Kurds seize Iraq/Syria border post; Sunni tribe joins fight against Islamic State

a reply to: carport

Yes it is a great thing. Taking a major border post is a big deal, that's what's happening right now, not a few months ago. The Kurds at this point are not at all alone. Between Sunnis, Shiites, everyone else, the USAF and UKAF, IS not be getting that post back is probably a reality.

originally posted by: Swills
Calling them Sunni's is like saying the Westboro church represents all Christians.

Wrong comparision - it is like calling the Amish representing Christians. And this because the wahhabis are not first and mainly a hate group, but a group who wants to stick closely to the beliefs and who say that, in the early days already, muslims deviated from their true belief, which lead to their decline - so only going back to the roots will "cure" this problem.
They are not cultists who love to slay people - they rather _believe_ that what they do is according to the right understanding of the religion. And, you see, this is where the real problem starts, because even when one, as a muslim, understands the books in a different way and is opoosed to wahhabis (and such), there is always the question "but they follow the book too, what if they are right)" ... which explains a somewhat careful approach of many. However, we also shan't forget that Saudi-Arabia has sponsored (paid for) many mosques in many countries (yes, in western ones too) - so they are indeed able to imprint the wahhabi belief on a portion of the believing population, I'd estimate 10-50%, depending on the country - it won't be possible to eradicate it, one would rather have to deal with it, as an heritage to wrong policies of years ago.

a reply to: carport

Okay, I see your point but comparing them to the Amish is not at all a far comparison.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: carport

Yes it is a great thing. Taking a major border post is a big deal, that's what's happening right now, not a few months ago.

You don't understand.
This border post has changed hands multiple times already, right now it is apparently the turn of the Kurds again:
www.al-monitor.com...
And it is not a major border post, but a rather small town:
sco.wikipedia.org...

And while the IS might have lost this border post, it attacks full strength and quite successful a real important one:
live.aljazeera.com...

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: carport

Okay, I see your point but comparing them to the Amish is not at all a far comparison.

I agree, but you see the general problems with comparisions, they will simplify and lead people to think they understand what is going on, while, in reality, it is all much more complicated...

a reply to: carport

Thanks for links, especially the last one.

The Kurds weren't prepared to battle IS because they were outgunned but recently the Kurds were armed by the US so they are now able to battle them. So for them to recapture those posts back in June while outgunned shows how well they fought. It's a whole new game now.

a reply to: carport

What I'm talking about is the extremist pseudo-Sunni movement of Wahhabism that is what IS stands for so comparing them to the Westboro church is actually being nice because IS is clearly more extreme than Westboro.

a reply to: carport

For example ... some islamic authorities say that IS is not sunni, but karajit (which is a muslimic group that seperated early from the mainstream due to religious differences, they were considered to be "rebels"). Others still do support them, see the suadi-arabian girl that was flying a fighter of saudi-arabia against the IS, it was in the press last week. What happened is that even her own family denounced what she did as wrong, because the IS rather needed support.
The turkish president said they are an sunni group following the books, other arabics say they are sunnis, but what they do is wrong (but only because they killed other muslims). The western press calls them "islamists", but do not explain where exactly they draw the border between muslims and islamists, other call them terrorists and say the religion has nothing to do with it (however, it does not matter what WE think about their religion, but what THEY think about it, journalists are hardly competent on deciding what is religious and what not).

This all is a giant mess, and everyone is just trying to invent new names and excuses, why the groups has by far no connections to them (see the DA'ESH naming ... it means, in arabic, almost the same as ISIL or ISIS, but the magic in this word is that english -or french- speakers do not understand it, not to start talking about the correct transliteration or speaking of this acronym...), and what ever we do, it will be wrong. Sometimes, as cruel as it sounds, it might be best to let things play out themselves ... every external influence in SUCH circumstances will only create new problems ... of which many of us do not even understand the names, to start with.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: carport

What I'm talking about is the extremist pseudo-Sunni movement of Wahhabism that is what IS stands for so comparing them to the Westboro church is actually being nice because IS is clearly more extreme than Westboro.

Now define "extreme" - if you are a religious believer and follow the rule by the letter, it is argueable whether this MUST be considered extreme, isn't it?

What I am saying is - belief is nothing you can scientifically group in right or wrong, because in the end, it is what the believer believes, what makes his belief. And unless this goes clearly AGAINST the basic rules of the religion (as put down in so-called "holy books"), nobody can classify it as "wrong" or "extreme" (the word "fundamental" is better, because it more to the point).

As for the wahhabis, they are not identical with "salafists" (wahhabi is special brand of salafists, who themselves, do not all propagate military jihad, you also find streams that try to reach their goals completely peaceful).

a reply to: carport

For example ... some islamic authorities say that IS is not sunni, but karajit (which is a muslimic group that seperated early from the mainstream due to religious differences, they were considered to be "rebels"). Others still do support them, see the suadi-arabian girl that was flying a fighter of saudi-arabia against the IS, it was in the press last week. What happened is that even her own family denounced what she did as wrong, because the IS rather needed support.

Saudi Arabi and Wahhabism go together like peanut butter and jelly. So it's no wonder that the woman's parent denounced her because they support IS. No one here is argue against that Saudi, among other states, and terrorism go hand in hand.

en.wikipedia.org...

The majority of the Gulf Cooperation Council's Wahhabis are from Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.[21] 46.87% of Qataris[21] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Wahhabis.[21] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Wahhabis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Wahhabis.[21] Wahhabis are the "dominant minority" in Saudi Arabia.[22] There are 4 million Saudi Wahhabis since 22.9% of Saudis are Wahhabis (concentrated in Najd).[21]

The turkish president said they are an sunni group following the books, other arabics say they are sunnis, but what they do is wrong (but only because they killed other muslims). The western press calls them "islamists", but do not explain where exactly they draw the border between muslims and islamists, other call them terrorists and say the religion has nothing to do with it (however, it does not matter what WE think about their religion, but what THEY think about it, journalists are hardly competent on deciding what is religious and what not).

Yeah, you can classify them as Sunni just as you can with an Orthodox Jew to Judaism, but more importantly they are Wahhabi extremists. But don't get me started on how the MSM portrays them, well Muslims in general. The fear mongering and hate spreading is only gonna get worse. I knew grown women who see how the MSM portray IS on the news and they are literally afraid IS is coming for them. One had nightmares.

This all is a giant mess, and everyone is just trying to invent new names and excuses, why the groups has by far no connections to them (see the DA'ESH naming ... it means, in arabic, almost the same as ISIL or ISIS, but the magic in this word is that english -or french- speakers do not understand it, not to start talking about the correct transliteration or speaking of this acronym...), and what ever we do, it will be wrong. Sometimes, as cruel as it sounds, it might be best to let things play out themselves ... every external influence in SUCH circumstances will only create new problems ... of which many of us do not even understand the names, to start with.

Trust me, if and when IS is dealt with there will be problems amongst the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites in Iraq. The power struggle is on going.

a reply to: carport

Really, define it?

I'm talking the group that is literally committing mass genocide. They behead children and let their children proudly display said head for a selfi on Twitter.

You tell me how you define extreme?

a reply to: carport

... the IS, on the other hand, came ideologically from the origins of the muslim brotherhood (remember, one of the founders and the more influentical was Egyptian) But as I said before, this all is a giant mess, mainly because everyone does what it takes to reach their goals, switch allegiances from one day to the next and religion, humanity, whatever ... comes second.
We are lead to believe that the 2 sides of us versus them are clear (which is a result of simlification), but they aren't, there are many sides today, and tomorrow there are other sides and each and every coalition is holding exactly as long as it takes to reach ones goals. There is not even a "good" side, there are only many more or less bad ones, the IS, the Kurds (all groups), the Iraqi Sunnis, the Iraqi shiites, the Syrian groups, they all have a history of their own, none non-violent, when it came to their goals.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: carport

Really, define it?

I'm talking the group that is literally committing mass genocide. They behead children and let their children proudly display said head for a selfi on Twitter.

You tell me how you define extreme?

And this is something new? Beheading did happen before, in this region, by this group and other groups - do not fall into the trap of propaganda which is played most effective when it comes to displaying emotional challenges. What they do, is what a "terrorist" is supposed to do, enact terror on other people. If you can not follow he here, then explain to me what the difference is to seperating the head from a body with a sword or seperating all limbs from a body by a grenade or a bomb? Yes, there is no difference, not for the dead or severed people, but to us, as a spectator, there is a difference, because in our culture it is "cruel" to wield a sword, but "cool" to work a machine gun or a grenade.
As for mass genocide ... the IS had not killed a fraction of the number that has been killed by interfractional confrontations (and yes, the Kurds also were engaged, and the Shiites, and the Sunnis, ...) in Iraq alone in the past few years.

Demonizing one side only makes the sides clear and helps to find support for a cause - but what I am trying here to achieve is to not let us demonize one side but look at the whole picture, and the whole picture is a bloody one. By us fueling the fights, especially by supporting one side here, then another side some months later, and so on, we let the fire keep burning. The day before Yesterday, it was Al Kaida, yestreday it was the Taliban, today it is IS, who is it tomorrow? And, trust me, we will see even more cruel pictures (what about impaled people, for example, you will read about those in the Hadiths as well).

You know the clip where the spectators of a tennis match are shown and you hear "pong" and all heads go left and they say "oooh", then "pong and all heads go right and "oooh"?
That is us, but instead of "pong", we hear "al kaida", "ISIS", "Assad", "Chorasan". To whose advantage?

As i see it in the long run the Kurds will have there own country.

The Iraqi army is to cowardly to fight them as they can not even fight ISIS.

The Kurds have oil to pay for there own country.

Difference Between Sunni & Wahhabi!!!

We are not the same as Wahhabis...
Wahhabism isn't even close to being a form of Sunni!!!



This is great news for us Sunnis who are sick of being labelled alongside IS...


Al Bagdhadi is a self proclaimed Caliph...

He was not elected via Shura!!!

He is not a Sunni representative!!!