Your not a caliphate, your a cult. Welcome to western culture

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nigel Farage tells Fox News there are no-go zones for non-Muslims in France

CNN apologizes for 'no-go zones' segments

What on earth has Nigel Farage and no-go zones, real or not, got to do with IS, their perceived threat and the alleged irresponsible reporting of them by MSM and other news outlets?

It's sad that you allow rhetoric in your media like it is a requirement instead of striving to minimize it...

Its not a question of what rhetoric I allow - I have no control at all over that.
I recognise that very few news outlets are completely free from rhetoric of one sort of another - I use my own judgement and experience to try and see through the rhetoric, recognise and analyse the facts and then form a considered opinion the best I can.
That's all any of us can do.

Yet again though, you dodge direct questions that I have asked of you.
You say reporting has been 'irresponsible' - show me how and exactly how would you have news agencies report events in the region?

It sounds like excuses to you because you are putting words in my mouth.

I haven't tried 'to put any words in your mouth' at all.
Please show me exactly where I have.

In fact, after I told you that you were wrong, we should have stopped talking about this yet you continue to call me a liar.

The point is, it sounds like excuses to some, including myself.

Show me where I called you a liar.

Killing thousands of people? What about the cartels killing thousands of people?

Yet again, as much as you may wish it to be, this thread is not about 'the cartels' - its about IS.

To be honest, I understand your concerns about 'the cartels' etc and if I was an American living in America I think I'd probably share your concerns - but this thread is about IS and the threat etc that THEY pose.

Until you admit that I'm not making excuses for ISIS, yes.

?
I asked if you were calling me a liar when you said that you didn't believe that I whole heartedly agreed with your statement that there "are evils in both systems".
I've never suggested that 'western' society is perfect for the simple reason I don't think it is - far from it.
But that is a discussion for another thread.

Do the cartels not import drugs into your country? Because I'd bet that they do.

Of course they do - but they don't pose any sort of security risk to the people of this country.
And again, its not the topic under discussion in this thread.

So? It's not like their attacks will destablize any governments. Just another crime.

Not at present - but there's the obvious risk of disruption and backlash to increased terrorist activity.

And I very much doubt you'd dismiss it as 'just another crime' if you or any of your loved one's were caught up in such a terrorist attack.

How are you going to do this without creating new terrorists in the process?

Obliterate IS and you automatically nullify their attraction.

No, it's a feud. It may be deeply ingrained, but a feud it is.

Yet another casual dismissal of something I get the impression you don't fully understand the extent and nature of.

Sure the topic is proving that ISIS more than a regional threat. You've failed to do that.

Even if that's true, which it may well be, why then do you insist on repeatedly bringing 'the cartels' into the discussion?
Are you deliberately seeking to derail the thread for some reason?
Or do you simply want to push your own personal agenda regardless of the topic under discussion?

Preemptive war... The strategy of chicken hawks. Hit them before they hit us. Just fuels the endless cycle of violence in our world. It would be nice to try peace for once...

More than an element of truth in that statement and normally I'd tend to agree with you - but do you honestly think IS are the type to appease and negotiate with?
They are particularly brutal and fanatical - sorry, me personally I'd rather us NOT take a chance with them.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien


Are you sure ?

ISIS Mercenary Admits Getting Funds from US

Dutch Politician Has Secret Evidence Which Shows Turkey Delivered Weapons To Syrian Jihadists

The headline is misleading, and the story a downright fabrication, if the evidentiary images are to be taken at face value - as they are intended to be. The headline is worded to make it sound like the US is shoveling money at ISIS, but even the story says the money was "routed" through the US - as a great deal of all the world's transactions are. That does not mean the US is funding ISIS, any more than it means I live in Nashville if I drive through there on the way from LA to a home in Charleston SC.

What's REALLY funny - made me laugh until tears cam from my eyes - is the images of the alleged military material being supplied via air drop from the US to ISIS. Look at those crates again, and look at them HARD. The photo accompanying the first article is a prime example. A case of US "pineapple" hand grenades. Proof positive, case closed, right?

Nope.

The US has not used pineapple hand grenades since World War II. There aren't any stockpiles of them "just in case" or for "giveaway", either, after all this time. Those particular "hand grenades" have an even more glaring problem, visible in the photo. See the grenade body with the end aimed straight at the camera? the end with a HOLE in it? Those were "practice grenades" even years ago. Now they are just paperweights. Sure' I'd hate to get hit in the head with one, but if ISIS ever gets close enough to throw one at my head to bean me, they're gonna have much bigger problems than how strong their throwing arm might be.

That's close enough to see the whites of their eyes.

originally posted by: Ihsaan
a reply to: neo96

They are the words of house representatives.

Then they are goddamned liars, too.

Why they would they lie about playing a part in funding or creating such groups?

Your guess is as good as mine - maybe they wanted to be in the "popular kids" group, so felt they had to tow that line - or maybe, as follows, they are just ignorant.

Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton & George Galloway are just 3 members of parliament expressing the same view.

None of those would have any knowledge of the events - none of them were involved at the time the Taliban came about, much less long before that, back when the US actually WAS involved in Afghanistan pre-Taliban creation.

Taliban had several meetings with US officials prior to becoming the boogey men, 1 of those were at the white house if I recall. There is a photo of it someone online.

That wouldn't be the oft-misatributed "Reagan meets with Taliban" photo, would it?

There was no such thing as a "Taliban" at any point in time when Reagan would have had access to the White House. The photo is a hoax, perpetrated by propagandists trying to "prove" that "the US created the Taliban". The US did not create them. Pakistani ISI did, in 1994. At the time the US was involved in the Soviet-Afghan War, every single soul in what would later be the Taliban was a child, and a refugee in the Pakistani Northwest Frontier.

originally posted by: neo96


Exhibit B:

The Taliban movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan

en.wikipedia.org...

Not exactly, but close. The Taliban originated in Pakistani madrasas funded and directed by Pak ISI. They were children being indoctrinated at the time in the madrasas by ISI. The objective was Pakistani (specifically ISI) control of Afghanistan after the Soviets departed, as a "puppet" of the ISI. They were not, ever, "mujahideen" - they were always "taliban" = "students" at the madrasas until they were sent back into the chaos of the power vacuum left in Afghanistan after the departure of both the Soviets and the US from the theater.

originally posted by: nullafides
Cool, thank you for saying that

It is funny how we place emotions even onto typed words on a screen, isn't it ?

Yea, inflection is tough on the internet, but it is possible if you know how to do it right.

I'm glad you stated this. Clarification is always an evil necessity. Sometimes it's nowhere near the easiest thing to actually state your thoughts, and far easier to throw up words as a defense instead.

I believe this is the crux of what I was wanting to get to. Words are powerful. As powerful, IMHO, as a loaded gun. And they lay as dormant as one, too. Ready for the right ignition point to set them off.

This is why am of the camp (one wherein I am probably alone

that with the behavior of those such as ISIS, I *personally* would work (if it were my appropriateness to do so) to simply reply to the action and not bring in more emotion. Please don't get me wrong, I am not looking to insinuate that you are doing this intentionally. Nor am I looking to insult, not even in the slightest.

Let's say this were to happen to a loved one of mine. Beheaded. Well, I would personally look to not exact revenge, but to (pardon the pun) make a statement with my response. One that would be appropriate in tone, but also enough to drive the point home. The point I would be looking to drive home is, Do Not Look To Do This AGAIN. Period. It will not be tolerated on my part.

Does that make sense ? Please don't read anything pedantic into that, I am actually thinking out loud via the forum with that question. It's almost more of a question to myself than to anyone else, really.

Seeking retribution is a valid thought process to an unfortunate loss. I wouldn't fault you for that. But there is also a reason why they take police officers who have had crimes committed to people close to them off of the case, emotions make people act irrationally and do things we regret later. And there is no point more emotionally charged than right after the death of a loved one.

I hope this reads as I intend it to come across, but I respectfully disagree. If we are creating more terrorists, as I *feel* is the modern day trend in oppositional thought (and that is the best way I can come up with phrasing it, at the moment), I wonder what else could possibly be done?

I liken terrorists to a spoiled child. The more you give into his demands, the worse he gets. If you just ignore him from the get go (heck you can even start ignoring him later, it'll just take longer and be tougher to get the same result) then he works out his steam and eventually the problem goes away.

I for one am actively working towards a full acceptance of Buddhist beliefs and philosophy. Whereas I have been a (devout) agnostic all my life and raised to focus my thoughts on respect of others beliefs, I find more and more of my beliefs being a mirror of those that Buddha taught. A huge issue I have with the teachings though, is that of pacifism. I firmly believe that there should BE peace. But, it is an ideal. It is not the norm. In my opinion, that is. We are a violent race. We've proven it time and time again. And here I go again using the term "we", I hope you can infer my reason in using that word. I believe, have been taught, and have learned, that there are times when others will behave violently towards you and the ones you love. I feel that the appropriate response to this is one of defense.

As an agnostic myself I have mirrored thoughts along Buddhism as well but differ on much of the spirituality since testable, scientific evidence cannot be produced to substantiate the religion's claims. I will give the spirituality this much, of the earthly religions, it makes the most sense logically.

I also agree that defense is an acceptable form of violence, but attacking the Middle East to kill terrorists isn't defense. It is an act of unilateral aggression. Why are all the thousands of Muslims that we blow up that AREN'T terrorists acceptable losses for our war on terror; but a terrorist blows up a store, kills 3 or 4 people and it becomes a HUGE travesty?

Fair enough, I see your point.


KS, thank you for this discussion, I appreciate the opportunity

Unfortunately, given emotional injection, I do not feel discussions such as this are at all common. Here on ATS, or otherwise.

Your welcome, I always try to minimize my emotional responses to people on these forums. All of my opinions are thought out logically after reviewing evidence from different sources with a healthy application of my BS detector (this is why I am good with definitions, because I know how to spot the rhetoric and wording that you are talking about in the first half of your post). It makes me unpopular though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Eh... You need a label even when you are dealing with the actions. How else are you going to distinguish between the people that need punishing versus the innocents?

Well how about if we label them "headhunters" then? Would that work for you? Should we get more specific - maybe "headhunting slave traders"? Maybe even more specificity is called for: "headhunting slave traders with aspirations of expansion and world domination"... I'm just going off of their own literature to produce those labels, so they ought not to be objectionable to anyone at all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I also agree that defense is an acceptable form of violence, but attacking the Middle East to kill terrorists isn't defense. It is an act of unilateral aggression. Why are all the thousands of Muslims that we blow up that AREN'T terrorists acceptable losses for our war on terror; but a terrorist blows up a store, kills 3 or 4 people and it becomes a HUGE travesty?

That is a very thought provoking point you bring up. Thank you

I guess I personalized it, rather than the topic at hand, which is that of the response of a nation. I do see and get the difference you are underscoring here.

Your last line there about the probably innocent muslims we've killed vs the 3 or 4 deaths "we've" suffered", well, it is excellent. And mind opening.

Your welcome, I always try to minimize my emotional responses to people on these forums. All of my opinions are thought out logically after reviewing evidence from different sources with a healthy application of my BS detector (this is why I am good with definitions, because I know how to spot the rhetoric and wording that you are talking about in the first half of your post). It makes me unpopular though.

You and I both



BTW, I was not looking to cherry pick in what I quoted and responded to here, for the sake of cherry picking. Rather, for expedience of reading given the fact that I pretty much agreed with you whole heartedly on the rest of your points.....and felt that I only had responses to that which I quoted...

originally posted by: Freeborn
What on earth has Nigel Farage and no-go zones, real or not, got to do with IS, their perceived threat and the alleged irresponsible reporting of them by MSM and other news outlets?

You asked about misreporting. That was TWO MSM outlets who got caught saying lies about the Muslim threat. It wasn't directly about ISIS, but that means little. I'm sure that they wouldn't think twice about reporting misinformation about ISIS either if it suits their agenda.

Its not a question of what rhetoric I allow - I have no control at all over that.
I recognise that very few news outlets are completely free from rhetoric of one sort of another - I use my own judgement and experience to try and see through the rhetoric, recognise and analyse the facts and then form a considered opinion the best I can.
That's all any of us can do.

I don't allow rhetoric in ANY of my news and I still am able to take news in from a large source of information. You know how I do that? I trained myself to detect BS. I started sourcing the claims made in various news outlets. Ever play the "follow the source links" game on a news article and click all their sources to find the original source of that piece of news?. It's amazing how often the news will drag up a story from several years ago and present it like it is new or heck many times will flat out lie then let all the other news agencies rereport it like it is truth like that incident recently with Fox News reporting that the Army had decided to indict Bergdahl with treason even though no such decision had been made.

Yet again though, you dodge direct questions that I have asked of you.
You say reporting has been 'irresponsible' - show me how and exactly how would you have news agencies report events in the region?

I don't know maybe tone down the "WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE DOOMED BY THE MUSLIMS!" rhetoric a bit. Maybe acknowledge that ISIS is just a regional threat with no real possibility of expanding beyond the Middle East; then back those claims up with statistics and solid journalism showcasing that this is the case. Maybe acknowledge and reiterate over and over that not all Muslims are terrorists then discourage such talk. Maybe highlight some of the other ongoing atrocities in the world besides the Middle East (newsflash: the Middle East isn't the world's only hotspot). You are so used to bad media journalism that you've forgotten what good journalism should look like...

The point is, it sounds like excuses to some, including myself.

Show me where I called you a liar.

You call me a liar when you doubt my words. I don't care what it looks like to you, if I tell you I'm not making excuses then the POLITE thing to do is apologize for the confusion and move on. Instead I get this song and dance about how my words look a certain way. Just call me a liar and get it over with.

Yet again, as much as you may wish it to be, this thread is not about 'the cartels' - its about IS.

To be honest, I understand your concerns about 'the cartels' etc and if I was an American living in America I think I'd probably share your concerns - but this thread is about IS and the threat etc that THEY pose.

Which is none beyond the Middle East.

?
I asked if you were calling me a liar when you said that you didn't believe that I whole heartedly agreed with your statement that there "are evils in both systems".
I've never suggested that 'western' society is perfect for the simple reason I don't think it is - far from it.
But that is a discussion for another thread.

No, it is very relevant to this thread. By trying to address the problems of the Middle East without addressing our own problems fueling the Middle East's problems you are just bandaiding a gushing wound. Nothing is getting fixed and in all likelihood, no matter what your course of action, it will make the situation worse.

Not at present - but there's the obvious risk of disruption and backlash to increased terrorist activity.

And I very much doubt you'd dismiss it as 'just another crime' if you or any of your loved one's were caught up in such a terrorist attack.

Increased terrorist activity? The west has been in imminent risk of "increased terrorist activity" for the last 14 years. Except it never turns out that way. It's always just an isolated incident here or there. So instead of the fear rhetoric you've been giving me ("well this COULD happen, therefore it is to be feared and prepared for, even though all statistical analysis says that it wouldn't happen"), produce some evidence that this could actually happen. Heck, when terrorist deaths surpass total deaths in the BATHROOM for the year, maybe I'll start worrying about them.

As for your example, my opinion during the situation would probably be pretty invalid since I'd be acting emotionally and therefore not making sound decisions. Then again, I'd act the same if a gangbanger shot my family too, so your point kind of falls apart there. Stuff happens that is awful to people, that doesn't mean that it becomes a valid argument to act out emotionally. Even if I was so distraught that I recanted everything I've said to you because of my loved one's death, I'd be wrong. It would still JUST be another crime.

Obliterate IS and you automatically nullify their attraction.

Hmmm... That sounds like an objective and not so much a plan of action like I asked for.

Yet another casual dismissal of something I get the impression you don't fully understand the extent and nature of.

Oh I understand how important the feud is to the Muslim world. I've seen it in action while deployed in Iraq and I've discussed it with Muslims that I work with. A feud is a feud though. If you believe it is worse than a feud, what would you call it? Rivalry?

Even if that's true, which it may well be, why then do you insist on repeatedly bringing 'the cartels' into the discussion?
Are you deliberately seeking to derail the thread for some reason?
Or do you simply want to push your own personal agenda regardless of the topic under discussion?

No I am TRYING to show that there are other elements in the world that if we used the SAME arguments we use to go after ISIS would be MORE of a threat to us than ISIS is. I'm presenting the evidence to get you to THINK about the rhetoric you are using and that you aren't applying it equally to all the elements and dangers in the world. Why do you consider ISIS the number one threat to the west when there are countries that MAKEUP the west that have elements that are worse and do worse things? Why aren't they discussed and denounced so vehemently like we do ISIS? Why is ISIS so important to us?

More than an element of truth in that statement and normally I'd tend to agree with you - but do you honestly think IS are the type to appease and negotiate with?
They are particularly brutal and fanatical - sorry, me personally I'd rather us NOT take a chance with them.

Yeah, I don't want to take a chance disturbing that hornet's nest either. Ignore them like we do all the Mexicans dying at the cartels' hands. The public will forget they were even a problem if the media stops reporting on them.

you might be partially right...
even with Al Baghdadi/Ibrahim as the Caliph... IS is just at the starting stages of developing into a Caliphate

just wait though... IS or ISIS will be demoted to just being a branch of the Caliphate that will come out of Turkey as the hegemon/power...uniter...forming a truly regional Caliphate under which IS will only be an 'enforcement arm'... or even perhaps the military might of all lands of the Caliphate outside of the present Turkish homelands


however--- there is bound to be a major backlash between the Sunni Caliphate enforcement-arm (IS) and the greater Caliphate headed by Turkey in a neo-Ottoman rebirth...

And still later a major combat operation between a new greater-Caliphate (of Sunni)
and the Persians (Shia= Caliphate) who aim to relieve the Saudi Kingdom/Regime of Its' status and in-the-process take over Mecca & Medina in the near future...
& takeover Jerusalem as a long term goal


here is a closely related link to the topic/theme of this thread:
www.americanthinker.com...


although the article's focus is to point out the Obama threats
the article unwraps the mummy which is Shia-Sunni-Persian-Ottoman-Islamofascism intent on reanimating the Caliphate


interesting times, eh

a reply to: nenothtu

What about ISIS or terrorist?

a reply to: nullafides

Exactly. It's all about perspective, something that is lost on many of the people in the west. They see a threat in isolation and then attach unnecessary emotional baggage to it. Then they become defensive when someone actually DOES put the threat in perspective for them.

a reply to: tonycodes

Caliphate and cult read the same to me.

You know guys I have cited definitions in the beginning of this article and another post I cited definitions. If we cannot agree on what the accepted definitions of words are, then we are in babylon. Especially after today these groups i think make all of our blood boil. But these groups, which are all really head up by probably a couple key people between Al Queda and ISIS now, need proper labeling. So lets not be fooled that the leaders of these groups are not worried about their money, they are raking it in right now, and lets not be fooled that they care about religion more than the underage girl they are going to have sex with today. I think the best description based on definitions would be a Political Cult.

This is about their leaders politics that we all don't understand very well, but let me give out a tip, If the money ran out, this Political Cult wouldnt exist. If prospective followers of this cult didnt think it was cool anymore to do bc no one had any money or resources, then it wouldnt exist. No one is going to say Hey I am joining a cult filled with pedophiles to fight for Allah!

So let me put this out there... who in the world is going to send money to a group that are constantly called pedophiles and a cult that are only interested in money and their personal politics?

Strip the religious smoke and mirrors and all of a sudden none of these cults are very attractive anymore to anyone trying to take over countries or push an agenda.

The best part about them using the internet is that the internet has a wonderful way of backfiring and eating the very entities it helped to grow... i feel that day is coming.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You asked about misreporting.

Actually, I asked you to give examples of MSM misreporting on issues relating to IS - you still haven't done so.

I also asked you about exactly HOW you think MSM should report events relating to IS - you still haven't done so.

What you have done is provide 2 links to what you allege are 'TWO MSM outlets who got caught saying lies about the Muslim threat.'

Nothing whatsoever to do with IS.

I don't allow rhetoric in ANY of my news and I still am able to take news in from a large source of information. You know how I do that? I trained myself to detect BS.

You have exactly as much control over the rhetoric in news reports as I have - none.

What you seem to be saying to me is that you've learnt to filter out anything that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived take on things.....everything else is automatically BS.

I don't know maybe tone down the "WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE DOOMED BY THE MUSLIMS!" rhetoric a bit.

Many people believe that rhetoric is already massively played down by both the media and our politicians.
Some people seem more concerned about revenge attacks on Muslims rather than the real life victims of these atrocities - exactly how many Muslims in the UK and USA have died as a result of these so called revenge attacks?

Maybe acknowledge that ISIS is just a regional threat with no real possibility of expanding beyond the Middle East;

Why would I acknowledge something I don't believe?

You call me a liar when you doubt my words.

Trust me, if I wanted to call you a liar I would- I haven't so I don't think you are a liar - mistaken and wrong maybe, a liar no.

I don't care what it looks like to you,....

Zzzzzzz

.....if I tell you I'm not making excuses.....

I think I made it perfectly clear that from my point of view those who commit those atrocities are the one's responsible - their choice - everything else is semantics and smoke in mirrors - no-one forced them or made them chop peoples heads off or bash babies on walls till they are dead, they and they alone are responsible.
Refusing to accept this is in my opinion making excuses - you don't - we are never going to agree on this so let's simply accept that and move on.

You called me a liar because you don't believe that I think there are 'evils in both systems' - but I do think there are many evils in 'our' system - but we aren't discussing that in this thread which is why I haven't mentioned them - pretty straight forward to me.
Same as we aren't discussing the threat 'the cartels' pose yet still you bring them into the discussion - because YOU believe they are a bigger threat - so that suggests to me that you are pushing your own personal agenda.

And then you casually dismiss the threat of terrorist attacks at home in our own country's.

Well to be honest with you, tonight when I was in the pub I mentioned your belief that 'the cartels' pose a greater threat to us than IS and domestic terrorist attacks inspired by IS - to a man they were incredulous, a reaction I guarantee you would be repeated the length and breadth of Britain.

What you say may be true in the US but I guarantee you its not the case here in the UK, and probably throughout Europe - the threat of IS inspired terrorism is very much real over here.

Oh I understand how important the feud is to the Muslim world. I've seen it in action while deployed in Iraq and I've discussed it with Muslims that I work with. A feud is a feud though. If you believe it is worse than a feud, what would you call it? Rivalry?

To be fair, I don't know - just 'feud' doesn't seem to sum up the bitter and for some all consuming hatred they have for each other.

Yeah, I don't want to take a chance disturbing that hornet's nest either. Ignore them like we do all the Mexicans dying at the cartels' hands. The public will forget they were even a problem if the media stops reporting on them.

Not at all - just that 'the cartels' aren't the topic under discussion.

a reply to: tonycodes

So how come those Syrian rebels turned out to be bad guys

Does the US get their money back now

a reply to: tonycodes

I think referring to ISIS as a cult is an insult to cults.

Partially yes and no. Also relax children the 3rd anti-christ is not here yet! Well he is here but not of age to rise to power. Isis is the creation of US and the Elites via the route of revolutions, resistance funding and using religion as a tool in the Middle East. If you want the truth it is the fact that this so called Isis is the same group of people we funded in Syria,Libya and Iraq to help overthrow their governments.

The funny thing is Putin and Russia warned us that such a thing would happen.Did we listen? As it is said results speak for themselves.

a reply to: ViciLaw

You are def right that some of those funds went on to help isis, but that group has its roots as far back as 2000. I think all of these groups are going to turn out to be the product of several govts dirty little secrets that got out of hand. I highly doubt any govts would really want a group like this on the loose, its not going to take orders anymore. I feel like this is going to end like that dog you raised to fight, it escaped and killed a kid, and now you have to track it down and kill it.... but in the meantime it joined a pack of wolves in the forrest ready to protect it. lol These groups might not even realize they are a tool and think all this growth for their cause is because of their hard work lol wait till they find out they were never in control and just a pawn.

The Cult of Isis is much older than this. I ask myself, why do they choose this name (or chosen for them)? As it seems so opposite of what is portrayed as their belifs. A woman goddess??? The Virgin of the World?

Symbolism needs no words!

She's coming back and she's pissed!

Talk's cheap.