nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

ISIS are pure evil.

[Deleted User]

<mod snip>

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS (RAW) - ISIS begins killing Christians in Mosul, CHILDREN BEHEADED

While the world focuses on Gaza , ISIS continue their genocide of anyone and everything.

They have now been reported to have captured a group of women and children, and are beheading them.

warning, very graphic

Mod: Do not post graphic images here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

wretcheddomain

Egginacup wrote: »

ISIS (I don't even know who made up that name but the guys who are alleged to be ISIS members most likely don't call themselves that) are being fought by the US in Iraq and are being funded by the US in Syria. They just call them "moderates" when they fund them and "extremists" when they fight them.

The US are funding elements in Syria but not directly those in ISIS. Do you seriously believe ISIS are puppets of the US, as that's what you're implying. You're saying that ISIS are good friends with the US in Syria but their worst enemy in Iraq. No serious thinking person would possibly conclude ISIS is bipolar in this way.

BuilderPlumber

Egginacup wrote: »

ISIS are the new threat-du-jour don't you know? Al-Qaeda and the Taliban had become household names and so didn't carry the same fear factor. The Lords Resistance Army had some effect as did Boko Haram but ISIS chopping off heads really got us sh!tting in our toggs again and ready to do anything to be "kept safe".

ISIS/ISIL are the new name for al Qaeda in Iraq. Other names for al Qaeda derived groups in Iraq now more than likely absorbed into ISIS were Ansar al Sunna and Ansar al Islam. They had some sort of a falling out with mainstream al Qaeda and use this new, different name. Boko Haram, al Shabaab, etc. are similar and are in solidarity with ISIS. They are all part of greater al Qaeda/al Qaedaism.

The LRA are separate but hardly any better. A Christian answer to al Qaeda and ISIS? Definitely. Only we don't really care as they are confined to just Africa whereas the 'Islamic' terrorists want to strike the West.

BuilderPlumber

Egginacup wrote: »

Nobody is threatening your "way of life". You're just being spoonfed propaganda to keep you in a constant state of fear. Same thing was said about the communists. People were convinced by their government that if the US didn't fight in Vietnam then Asia would topple like dominoes to the red menace and before you know it we'd all be living in labour camps.

Well the Vietnamese finally defeated and kicked out the Americans and guess what? They [Vietnamese] then went about rebuilding their little country and their lives. No red menace swept over the world. It was all bullsh!t

Of course, there is a lot of spoonfed propaganda in all wars inclusive of this. For example, when have we heard about the millions of moderate Muslims in the world and about Christian and Islamic communities that live together in peace for years in places as diverse as Iran, Albania and Suriname.

Now, don't get me wrong: I firmly DO believe ISIS and al Qaeda are every bit as evil as they are portrayed. Yes, I do believe they want to control the entire world, will kill millions, are capable of using nuclear weapons and want to change our way of life. However, the good news is that most Muslims hate them as much as we do and they will never gain the support to achieve their evil ways. If they had real support, they would have become a far greater threat years ago. To date, we also must remember that some 95% of all victims of 'Islamic' fascist terrorist groups are Muslims. It may come as a surprise to many that Muslims have had their entire lives upset by these and hate them much more than we do.

pablomakaveli

Egginacup wrote: »

ISIS (I don't even know who made up that name but the guys who are alleged to be ISIS members most likely don't call themselves that) are being fought by the US in Iraq and are being funded by the US in Syria. They just call them "moderates" when they fund them and "extremists" when they fight them.

This shows how little you know about the situation. There are a lot of groups fighting it out in Syria. Assads forces, Al-Nusra who are backed by Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Kurdish forces, the Free Syrian Army and loads of smaller groups as well.

The US wanted to back the FSA which is the more moderate of the groups but it didn't prove a popular plan after the gas attacks raised doubts over what was happening.

The US never backed ISIS. ISIS have captured all their weapons from Assads forces and the Iraqi army.

At least research whats going on before coming out with nonsense like your post above.

Also your implication that ISIS are some sort of Western creation because they are called ISIS is more drivel. They're known as DAASH is the arab world, an acronym for Dulat al-Islam fi al-Iraq wal-Sham or the Islamic state of Iraq and Greater Syria. ISIS is just DAASH in English. There's no sinister Western media plot behind the use of ISIS.

SeanW

Egginacup wrote: »

ISIS are the new threat-du-jour don't you know? Al-Qaeda and the Taliban had become household names and so didn't carry the same fear factor. The Lords Resistance Army had some effect as did Boko Haram but ISIS chopping off heads really got us sh!tting in our toggs again and ready to do anything to be "kept safe".

Conspiracy Theories is thataway ...

realdanbreen

old_aussie wrote: »

It was all rar rar rar till someone fired a real bullet at them, now they want to come home.

When the going gets tough the irish get going.....home.

Its obvious that you know nothing about the esteem in which the Irish army is held accross the world.Educate yourself before posting about them.

Zebra3

LorMal wrote: »

The West - damned if they do, damned if they don't. Lefties annoy me - all they seem to want is to undermine the US - 'it's all a conspiracy for oil'...ad nauseum.
Meanwhile in the real world another poor innocent man was beheaded today.

Yeah, but when the US-backed regime in Saudi Arabia beheads people (which it has done for decades and beheads people at a much faster rate than ISIS) nobody cares.

But feel free to shout "conspiracy theory".... :rolleyes:

Why doesn't the US bomb Saudi Arabia, or Qatar were about 1,000 slaves have died building stadiums for the World Cup?

wretcheddomain

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yeah, but when the US-backed regime in Saudi Arabia beheads people (which it has done for decades and beheads people at a much faster rate than ISIS) nobody cares.

But feel free to shout "conspiracy theory".... :rolleyes:

Why doesn't the US bomb Saudi Arabia, or Qatar were about 1,000 slaves have died building stadiums for the World Cup?

Saudi Arabia for all its faults, and many faults it has, does not actively send its army to occupy other countries. Yes, it lies with and supports undesirable bedfellows, but this is wholly alien to the idea of militants destroying the geopolitical integrity of two sovereign states (namely Syria and Iraq), while actively threatening all Western nations with internal terrorism through their propaganda beheading campaign.

An opponent of ISIS does not a supporter of Saudi Arabia make.

John Mongo

glued wrote: »

The IDF have been trying to pull out of Syria since they were fired upon. Another set of troops were meant to be going out sometime this month to replace the IDF over there but it was decided to keep the current Irish troops stationed in Syria over there.

In fairness the Irish troops aren't really trained or equipped for a real combat situation.

The Defence Forces have been trying to pull out since they were fired upon. That's a lie, they've been getting fired upon since they first got there. Yet we're now going onto our third rotation of troops out there.

The next rotation of troops are leaving Ireland in a matter of days, so to say they're just leaving lads over there is a lie.

Also, your last statement is a lie. They were well trained and equipped enough to send Al Nusra Front scattering a matter of weeks ago.

Stop talking ****e.

John Mongo

old_aussie wrote: »

It was all rar rar rar till someone fired a real bullet at them, now they want to come home.

When the going gets tough the irish get going.....home.

Congo, Lebanon(multiple times), Somalia, East Timor, Kosovo, Syria.... All places where the going got tough and the Irish stood their ground.

Stop talking ****e.

Zebra3

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Saudi Arabia for all its faults, and many faults it has, does not actively send its army to occupy other countries. Yes, it lies with and supports undesirable bedfellows, but this is wholly alien to the idea of militants destroying the geopolitical integrity of two sovereign states (namely Syria and Iraq), while actively threatening all Western nations with internal terrorism through their propaganda beheading campaign.

They just behead people, so that's all right.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

An opponent of ISIS does not a supporter of Saudi Arabia make.

Actually an opponent of ISIS should be an opponent of SA and its allies.

Wulfie

How dare they cut off people's heads and get blood on their hands. God bless America, who spend trillions of dollars on weaponry that vaporize people . When they shoot someone with 50cal bullets the bodies have be scooped up with shovels, if there's enough pieces left to find. No blood on the killer's hands.

When the media show the results of this, I might feel more for their fate.

Gatling

Actually been really impressed by the way isis is currently fighting ( they are murdering low life scum)
But today they took an Iraqi army base and captured 300/500 Iraqi soldier prisoners and paraded them though Fallujah,

As a fighting force there ligh year's ahead of all previous terrorr units

Despite coming under air attacks there scoring victories

LorMal

sparksfly wrote: »

In the real world the us have supported the most vile and murderous groups imaginable. Fools still defend them. Anyone who points this out is a leftie or a commie. That's what annoys me.

Nah - you are just being silly now. I do not think the US is perfect by any means but I bet you would prefer to live there than in Raqqa?

LorMal

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yeah, but when the US-backed regime in Saudi Arabia beheads people (which it has done for decades and beheads people at a much faster rate than ISIS) nobody cares.

But feel free to shout "conspiracy theory".... :rolleyes:

Why doesn't the US bomb Saudi Arabia, or Qatar were about 1,000 slaves have died building stadiums for the World Cup?

Who is shouting 'conspiracy theory?'

No-one is condoning Saudi Arabia - it is a nasty regime.

Doesn't make the US to blame for everything Zebra3. You need a little mature perspective here.

LorMal

Egginacup wrote: »

ISIS are the new threat-du-jour don't you know? Al-Qaeda and the Taliban had become household names and so didn't carry the same fear factor. The Lords Resistance Army had some effect as did Boko Haram but ISIS chopping off heads really got us sh!tting in our toggs again and ready to do anything to be "kept safe".

You are still playing the same old 'what about' record Egg. Boring. And you have offered NO solution to the issue - ever.
Yet you persist on coming on here and spouting the same old tired crap while the situation gets worse.
Ridiculous.

Zebra3

LorMal wrote: »

Who is shouting 'conspiracy theory?'

See #1541.

LorMal wrote: »

No-one is condoning Saudi Arabia - it is a nasty regime.

People are bitching about ISIS beheading people but aren't bothered in the slightest that the dictatorship in SA do it more often.

LorMal wrote: »

Doesn't make the US to blame for everything Zebra3. You need a little mature perspective here.

The US offer military protection to the Saudi dictatorship. They are partly to blame.

LorMal

Zebra3 wrote: »

See #1541.

People are bitching about ISIS beheading people but aren't bothered in the slightest that the dictatorship in SA do it more often.

The US offer military protection to the Saudi dictatorship. They are partly to blame.

Your use of language is juvenile. No-one is 'bitching' about the beheading of innocent men. Outraged, upset, hurt, frightened perhaps...but 'bitching' no.
I think we can all reserve the right (and indeed the obligation) to express our outrage at these horrible inhuman acts.
'Bitching' is about traffic jams or water meters - its not for a grown up discussion about international terror.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

See #1541.

The US offer military protection to the Saudi dictatorship. They are partly to blame.

The US sell military equipment to the Saudis who in turn hand the Americans large cheques ,

Simple economics

jimboblep

old_aussie wrote: »

Israel, can protect its own boarders, they don't need the irish.

Where were the irish when Syria attacked Isreal in the Yom Kippur war?

Its because of the yom kippur war that there is a UN mission on the golan heights

sparksfly

LorMal wrote: »

Nah - you are just being silly now. I do not think the US is perfect by any means but I bet you would prefer to live there than in Raqqa?

Stupid argument, I'd rather live in Tel Aviv than Gaza, doesn't mean I support Israel over Palestine.

LorMal

sparksfly wrote: »

Stupid argument, I'd rather live in Tel Aviv than Gaza, doesn't mean I support Israel over Palestine.

Gaza is hardly an equivalent situation to Raqqa now is it?

Roger Hassenforder

Egginacup wrote: »

Nobody is threatening your "way of life". You're just being spoonfed propaganda to keep you in a constant state of fear. Same thing was said about the communists. People were convinced by their government that if the US didn't fight in Vietnam then Asia would topple like dominoes to the red menace and before you know it we'd all be living in labour camps.

Well the Vietnamese finally defeated and kicked out the Americans and guess what? They [Vietnamese] then went about rebuilding their little country and their lives. No red menace swept over the world. It was all bullsh!t

But I'm not in a state of fear...
I'm just a realist & I can differentiate bullshyte from fair comment. The world I would like does not have a place for IS. Simple. That's not hysteria about a threat to my way of life? I don't see every Muslim as a threat. However, the life I want is compatible with the interests of US/Britain. No one is saying they're perfect, but I'm glad they're there, (notwithstanding any nationalistic tendencies I have re the British!), I don't know what the alternative would be.

if you think that IS are anything like the Vietnamese, you're a bigger muppet than your posts suggest. If unchecked, do you think they will stop at the Turkish border? Will they say, "right lads, that's us sorted with our caliphate; lets start building schools for girls, have equal rights for all including homosexuals, universities, libraries, lets have due process for alleged criminals..."

& BTW, the North Vietnamese didn't actually defeated the US, the US made some epic f**k ups, had enough and pulled out, and left what was left to them.

Stop trotting out Noam Chomskyisms, and offer something original FFS.

BuilderPlumber

Zebra3 wrote: »

People are bitching about ISIS beheading people but aren't bothered in the slightest that the dictatorship in SA do it more often.

The US offer military protection to the Saudi dictatorship. They are partly to blame.

Saudi Arabia's version of Islam is what has inspired all the others. Yeah, the likes of Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and all their regional allies take that as their blueprint and then add even worse stuff to it.

Beheadings belong in the middle ages and biblical times. That a supposedly modern state uses it as punishment to this day sets a bad example. When I was in college 2 years back, I saw all this Saudi open for business literature and they want to project themselves as modern and enlightened. Yet, despite all their space age buildings in Riyadh, stone age practices are carried out on its streets.

The problem is: Saudi's regime is corrupt, barbaric and repressive. It more than likely ideologically hates the West too. Yet, it is defended by the US and the West. Despite being the most anti-Israel regime in the region, even Israel tacitly supports it. Why?

-Everyone depends on its oil. Instability in SA would spiral the world into a recession that would make the 2008- one or even the great depression look like nothing. 9/11, Iraq, etc. set the ball rolling for the current one we must note and these along with other things helped cause it. If SA fell, it would spiral things totally out of control and we would have to make deals with Iran fast and even that would not help as Iran's oil exploration is not as advanced as SAs. Remember too that other oil producers then remain unstable and god knows the others could fall too.
-If the Kingdom of SA fell, it is most likely because those who took over did not regard it as 'Islamic' enough. The new 'Islamic' Emirate of Arabia would emerge as a Taliban-like state that could harbour terrorism and cut off oil and use oil as a weapon. You could well end up with a state that launches terror attacks on Western capitals and yet the West would have to make a deal with it for oil! Of course, this is why Israel also prefers KSA to the alternative!!

So, KSA is a US and Israeli protectorate in all but name! No one respects it but it is seen as a necessary evil. A blind eye is constantly turned to it and its existing funding of terrorism.

By right, the Arab and Islamic world deserves democracy and coming into the modern world like everywhere and yes there are millions who yearn for this. Instead, they are stuck with either war ravaged lands or the others put up with less than perfect regimes for fear of worse taking over. The Al Sauds, Ali Khamenei, the constantly corrupt Pakistani regimes, Assad and the military regimes of Egypt are all hardly what one ideally wants but they are tolerated by their own people, by the West, by other powers and even by Israel for fear of worse taking over. The so-called 'Arab Spring' proved just that: Egypt hardly changed. The military decided to stay in control as they feared an 'Islamic' Taliban-style regime taking over. Egypt sans the pyramids would hardly work. Libya post the Colonel is a total mess, much worse than before. This has also helped further destabilise already unstable places like Niger and Mali as well as Algeria. Syria has gone from a country where there was hope to one of total despair since 2011. And Iraq has only got worse since the 'Arab Spring' (around 2008-2010, there was signs of it settling down).

Sad and all as it is, the Middle East's current regimes seem to be about the most moderate of what's realistically on offer. Worse much worse are waiting in the high grass to control Riyadh, Kabul, Tehran, Islamabad and Damascus. They could soon even control Baghdad and Tripoli and it is scary.

LorMal

That's a great post BuilderPlumber.

suicide_circus

When we finally stop relying in oil, not only will it benefit the environment but it will put the saudis, emirates etc back in their box. Can't come soon enough.

Zebra3

LorMal wrote: »

Your use of language is juvenile. No-one is 'bitching' about the beheading of innocent men. Outraged, upset, hurt, frightened perhaps...but 'bitching' no.
I think we can all reserve the right (and indeed the obligation) to express our outrage at these horrible inhuman acts.
'Bitching' is about traffic jams or water meters - its not for a grown up discussion about international terror.

No, because bitching is it all it is. Because there's only people going on about a few beheading by ISIS and not the huge number of beheadings by SA.

Gatling wrote: »

The US sell military equipment to the Saudis who in turn hand the Americans large cheques ,

Simple economics

No, it's called supporting evil.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Saudi Arabia's version of Islam is what has inspired all the others. Yeah, the likes of Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and all their regional allies take that as their blueprint and then add even worse stuff to it.

Beheadings belong in the middle ages and biblical times. That a supposedly modern state uses it as punishment to this day sets a bad example. When I was in college 2 years back, I saw all this Saudi open for business literature and they want to project themselves as modern and enlightened. Yet, despite all their space age buildings in Riyadh, stone age practices are carried out on its streets.

The problem is: Saudi's regime is corrupt, barbaric and repressive. It more than likely ideologically hates the West too. Yet, it is defended by the US and the West. Despite being the most anti-Israel regime in the region, even Israel tacitly supports it. Why?

-Everyone depends on its oil. Instability in SA would spiral the world into a recession that would make the 2008- one or even the great depression look like nothing. 9/11, Iraq, etc. set the ball rolling for the current one we must note and these along with other things helped cause it. If SA fell, it would spiral things totally out of control and we would have to make deals with Iran fast and even that would not help as Iran's oil exploration is not as advanced as SAs. Remember too that other oil producers then remain unstable and god knows the others could fall too.
-If the Kingdom of SA fell, it is most likely because those who took over did not regard it as 'Islamic' enough. The new 'Islamic' Emirate of Arabia would emerge as a Taliban-like state that could harbour terrorism and cut off oil and use oil as a weapon. You could well end up with a state that launches terror attacks on Western capitals and yet the West would have to make a deal with it for oil! Of course, this is why Israel also prefers KSA to the alternative!!

So, KSA is a US and Israeli protectorate in all but name! No one respects it but it is seen as a necessary evil. A blind eye is constantly turned to it and its existing funding of terrorism.

By right, the Arab and Islamic world deserves democracy and coming into the modern world like everywhere and yes there are millions who yearn for this. Instead, they are stuck with either war ravaged lands or the others put up with less than perfect regimes for fear of worse taking over. The Al Sauds, Ali Khamenei, the constantly corrupt Pakistani regimes, Assad and the military regimes of Egypt are all hardly what one ideally wants but they are tolerated by their own people, by the West, by other powers and even by Israel for fear of worse taking over. The so-called 'Arab Spring' proved just that: Egypt hardly changed. The military decided to stay in control as they feared an 'Islamic' Taliban-style regime taking over. Egypt sans the pyramids would hardly work. Libya post the Colonel is a total mess, much worse than before. This has also helped further destabilise already unstable places like Niger and Mali as well as Algeria. Syria has gone from a country where there was hope to one of total despair since 2011. And Iraq has only got worse since the 'Arab Spring' (around 2008-2010, there was signs of it settling down).

Sad and all as it is, the Middle East's current regimes seem to be about the most moderate of what's realistically on offer. Worse much worse are waiting in the high grass to control Riyadh, Kabul, Tehran, Islamabad and Damascus. They could soon even control Baghdad and Tripoli and it is scary.

Nobody in the west has the right to support dictators that crushes the opportunities of freedom for the people of the ME.

We could also do with the media calling out the hypocrisy of the west instead of just behaving like propagandists for the White House.

Also SA is not the most anti-Israeli regime in the ME. SA and Israeli secret services regularly collude with each other.

P.Walnuts

Zebra3 wrote: »

No, because bitching is it all it is. Because there's only people going on about a few beheading by ISIS and not the huge number of beheadings by SA.

To be fair the Saudi's use a sword ( i think) and it's over in a blink of an eye, one swipe does it, probably much less tramatic than lethan injection for example. A million miles from ISIS and their fcuking butter knives.

BoJack Horseman

Zebra3 wrote: »

Nobody in the west has the right to support dictators that crushes the opportunities of freedom for the people of the ME.

Countries have the right to treat with whatever other nation or government it chooses.
That's the way of things

I'm keen to see the statute, treaty or otherwise you can back this point with?

BuilderPlumber

Zebra3 wrote: »

Also SA is not the most anti-Israeli regime in the ME. SA and Israeli secret services regularly collude with each other.

Of course they do. SA and Israel have ideologies that make it official to hate each other. But the reality as usual is far different. While Saudi Mullahs will chant Anti-Israel/Arab solidarity nonsense, SA and Israel meanwhile are colluding to protect their interests. SA to remain top Arab dog and Israel's aims are also to keep its immediate bordering nations weak and poor. Saudi don't want Iraq or Syria for instance to be strong enough to take its place.

It is the same relations we see with Iran. Israel and Iran officially 'hate' each other. In reality, they have collaborated a lot and Israel backed Iran always against its Arab enemies. SA and Iran also have been known to do deals when it comes to the likes of Saddam's Iraq.

Everyone will side with everyone when it is necessary. The reality is that others want to see the likes of Iraq and Syria kept down so as they can prosper. SA, Iran and Israel don't do sharing a common objective to defeat a common enemy? Wrong, of course they do and ideological differences vanish when it comes to keeping others from getting a piece of their cake.