it showed us how profitable war is. It's in the interests of war profiteers to keep wars going as long as possible. With the technology that's available now, and especially the manpower available if the various governments REALLY wanted to wipe out ISIS, the only apparent reason it hasn't been done yet must be because of a decision not to do so.

Everything is profitable to someone. War is no different.

Probably because trying to stomp out insurgencies requires the use of force, which will invariably cause civilian casualties. When civilians die, more people join the extremist groups.

Like I said, you're overestimating how easy it is to defeat an insurgency.

Steve_Carella

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Like I said, you're overestimating how easy it is to defeat an insurgency.

I don't think it's easy at all. I just can't help thinking that it can't be as impossible as we're led to believe. Put it like this, I think if the Americans wanted to wipe out ISIS, they could do it. Not easily, but it could be done.

IrishTrajan

Steve_Carella wrote: »

I don't think it's easy at all. I just can't help thinking that it can't be as impossible as we're led to believe. Put it like this, I think if the Americans wanted to wipe out ISIS, they could do it. Not easily, but it could be done.

If they have public support for such measures, they could degrade them but unlikely to ever fully stamp out, sure. But they don't. So they won't.

The current fighting is between Shia militias, Sunni militias (ISIS in this regard), and the Peshmerga. If the U.S. goes in, the Shia will end up trying to kill them again (like they did when the U.S. was there).

It's not in U.S., or European for that matter, interest to get involved with ground troops. Yes, we should bomb them from the air, but Rumsfeld Doctrine still dictates you have to have troops on the ground.

It may seem callous, but Western life holds more weight with me than a Middle Eastern or African life. Call me a bigot, but it's simple fact. Most people only care about their group, and don't care about the other side all that much. It's why NATO didn't bomb continuously in the Bosnian war. They didn't want to risk a single Western life to save a hundred Bosnian lives. It's simple pragmatism: "Us vs them".

towelly

I think Enda will pledge Ireland's allegiance to ISIS if they promise to create a few hundered jobs setting up the Caliphate call centre in Dublin.

wretcheddomain

towelly wrote: »

I think Enda will pledge Ireland's allegiance to ISIS if they promise to create a few hundered jobs setting up the Caliphate call centre in Dublin.

And their sister franchise, Heads R' Us

Adamantium

I think its out sense of moral conscience/vanity that has been the only reason ISIS or Boko Haram haven't been quashed at this point. The truth of the matter is full out war almost always clears the air as horrible as that sounds, it's a psychological you were bet and everybody has seen it.


Say what you will about the Dark Ages but little lunatic uprisings like this would be put down without impunity and shown for what they are, i.e. we don't stand your quite obvious bull****, don't do that again

This is one of the problems with diplomacy and why nothing seems to get done until they're banging down the door or people are dying in their thousands at which point it is too late. We have to be touchy feeley with ****ers who will never be touchy feeley and have no intention of being.

Steve_Carella

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If they have public support for such measures, they could degrade them but unlikely to ever fully stamp out, sure. But they don't. So they won't.

The current fighting is between Shia militias, Sunni militias (ISIS in this regard), and the Peshmerga. If the U.S. goes in, the Shia will end up trying to kill them again (like they did when the U.S. was there).

It's not in U.S., or European for that matter, interest to get involved with ground troops. Yes, we should bomb them from the air, but Rumsfeld Doctrine still dictates you have to have troops on the ground.

It may seem callous, but Western life holds more weight with me than a Middle Eastern or African life. Call me a bigot, but it's simple fact. Most people only care about their group, and don't care about the other side all that much. It's why NATO didn't bomb continuously in the Bosnian war. They didn't want to risk a single Western life to save a hundred Bosnian lives. It's simple pragmatism: "Us vs them".

Call me callous too but I'd rather they were over there killing each other than over here killing us. I guess as long as they're only in the Middle East there's no real need for anyone else to go weighing in against them.

Nodin

Steve_Carella wrote: »

Call me callous too but I'd rather they were over there killing each other than over here killing us. I guess as long as they're only in the Middle East there's no real need for anyone else to go weighing in against them.

.....what do you think would happen if they started a campaign in Saudi....?

Steve_Carella

Nodin wrote: »

.....what do you think would happen if they started a campaign in Saudi....?

I have no idea. I have a feeling there's an expected answer to this that I don't know.

Nodin

Steve_Carella wrote: »

I have no idea. I have a feeling there's an expected answer to this that I don't know.

Fear that they'd attack the refineries and oil related infrastructure would cause prices to rise rapidly, even more so if they actually did. Should they get a foothold on the gulf and attrack shipping - even in an ineffective way - this would again push the price up. For that reason alone, its in no-one's interest they be allowed run round the place unchecked.

smurfjed

.....what do you think would happen if they started a campaign in Saudi....?

The Saudi government would tear up any books on human rights and destroy them. The Americans would rapidly move in from Qatar to protect the oil fields. The Irish would ask the Saudi's to be nice to any dual nationals that they might capture !

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

.....what do you think would happen if they started a campaign in Saudi....?

Why on Earth would they start a campaign in the lands of their largest financial supplier?

Oh, and to answer your question: The U.S. would probably bomb them to pieces, and let the Saudis do the fighting. They might as well put all those Leopard 2s to good use.

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you want. You argue for the West staying out of Arab affairs (backing Israel for one), and now you're arguing that the West should get involved because they'd do if it was Saudi Arabia being attacked.

Do you just think the world runs on sunshine and rainbows, that the West should take a paradoxical stance?

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

Fear that they'd attack the refineries and oil related infrastructure would cause prices to rise rapidly, even more so if they actually did. Should they get a foothold on the gulf and attrack shipping - even in an ineffective way - this would again push the price up. For that reason alone, its in no-one's interest they be allowed run round the place unchecked.

No it wouldn't. Oil prices would only rise if supply couldn't meet demand. Right now, supply outruns demand, and ISIS doesn't just take over oil rigs and then do nothing. They drill for oil sands and sell the oil on. Supply might dip, but it won't drop below demand to cause a price increase.

If they tried to get a foothold in the Gulf, they'd have an entire U.S. carrier group blowing them to pieces, with Saudis (who aren't going to drop their guns and run off to leave a different sect to ISIS' whims, a la Iraqi Army).

Steve_Carella

Nodin wrote: »

Fear that they'd attack the refineries and oil related infrastructure would cause prices to rise rapidly, even more so if they actually did. Should they get a foothold on the gulf and attrack shipping - even in an ineffective way - this would again push the price up. For that reason alone, its in no-one's interest they be allowed run round the place unchecked.

I think we'd DEFINITELY see the Americans getting involved then. Oil? Out of the way, here comes Uncle Sam!

Desolation Of Smug

They should pop a schnakey bounty onto any ISIS /Boko Haram Members head, somthing juicy, say $40,000.00 - bosh in a bit of multi-lateral funding and make pay-outs fairly relaxed, no questions asked. Then, declare it open season, stand back and let the headcases bang ahead. Suddenly being a member wouldn't be as cool and relaxed as before, everyone would be after your a55is. Being in ISIS would be like being a squirrel in Alabama just before dinner time.

IrishTrajan

Desolation Of Smug wrote: »

They should pop a schnakey bounty onto any ISIS /Boko Haram Members head, somthing juicy, say $40,000.00 - bosh in a bit of multi-lateral funding and make pay-outs fairly relaxed, no questions asked. Then, declare it open season, stand back and let the headcases bang ahead. Suddenly being a member wouldn't be as cool and relaxed as before, everyone would be after your a55is. Being in ISIS would be like being a squirrel in Alabama just before dinner time.

45,000-75, members. $50,000 a head is $225 million to $375 million. That's more than it'd cost to bomb them and let the Kurds mop up, and you'd probably end up with people killing random people and claiming they were in ISIS or Boko Haram.

Desolation Of Smug

IrishTrajan wrote: »

45,000-75, members. $50,000 a head is $225 million to $375 million. That's more than it'd cost to bomb them and let the Kurds mop up, and you'd probably end up with people killing random people and claiming they were in ISIS or Boko Haram.

Sounds like a bargain.

Egginacup

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks ISIS might just pull off this caliphate of theirs?

Yes, you are.

How is this religious caliphate going to live harmoniously with Putin's global soviet empire 2.0, when religion is the opium of the masses?

bjork

Some people just love more rules> Oh, it's not strict enough, lets get more rules. :rolleyes:

Egginacup

FluffyAngel wrote: »

Nope,if we Corkonians cant get our Republic these IS boys havent a chance

That's because if a Caaaaaark girl snagged a dub a ye Gurran tills had a problem with it, she'd stone ye to death, haha

bjork

I wonder would they have any jobs going?

I'm a head chef.....:pac:

reprise

bjork wrote: »

I wonder would they have any jobs going?

I'm a head chef.....:pac:

If the yanks went in to clean Boko Haram out and you has as much as a bottle of cooking oil, the loony left would say that was the reason they were there.

Gatling

reprise wrote: »

If the yanks went in to clean Boko Haram out and you has as much as a bottle of cooking oil, the loony left would say that was the reason they were there.

Big Bad Vlad

Is going to get them

Not !!!!

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Oil prices would only rise if supply couldn't meet demand. ............

You aren't too aware how oil prices work, I see.

Why on Earth would they start a campaign in the lands of their largest financial
supplier?

The Saudi state does not finance IS.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you want

Well, reading my post in the context of the post it was replying too would help you greatly. Less coffee and dollops of rage would not go astray either.

Sprog 4

corner of hells wrote: »

Just like North and South Korea , lead by a Cork version of Kim Jong-un.

Jim Lang-er

smurfjed

The Saudi state does not finance IS.

But some of the Saudi people do, pretty much the same as Irish Americans with NORAID. Although i have to admit that the Saudi government has enacted a lot of financial controls to stop the collection and distribution of that money.

up for anything

smurfjed wrote: »

The Saudi government would tear up any books on human rights and destroy them. The Americans would rapidly move in from Qatar to protect the oil fields. The Irish would ask the Saudi's to be nice to any dual nationals that they might capture !

I don't think the Saudi government has any books on human rights.

smurfjed

Not only books but an official organisation....

http://nshr.org.sa