Org Mobile Site
Thread: ISIS on the offensive in Iraq
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nice ain't it, what a waste. Savages. These mentally challenged inbreeds probably didn't even know what they were destroying, I bet our house-Assyrian wants a word with them.
Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.Nice ain't it, what a waste. Savages. These mentally challenged inbreeds probably didn't even know what they were destroying, I bet our house-Assyrian wants a word with them.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.
Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.
Er, why are you blaming the left again? I'd have thought the ultra-religious would be classed as far right, not anything to do with the left. It's the evangelistic left who were all for intervening in the middle east to bring liberal democracy to their benighted masses. If they had their way, we'd be in there right now to bomb the crap out of IS.Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.
Well, the Pharaohs are a "false idol" to more or less exactly the same extent as the Assyrian gods. Nobody is worshipping them at all these days -- to the best of my knowledge -- but in their eras they were worshipped as gods and any memorabilia or images thereof might constitute an icon of false worship. Absent the power of belief, I think these artifacts pose no threat, but apparently some Islamic religious leaders disagree with my point of view.Look at the bright side, there is a fatwa to destroy the pyramids, that should keep them busy for a while.
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
You just got to respect that, don't we lefties.
Should ISIS suborn Egypt and actually wreck the pyramids, Karnak and the like, they would take a big chunk of the Egyptian economy with them. In years when Egypt is NOT engaged in civil war/infighting, tourism represents over 10% of the GDP and 14% of foreign currency transactions.
Rumor has it that many of the destroyed artifacts were actually replicas. Originals were moved to Bagdad, taken by the British years ago, or just recently sold by ISIS for cash on the black market.
Originally Posted by :
They must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
mfw Fragony is doing Islamic jurisprudenceThey must be DESTROYED because there is only one god and his name is Allah. Errrrr they are tombs, nobody worships the Farao's. Minor detail.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Er, why are you blaming the left again? I'd have thought the ultra-religious would be classed as far right, not anything to do with the left. It's the evangelistic left who were all for intervening in the middle east to bring liberal democracy to their benighted masses. If they had their way, we'd be in there right now to bomb the crap out of IS.
Of course we can blame the left, as they have their own religion called 'multicultteralism'. Not allowed to fail, so always more concessions to rediculous demands. Now that we are in Egypt discussionwise, they are holding a snake to their chest, only difference is that this is a creeping poison. These small concesions always seem reasonable, but they are not when taken as a whole.Er, why are you blaming the left again? I'd have thought the ultra-religious would be classed as far right, not anything to do with the left. It's the evangelistic left who were all for intervening in the middle east to bring liberal democracy to their benighted masses. If they had their way, we'd be in there right now to bomb the crap out of IS.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Of course we can blame the left, as they have their own religion called 'multicultteralism'. Not allowed to fail, so always more concessions to rediculous demands. Now that we are in Egypt discussionwise, they are holding a snake to their chest, only difference is that this is a creeping poison. These small concesions always seem reasonable, but they are not when taken as a whole.
Egypt was Muslim long before the idea of multiculturalism came into being. Long before the idea of political right and left came into being, for that matter (more than a thousand years before). Or does Frag school teach a special brand of history that blames everything bad in history on lefties?Of course we can blame the left, as they have their own religion called 'multicultteralism'. Not allowed to fail, so always more concessions to rediculous demands. Now that we are in Egypt discussionwise, they are holding a snake to their chest, only difference is that this is a creeping poison. These small concesions always seem reasonable, but they are not when taken as a whole.
With holding a snake to your chest I refer to Cleopatra it is just an expression.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.
You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?Indeed. We need to do the same thing the Jews did back in 1947, otherwise we're finished as a people.
Originally Posted by drone:
Rumor has it that many of the destroyed artifacts were actually replicas. Originals were moved to Bagdad, taken by the British years ago, or just recently sold by ISIS for cash on the black market.
Not all of them. The destroyed Winged Bull and the God of Rozhan were the original ones.Rumor has it that many of the destroyed artifacts were actually replicas. Originals were moved to Bagdad, taken by the British years ago, or just recently sold by ISIS for cash on the black market.
Probably, they were destroyed due to their enormous size, because ISIS was unable to move them, in order to sell them to a private collector.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?
Damn right I do.You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31727470
Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.
Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31727470
Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.
As soon as that Iraqi Scotsman, the Clubs King, abandoned the Calpih, ISIS began to crumble.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31727470
Good news. Apparently Iraqi Shia militants together with Iraqi army are encircling IS forces at Tikrit.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?
He has bizarre ideas like that, yes. Sort of like a Lamarckian inheritance approach to foreign policy where if you ram your head against a wall repeatedly, that your offspring will eventually have hard heads or something, not taking into account that the wall's offspring will be a lot more harder to knock down.You want a piece of land in the middle of a hostile region?
Is this making any sense?
Swedish news report that the Iraqi army is about to do a major offensive...
Swedish media also report that the US is against it, as it's to weak as is, and will most likely lead to a loss for Iraq, and a huge propaganda win for ISIS...
From what I have learnt of the Iraqi army... I wouldnt bet any money on them being able to do much...
Swedish media also report that the US is against it, as it's to weak as is, and will most likely lead to a loss for Iraq, and a huge propaganda win for ISIS...
From what I have learnt of the Iraqi army... I wouldnt bet any money on them being able to do much...
ya bad idea, suppossed a lot of former elite troops they are up against
IS combatants are the same than the Iraqis' ones. If the Iraqis'ones got the right motivation (having family in the ISIS controlled area, or their relatives sold as slaves), they will kill them all then ISIS will just crumble.
That will be a shame for the foreign volunteers, to find out they will be abandoned to their Faith, and I am not expecting the locals to be merciful.
The Jihadi brides... will pay a high price for stupidity...
That will be a shame for the foreign volunteers, to find out they will be abandoned to their Faith, and I am not expecting the locals to be merciful.
The Jihadi brides... will pay a high price for stupidity...
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Swedish news report that the Iraqi army is about to do a major offensive...
Swedish media also report that the US is against it, as it's to weak as is, and will most likely lead to a loss for Iraq, and a huge propaganda win for ISIS...
From what I have learnt of the Iraqi army... I wouldnt bet any money on them being able to do much...
Its the same attack i posted about. US is against it, because there is a Iranian general overseeing the offensive and lot of Iranian "advisors" are operating many of the more advanced weapon systems. My concern about this is how the Shia militants will behave towards Sunni civilians. Apparently 28K people have fled the fighting already.Swedish news report that the Iraqi army is about to do a major offensive...
Swedish media also report that the US is against it, as it's to weak as is, and will most likely lead to a loss for Iraq, and a huge propaganda win for ISIS...
From what I have learnt of the Iraqi army... I wouldnt bet any money on them being able to do much...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31753727
So... Anyone want to bet?
I know its hard in Arab vs Arab fights, as it's hard to fully grasp the military incompetence if you come from the western world with it's mindset...
ONE of the forces will flee like rabbits and leave all their equipment for use by the other side, I am sure. I put my money on it being the Iraqi army...
So... Anyone want to play?
I know its hard in Arab vs Arab fights, as it's hard to fully grasp the military incompetence if you come from the western world with it's mindset...
ONE of the forces will flee like rabbits and leave all their equipment for use by the other side, I am sure. I put my money on it being the Iraqi army...
So... Anyone want to play?
My bet is that the forces of "Iraqi Army", while the actual force is made mostly of Shia militants and Iranian forces is going to win the battle over Tikrit.
IS has lost its momentum and is starting to grumble, they are only making more and more enemies with their conduct and simply cant win with the odds stacked against them. Which for the best for everyone. Im not sure if IS can actually run anywhere from Tikrit, as their supply routes are being cut off and they might find themselves surrounded soon enough.
IS has lost its momentum and is starting to grumble, they are only making more and more enemies with their conduct and simply cant win with the odds stacked against them. Which for the best for everyone. Im not sure if IS can actually run anywhere from Tikrit, as their supply routes are being cut off and they might find themselves surrounded soon enough.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
My bet is that the forces of "Iraqi Army", while the actual force is made mostly of Shia militants and Iranian forces is going to win the battle over Tikrit.
IS has lost its momentum and is starting to grumble, they are only making more and more enemies with their conduct and simply cant win with the odds stacked against them. Which for the best for everyone. Im not sure if IS can actually run anywhere from Tikrit, as their supply routes are being cut off and they might find themselves surrounded soon enough.
I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.My bet is that the forces of "Iraqi Army", while the actual force is made mostly of Shia militants and Iranian forces is going to win the battle over Tikrit.
IS has lost its momentum and is starting to grumble, they are only making more and more enemies with their conduct and simply cant win with the odds stacked against them. Which for the best for everyone. Im not sure if IS can actually run anywhere from Tikrit, as their supply routes are being cut off and they might find themselves surrounded soon enough.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
Well, there is still Libya as a potential place to be for the global Djihadi elite.I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
Although, from my knowledge, the main problem we Europeans have with Djihadis going to Syria is not them fighting there, but returning here. After 2 years spent cutting off peoples' heads in front of cameras. Ask the French about how great it is when these people continue their business here.
Hmm, as much as I know, none of the killers had at least the guts to go for a real fight against the Peshmerga. Their "professionalism" was good enough to kill unarmed civilians and 2 poor cops equipped with handgun, this with the surprise on their side.
I think, but I have indeed no substance to really be certain, that most of the ones who will succeed to escape (in between caught and handed over), most of them will be to busy to escape Justice and responsibilities for their actions...
The fanatics are the ones who in fact never lived in the "holly" country, as they have a "dream" in their head, seeing themselves as the SS saw themselves. However, at the end, German SS melted in the crowd, burning with red poker their blood group tattooed under their arm when the Foreign SS, being French and Belgium, had no choice than to die in Berlin...
I think, but I have indeed no substance to really be certain, that most of the ones who will succeed to escape (in between caught and handed over), most of them will be to busy to escape Justice and responsibilities for their actions...
The fanatics are the ones who in fact never lived in the "holly" country, as they have a "dream" in their head, seeing themselves as the SS saw themselves. However, at the end, German SS melted in the crowd, burning with red poker their blood group tattooed under their arm when the Foreign SS, being French and Belgium, had no choice than to die in Berlin...
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
That would certainly be the best for us at least, kinda cynical. What should have been done and still hasn't been done, making sure they can't come back, or have nothing to come back to should they manage to come back anyway.I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
or have nothing to come back to should they manage to come back anyway.
Burn down our cities! or have nothing to come back to should they manage to come back anyway.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Burn down our cities!
I was more thinking about taking out their lifelines, freezing all bank-accounts, no chance to settle anywhere, every civil-right gone. All human-rights respected but nothing more than that, no favours, total rejecfion, and assasination when it's needed.Burn down our cities!
Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...=WT.mc_id&_r=0
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
Well ISIS seems to have goals that can be broken, so breaking the caliphate in particular should be a priority. And crush their funding sources and propaganda network.I'm not sure which scenario would be best for our interests. That the IS should get snuffed out ASAP. Or that it should maintain a slim communications corridor so that disaffected Muslims in the west can make their way there in time to get blatted. A long running war with us sitting out might do the trick.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...=WT.mc_id&_r=0
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
Some sort of demonstration of their fanatical devotion. Zealots like it big and public. After deciding this, you only need to read a passage the "original way" (that none else in power has ever done before for more than 1000 years), you you're set. Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...=WT.mc_id&_r=0
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
In the case if ISIS, pissing everyone off might also be a point. Since they have this yarn to crate the final battle.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...=WT.mc_id&_r=0
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
Those statues are idolatry and represent the worship of false gods, they are some kind of abomination for hardline christians as well I would think. Though most christians wouldn't really care, I just say I can see where they're coming from on this.Barbarians http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/wo...=WT.mc_id&_r=0
How do they justifie this, surely allah must have existed before mohammed
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO