So you can just do whatever you want and then ask for forgiveness and everything will be nice and dandy? Makes one wonder why God decided to set down rules in the first place if there's such an easy get out of jail free card available.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
People are literally killing themselves because they believe it is what God wants them to do, so how can you suggest that that is "not Islam or anything which you can relate to Islam"? It blatantly is. There is nothing inherently more accurate about your interpretation of God's will than theirs. In fact, if you go back to the time when Islam first appeared in the world the vast majority would have believed that you were the incorrect one.
What does this even mean? I'm as fond of blaming the Taliban on CIA funding during the Soviet occupation as anyone, but that seems like an incredible exaggeration.
The source of this news was a government news channel. Government propaganda by the sounds of it.
@Sherzad on mobile so cannot type out a long reply BUT the problem is that the issues in the Muslim majority countries actually are everything to do with religion
It is oft said that terrorism and extremist interpretation is not Islam. Well if one or two people thought this way and were raving lunatics then this argument is right. But unfortunately there is a sizeable population who are indoctrinated in an extreme version of Islam (and what leads many people to falsely equate the entire religion to terrorism)
Moderate Muslims are simply not doing their job. Madrasas, imams, training camps all over the most middle East are openly preaching this parallel interpretation of Islam and moderates have not shunned these people from the society. Countries like SA, Pak now have covert elements in power who actually encourage these
Religion is being used as a geopolitical tool (why does SA and all Sunni states try to screw over Iraq/n/Syria, why do Afg constantly complain of Pak fomenting tensions), and it is leading to deaths all round. These are not the middle ages and crusades or jihad is no longer relevant - but a sizeable population is doing the opposite
All successful religions adapt with the times - Sikhism for example started off as an army! Most religions including Christianity have become more open and watered-down while radical Islam has gone the other way
It has everything to do with religion when a large part of a religious group have radical views - the WBC is radical Christian, the Shiv Sena is radical Hindu, the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the ISIS, the LeT, the JeM, the hundreds of other front organisations of the are all radical Islamic... Count the radical organisations in each religion and you will see the problem
The problem is simply that Islam currently is the religion with the largest number of radicals - countries are exporting radicalism. Governments and moderate Muslims have a massive massive responsibility to marginalize these elements, but that is not happening at the moment
The first step to fixing the problem is recognizing it instead of saying it is a political problem not a religious one
/rant and I did type a lot
Edit lots of grammatical errors but going to sleep, Eng briefly gave hope but familiar disappointment
It is oft said that terrorism and extremist interpretation is not Islam. Well if one or two people thought this way and were raving lunatics then this argument is right. But unfortunately there is a sizeable population who are indoctrinated in an extreme version of Islam (and what leads many people to falsely equate the entire religion to terrorism)
Moderate Muslims are simply not doing their job. Madrasas, imams, training camps all over the most middle East are openly preaching this parallel interpretation of Islam and moderates have not shunned these people from the society. Countries like SA, Pak now have covert elements in power who actually encourage these
Religion is being used as a geopolitical tool (why does SA and all Sunni states try to screw over Iraq/n/Syria, why do Afg constantly complain of Pak fomenting tensions), and it is leading to deaths all round. These are not the middle ages and crusades or jihad is no longer relevant - but a sizeable population is doing the opposite
All successful religions adapt with the times - Sikhism for example started off as an army! Most religions including Christianity have become more open and watered-down while radical Islam has gone the other way
It has everything to do with religion when a large part of a religious group have radical views - the WBC is radical Christian, the Shiv Sena is radical Hindu, the Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the ISIS, the LeT, the JeM, the hundreds of other front organisations of the are all radical Islamic... Count the radical organisations in each religion and you will see the problem
The problem is simply that Islam currently is the religion with the largest number of radicals - countries are exporting radicalism. Governments and moderate Muslims have a massive massive responsibility to marginalize these elements, but that is not happening at the moment
The first step to fixing the problem is recognizing it instead of saying it is a political problem not a religious one
/rant and I did type a lot
Edit lots of grammatical errors but going to sleep, Eng briefly gave hope but familiar disappointment
Good post.
I hope I didn't offended anyone. Enjoyed reading all your opinions. I will leave this thread to go back to discussing ISIS.
The Iranians have a legitimate interest in protecting the shrines and probably see this as a good chance to collaborate with the US, although there's no way there will be US boots on the ground again. The Supreme Leader can send his Quds Force guys to Samarra though.
This was easily predictable when we discussed the 2003 invasion at length. Iraq will likely go the same way as as Somalia, Syria and Libya as yet another failed state, ruled by powerful militias, loyal to only sectarian and tribal interests.
Agree with it or not, religion is part of our world, and it's going to play a part in conflicts around the world. Just as dwindling resources, political power, greed, land, sectarian and tribal interests, etc, plays a role in conflicts.
I'd like you come up with a switch we can turn off which can bring about an end of religious beliefs of billions of people and we can live happily ever after.
Last edited:
Doesn't sound like that to me, considering...
------------------
Repent or die: al-Qaeda forces announce rules for Iraqi territory they now control
ISIS, the al-Qaeda group that has swept through northern Iraq, releases list of rules that citizens must live by: including 'repent or die'
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has set out a list of rules for residents of Mosul as it seeks to impose its Islamist rules on Iraq's second city.
Referring to the area by its ancient name, Nineveh, the group says it has a clear set of instructions for the remaining occupants of the city and surrounding area.
Firstly it tells "anyone who is asking," who its members are and what it is about: "We are soldiers of Islam and we've taken on our responsibility to bring back glory of the Islamic Caliphate."
All Muslims in the city have been instructed to attend mosque for the five daily prayers.
It confirms that it seized up to half a billion dollars from the Mosul branch of the Bank of Iraq but states it can be trusted with the funds.
Any one of its members who breach this promise will have their hands cut off.
"No drugs, no alcohol and no cigarettes allowed," it added.
No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.
All tribal leaders and sheikhs in the area have been warned not to co-operate with the state.
In a warning to the police, soldiers and other "kaffr" bodies the choice is to repent or face the ultimate punishment. The group said it will open "special places" for repentance.
Outlining its sectarian bias it declared all shrines, graveyards and monuments will be destroyed.
Finally all women must dress in concealing clothing that preserve decency. Females should only go outside "if necessary".
The city has been told that it has tried secular experiments with the republic and Baathist regimes as well as the current Iranian-backed "Safavid" government in Baghdad. "Now is time for an Islamic state," the note signed Imam Abu Bakr El Qurashi said
----------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...les-for-Iraqi-territory-they-now-control.html
You're under-estimating the forces the central government has, understandably considering what you saw in the last 5 days. I think you'll see a different picture in the coming days/weeks.
And I really think the US should stay out of it in term of military involvement. If they really want to help then they should just pressure some of their allies to stop their direct support for these terrorists. Believe me this will be far more effective than dropping bombs in random areas every couple of years.
But Erdogan is very actively moving towards at the very least a strongly conservative Islam, and he still has real support from the majority of the population, just about. There are of course a lot of people fighting for a return to secular ways as preached by Ataturk, but they're not having all that much success and the country is slowly moving towards a more radicalised religious outlook.
But the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan WERE motivated by religiously ideology in a large part. The likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld have even gone on record preaching the virtues of a dominant Judeo-Christian supremacy and consequently a strongly interventionist foreign policy, particularly in large fundamentalist Muslim states as in the Middle East. Also shown in their strong support for Israel in the fact of Arab aggression. Now obviously since Bush went out and Obama came in that stance has softened a lot, if not vanished completely, but the reality is that a lot of American foreign policy under the last government was at the very least influenced by strong Neo-Conservative global outlook.
So toppling the largely secular (compared to the alternatives) leadership in Iraq and giving room for extremists to manouver was a decision driven by a motivation to avoid a fundamentalist Muslim state in the Middle East? That doesnt make any sense at all.
You cant even compare the amount of influence religion has over the actions of groups like ISIL to that of American involvement in the middle east. You dont have American soldiers shouting "God is great" when they invade for one thing...
Speaking of which, where is the ME Peace Envoy these days?
How about we hand him over to ISIS in agreement for them moving out. Everyone's happy then.
Last edited:
It wasn't driven by a "motivation to avoid a fundamentalist Muslim state in the Middle East", but it was certainly influenced by it. Of course other factors were involved too, but that is a factor that's not to be underestimated. And just because the soldiers aren't shouting God is Great doesn't mean the politicians and generals have no religious motivation. It's clearly not on the same level as the Muslim forces but that doesn't mean it's non-existent.
And in any case, you've slightly missed the point. It was less about crushing fundamentalism in Islamic states and more about asserting the superiority of Judeo-Christian states and America in particular, a sort of white Western exceptionalism. And as I've said, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been on record in the past asserting that this was one of the driving factors behind foreign policy during the Bush administration!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/iraq-sunni-jihadi_b_5490829.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
What folly. What crass, indescribable, unbelievable folly it was to invade Iraq in 2003. I wonder what George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair think now as they read of the latest disasters to befall that wretched land.
Do they still say that Iraq is better off than it was under Saddam Hussein? Do they? Really? As half a million terrified people flee from their homes to escape a jihadi group so extreme that even al-Qaeda has withdrawn its backing?
Guess, by the way, who said this, referring to their support for the invasion in 2003: "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
It wasn't Bush, Rumsfeld, or Blair - but you knew that. It was Hillary Clinton, in her just published memoirs, clearing the decks for a run at the US presidency in 2016. Even if it is carefully-calibrated political positioning, I can't help wishing more leaders would say something similar.
The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to have been the most disastrous military adventure since the German army marched into Poland in 1939 and triggered the Second World War. Did Hitler still believe, as he prepared to die in his bunker in 1945, that invading Poland had been a good idea? Was he as crazily delusional as Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair?
Perhaps, despite the lightning advance of the Sunni jihadi fighters over the past week, Iraq will somehow survive. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's about to join such unhappy nations as Somalia, Syria and Libya as yet another failed state, ruled by a nightmare patchwork of brutal militias, loyal to no one but their own commanders and with no interests other than those that are narrow, sectarian and tribal.
In 2003, there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. Now one of its nastiest off-shoots controls vast swathes of the north and west of the country, extending across the border into Syria as it starts to build its trans-national Caliphate. It's not exactly what the US-led invasion was designed to achieve.
In the pantheon of those to blame for all this we must include Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister whose incompetence, corruption and Shia sectarianism has encouraged the country's Sunni minority to join, or at least acquiesce in, the jihadi insurgency. It seems even Saddam loyalists from the former Ba'ath party have joined them - how's that for irony? With a different man at the helm as the US pulled out the last of its troops, it's just possible that disaster could have been averted. But it was not to be.
What has happened has happened. The Kurds in the north are buttressing their defences; their forces are ready to fight back if the Sunni Arab insurgents dare to threaten their hard-won autonomy. The Iraqi army appears to be disintegrating - so much for the countless billions of dollars spent on training a new national force.
In its place, various Shia militia groups are forming, or re-forming, to defend what they regard as essential Shia interests, including the Shia shrine in the mainy Sunni city of Samarra. The shadow of a renewed civil war looms frighteningly large.
In the words of the US Republican senator Lindsey Graham, after having been briefed by the Pentagon on Thursday: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling ... Iraq is falling apart."
And it's not only the fate of Iraq that is at stake: the regional ramifications are seriously worrying. To the west and to the east, in Syria and Iran, the latest developments will be causing deep anxiety. President Assad will be watching with alarm as the insurgents snatch arms and ammunition from abandoned Iraqi army armouries and start shipping them across the border into Syria. And in Tehran, they'll be less than thrilled to see their Shia allies in Baghdad under threat.
So there's a strong possibility of even more bad-neighbourly intervention, never forgetting Turkey's nervousness at any sign that the Kurds may be consolidating their claim to statehood. (Strange, isn't it, how the US and Iran find themselves on the same side as the main backers of al-Maliki?)
This is a deeply uncertain time, but there is one certainty: neither the US nor the UK, which did so much to unleash the forces that are now destroying Iraq, will send their own troops back in again. Good thing, too: Western military intervention would simply make an already terrible situation even worse. And that includes the drone strikes that president Obama is reported to be contemplating - they haven't exactly done wonders for pacifying either Pakistan or Yemen, have they?
What the West can do - should do - is arrange urgent help for the civilians whose lives are being destroyed. And once the picture is a little bit clearer, they might try to encourage neutral mediators like Norway or Sweden to start a talks process aimed at turning the clock back to post-invasion 2003 and charting a new constitutional course for Iraq.
I fear it may already be too late. I've just looked at the diary I kept during the 2003 invasion; the last entry, written after the fall of Baghdad, reads: "I think Iraq is going to be a violent, messy, angry place for a long time ... I'll probably be talking about Iraq until I retire."
I should have added one more line: "And beyond."
Well done America for making this possible and fighting against the only system that works for those animals.
Very good.
Eventually, maybe this year, I expect a full scale confrontation between Peshmerga and Iraqi military.
This all could've been avoided if Maliki not blocked a security agreement with the US in 2011.
Yeah...or if the US had kept their asses out of Iraq in the first place.
I'm sure Saddam would've be quite an improvement over ISIS. The important point here is that Iraq was moving in the right direction before Maliki was forced to reject an extension of US forces in 2011 in order to get Sadrist backing to keep him as Prime Minister. Now he wants US forces back and its not gonna happen. He has to sleep in the bed he made with Iran and Sadr.
I honestly can't see it happening. If the Pesh hang on to Kirkuk and don't try to swallow any other areas like Mosul, the central Government won't have the leverage or will to attack, although they will raise a stink diplomatically. Maliki is too wrapped up in fighting AQI and ISIS types and making sure Shi'a interests are protected, to worry about Kirkuk and northern oil at the moment. Also, Babakir Zebari is still Chief of Staff of the Iraqi military, so any confrontation with Kurdish forces will remain off the table.
I think that's unduly pessimistic. The Middle East is not Africa - it has a long history of tribalism contained within larger political structures.
The problem is that the present state boundaries were badly drawn. Iraq was a failed state from birth. Instead of trying to raise the politically dead, the West might try a more creative approach, the facilitation of a tripartite division of the country into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia statelets, which might offer better prospects of political stability.
It doesn't seem to matter what the west does the region is in the process of unstoppable change. There are countries we have taken military action in, countries we haven't, countries we have tried to shore up totalitarian dictators and countries we have helped to remove them and countries where we haven't done anything at all. It is going pear shaped in all of them.
Mosul residents are returning to their land after fleeing and the say they prefer ISIS to the government rule.
Im hearing explosions in Baghdad according to twitter sources. Can our correspondent @Suli, over in london, confirm?
Yeah, 30 dead and 15 wounded.
Okay thanks, back over to you Bross.
What accounts do you look at for news? The only Isis guy I know is @ShamiWitness who is an absolute loon, pretty sure he's some 25 year old from Bradford too.
According to twitter US embassy is being evacuated.
Yeah, they're moving a load of their people out.
Also, 4 Kurdish students were murdered in Baghdad by Shia militants. A plane has been sent from Erbil to collect any students who are still in the city. It really does look like Maliki is trying to dig his own grave, first the stupid heli attack that hit 6 of our men and now this!
The George H W Bush has been reportedly torpedoed and sinking off coast of the Persian Gulf. The Obama administration however says Bush senior was simply drunk and fell into the water
THANK YOU OBAMA
Back to you Relevated for sports
Sorry
Is there any source for this other than twitter?Yeah, they're moving a load of their people out.
Also, 4 Kurdish students were murdered in Baghdad by Shia militants. A plane has been sent from Erbil to collect any students who are still in the city. It really does look like Maliki is trying to dig his own grave, first the stupid heli attack that hit 6 of our men and now this!
By the way, do you think the Kurds will try to resist if the government forces re-established its positions in Kirkuk?
All the Kurdish news channels reported that their bodies were sent back to Kurdistan a few hours ago.
Kirkuk is ours, Barzani has already stated that our forces are there to stay and any land we have regained will rightfully remain in our hands. If Maliki tries to retake Kirkuk he will fail, a high commander had already stated it will be defended til the last drop of
blood.
Yeah I look at ShamiWitness, ghazishami and all the accounts with 'abu' at the start of them.What accounts do you look at for news? The only Isis guy I know is @ShamiWitness who is an absolute loon, pretty sure he's some 25 year old from Bradford too.
They're 60 miles from Baghdad apparently.
@Danny1982 are you shia? Just curious
This does seem like a good time for the Kurds to just declare independents and feck everyone else off. No one's going to be able to realistically stop them.