ISIS in Iraq and Syria

I find the idea of apologies for stuff that happened beyond the lifetime of anyone alive today (in this case way beyond) ridiculous generally. Recognition though is important, although ideally it would be reciprocal in a case like the Crusades.
Well, of course Catholics don't need to feel blame for the Crusades. But Pope, as the leader of the institution who did those wars, did a nice gesture on doing so. Similar to how German leaders apologized for the things the Nazi did.

Of course, in this case, it was a few centuries too late.

I am not exactly sure in what way it should be reciprocal, although I am far from educated for those events. But from the little I know, the natives in Jerusalem and co were in better position after the Arabs invaded. Jews were allowed to return in their homeland, right? Also, for example everyone seems to agree that Saladin was a better and more just leader than Guy of Lusignan or even RIchard the Lionheart. Even Crusaders seems to have had a high opinion on him, which is almost unique in that aspect (Alexander was similar in that aspect though).

I think that Crusades should have been done in Spain, Portugal and Sicily, not in Arabia/Jerusalem.
 
I am not exactly sure in what way it should be reciprocal, although I am far from educated for those events. But from the little I know, the natives in Jerusalem and co were in better position after the Arabs invaded. Jews were allowed to return in their homeland, right? Also, for example everyone seems to agree that Saladin was a better and more just leader than Guy of Lusignan or even RIchard the Lionheart. Even Crusaders seems to have had a high opinion on him, which is almost unique in that aspect (Alexander was similar in that aspect though).

When I say reciprocal, I mean ideally these historical episodes should be discussed between leading members of the different faiths as part of a process of recognizing each other's narrative of their shared history. In such a process, the Crusades would be just one episode among many under consideration. If it is just about apologies, well where would it end? Do Muslims not then owe Christians an apology for every Islamic conquest which won formerly Christian lands? The first time the Pope called a Crusade was in response to the Arab sacking of Rome in the 9th century, do Muslims owe an apology for that? Of course not, but it's no more ridiculous than the Pope apologizing for the Crusades.

I think that Crusades should have been done in Spain, Portugal and Sicily, not in Arabia/Jerusalem.

I think this is mostly because the Crusaders 'lost' and couldn't retain the Holy Land. If they had, it would probably all be viewed quite differently today, after all by the time the Crusades were launched Spain had been under Muslim rule for as long as Palestine had, and the population of Palestine was still possibly majority Christian.
 
Incorrect. Didn't UK troops made a massacre in India when they killed 2000 civils in the same day. And we aren't talking ancient history here, we are talking for less than a hundred years ago.

And lets not even start talking about almost the complete destruction of native Americans in US, and Aztechs, Inca (Maya too?) in central/south America.

Or more recently, the war in Iraq and the destabilization of Libya and Syria which have caused more victims (by a few orders of magnitudes) than the number of Westerners killed by Islamic terrorists.

Just to be clear, the vast majority (something like 90%) of Native American deaths were the result of contact with the European settlers not the Europeans actively killing them. The lack of immunity to Eurasian diseases like smallpox meant they died in astronomical numbers. While there were certainly a ridiculous number of atrocities committed against Native Americans, most of the deaths were unintentional. It doesn't change the fact that all of the colonial powers and then resulting countries did actively seek to control, remove, or kill many of the remaining Native Americans.
 
When I say reciprocal, I mean ideally these historical episodes should be discussed between leading members of the different faiths as part of a process of recognizing each other's narrative of their shared history. In such a process, the Crusades would be just one episode among many under consideration. If it is just about apologies, well where would it end? Do Muslims not then owe Christians an apology for every Islamic conquest which won formerly Christian lands? The first time the Pope called a Crusade was in response to the Arab sacking of Rome in the 9th century, do Muslims owe an apology for that? Of course not, but it's no more ridiculous than the Pope apologizing for the Crusades.

Muslims not having a central authority is a problem in that aspect. Although some groups of scholars should do it IMO.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the first Crusade done after Byzantine Emperor asked for help against Turks to Pope Urban II, not in response to the sacking of Rome 200+ years before. And that the Crusades, started the Crusade by massacring Jews in Germany. The fact that Jews and Muslims were united in the defense of Jerusalem (and then massacred) makes me believe that Jerusalem was better before the Crusades.

I think this is mostly because the Crusaders 'lost' and couldn't retain the Holy Land. If they had, it would probably all be viewed quite differently today, after all by the time the Crusades were launched Spain had been under Muslim rule for as long as Palestine had, and the population of Palestine was still possibly majority Christian.

Probably semantics but Palestine was an occupied territory from Roman Empire, while Spain/Portugal were territories in Europe when Christians got occupied from Arabs. I think there is a large difference on that.
 
Muslims not having a central authority is a problem in that aspect. Although some groups of scholars should do it IMO.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the first Crusade done after Byzantine Emperor asked for help against Turks to Pope Urban II, not in response to the sacking of Rome 200+ years before. And that the Crusades, started the Crusade by massacring Jews in Germany. The fact that Jews and Muslims were united in the defense of Jerusalem (and then massacred) makes me believe that Jerusalem was better before the Crusades.

The first call was after the sack of Rome - action was only taken 250 years later after the Fatimid caliph had destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and then the Seljuks had conquered Anatolia. I don't disagree with your latter point, I'm not defending the behavior of the Crusaders at all and I've acknowledged elsewhere on this forum that North African and Middle Eastern Christians were sometimes happy to swap Byzantine rule for Muslim rule as they found the latter more tolerant of their diverse beliefs.

Revan said:
Probably semantics but Palestine was an occupied territory from Roman Empire, while Spain/Portugal were territories in Europe when Christians got occupied from Arabs. I think there is a large difference on that.

The idea of 'Europe' didn't really exist, the focus was 'Christendom' and at the time of the Arab conquests, Palestine had been part of Christendom for longer than Spain had, and Christianity was more deeply rooted in the Middle East than anywhere in Europe. That is how the Crusaders would have seen it.
 
Last edited:
After watching the women of ISIS documentary last night, I've totally lost faith in our country. Whilst I'm all for freedom of speech, if the hate is so extreme, offer them the finances to relocate their families to where they believe they will be happier.

It's about time the Muslim community started outing these individuals.
 
I'd watch the shit out of a royal rumble involving AQ, ISIS, the Taliban, The Mexican cartels, Westboro Baptish Church, Sean Hannity and Piers Morgan.
 
I'd watch the shit out of a royal rumble involving AQ, ISIS, the Taliban, The Mexican cartels, Westboro Baptish Church, Sean Hannity and Piers Morgan.

wrQ891H.gif
 
Has the Catholic Church asked for forgiveness in regards to the inquisitions? What about the forced conversions of African slaves in the plantations of the old U.S? Any apology there?
I don't give a shit about any church, pope, conventiations, religious feelings. And you should neither about my political view: I was most liberal, before Paris. And now I want to live without you. Yes, you, and I know that's radical. But covered by my freedom of speech, not by some allah guy.
 
Last edited:
I don't give a shit about any church, pope, conventiations, religious feelings. And you should neither about my political view: I was most liberal, before Paris. And now I want to live without you. Yes, you, and I know that's radical. But covered by my freedom of speech, not by some allah guy.

What does "I want to live without you" mean in practical terms?
 
What does "I want to live without you" mean in practical terms?
The most very, very good question. And I have an easy answer, that is not that easy.

Honestly, I do feel that this Europe we have today, is what we were fighting for 1,000 years. Against each other, and against any church or religion above us. We are the most free people in the world, and I am very proud if this,

But do we share with all our immigrants the same way of feeling regaring freedom? In other words: Is this the way of life we ALL want?

I would fight to death for my neighbours for them to pratice their Islam, if that's necessary, because their freedom is important to my freedom too. But would they fight for my bacon and my porn watching too? In the same name of freedom? I have serious doubts.

Therefore: Let's rather separate. You Muslim people better go back were you came from.

UNLESS. You Muslim part of Europe WOULD HAVE THE BALLS to stand up and say lound and clear that you will defend us, and the whole or Europe.

Do it. Or be cowards.
 
Last edited:
The most very, very good question. And I have an easy answer, that is not that easy.

Honestly, I do feel that this Europe we have today, is what we were fighting for 1,000 years. Against each other, and against any church or religion above us. We are the most free people in the world, and I am very proud if this,

But do we share with all our immigrants the same way of feeling regaring freedom? In other words: Is this the way of life we ALL want?

I would fight to death for my neighbours for them to pratice their Islam, if that's necessary, because their freedom is important to my freedom too. But would they fight for my bacon and my porn watching too? In the same name of freedom? I have serious doubts.

Therefore: Let's rather separate. You Muslim people better go back were you came from.

UNLESS. You Muslim part of Europe WOULD HAVE THE BALLS to stand up and say lound and clear that you will defend us, and the whole or Europe.

Do it. Or be cowards.
Should we forcibly deport muslims then?
 
The most very, very good question. And I have an easy answer, that is not that easy.

Honestly, I do feel that this Europe we have today, is what we were fighting for 1,000 years. Against each other, and against any church or religion above us. We are the most free people in the world, and I am very proud if this,

But do we share with all our immigrants the same way of feeling regaring freedom? In other words: Is this the way of life we ALL want?

I would fight to death for my neighbours for them to pratice their Islam, if that's necessary, because their freedom is important to my freedom too. But would they fight for my bacon and my porn watching too? In the same name of freedom? I have serious doubts.

Therefore: Let's rather separate. You Muslim people better go back were you came from.

UNLESS. You Muslim part of Europe WOULD HAVE THE BALLS to stand up and say lound and clear that you will defend us, and the whole or Europe.

Do it. Or be cowards.
My grandfather was a Lascar working on British warships during WW2, he died at sea and my father has no idea where or on what ship.

My Grandfather had the balls to actually defend Europe, would I his grandson do the same? Probably if there was no other option. I wouldn't save those that would so easily stab me in the back, so I'd probably let you die.
 
Libanon is not a Muslim country by constitution. Give me another one if you want to start a dicussion.

Well actually Lebanon is a Muslim country, its 55-60% Muslim.

As are Albania, Turkey and Indonesia.

I'm not exactly sure the point of this particular discussion. The rights of gays aren't good across the Muslim world. Then again, across the world outside of our bubble of Northern and Western Europe, North America and Oceania, the rights of homosexuals aren't particularly great either.

Its like comparing whether you'd prefer to die by being shot rather than being run over. Neither are exactly ideal.
 
Sorry for picking just on the last part of your answer: I do not expect ALL muslims going in shame or anything like that.

I just don't see any general feel of compassion from the Muslim part of our/my/the European part of the Muslim society. Compassion and understanding for us, for our life, our style of life, our freedom. The pork we eat, the porn we watch, the blasphemy we love.

Which gets me back to my point: If there are people who do not feel compassion for Paris, and even worse they might think they'd even do better without us, then...

If the Muslims in Europe have the same feeling than us, then go out on the streets! There are millions of you. But you are just quiet. What does that tell me? For sure not that you are willing to defend me. And my bacon. And my bacon was here long before you!

Firstly, I'm not Muslim so why you assume that just because I wouldn't jump to attack all European Muslims I'm not entirely sure.

Secondly, I know you apologised for it but why make a point, receive a reply to the (incorrect) point you made and then completely ignore it and focus on something else? That in fact Muslims across the world, in pretty much every country, of pretty much every political persuasion, have expressed disgust and reprehension at the attacks.

Perhaps a more important point is why you expect Muslims across Europe to come out in hundreds of thousands to protest against terrorist groups in the Middle East because of one attack in Europe when a) as I have outlined, that is not something that Europeans/ Americans do when their governments choose the next country in the region to bomb/ depose a government of and b) the overwhelming casualties of these terrorist groups are in fact Muslims?

You don't feel any Muslims compassion for your way of life? Or that they have no compassion for Europe and actually feel they'd be better off without Europeans? How have you reached that conclusion then? Through extensive research and polling yourself of Muslims that you know? What exactly has given you that impression?

I'm genuinely a bit baffled here that you seem to expect Muslims, most of whom lead pretty normal lives in Europe (ie they wake up in the morning, take the kids to school, work juggle bills and pay cheques and seeing their families) have a certain responsibility (and time) to simply come out onto the streets to 'show their compassion' for Paris. I mean seriously?

Even though some of them may have literally seen ISIS kill their families in front of them and destroy their homes, or even have had these groups destroy their countries of origin, they're expected to come out onto the streets just to show you that they have normal human compassion?



An honest question to all Muslim members here in this forum:

Why can't there be a hundred thousend of you demonstrating against the IS bullshitters in London? On any day? Why? And please don't forget you will fight for all our freedom as well: Pork, gays, blasphemy, and all that shit we call freedom. Which is exactely that shit which made it only possible for you to live here in the first place.

Sorry, I didn’t want to sound harsh.

As above, you genuinely expect a hundred thousand Muslims to come out onto the streets to protest against these groups? Why not protest when IS massacres a town of shiites in Iraq? Why not protest when IS fights Kurds, many of whom are Sunnis, in Syria? Why not protest when the drone programme kills more civilians than combatants in the mountains of Pakistan? Or do those people not matter?
 
I take all what you have said very seriously. Nevertheless, I have to point out that we are right now talking about an inhuman, cruel way of terrorism against innocent people. Even following your reasoning, the colonists never did anything like that, correct?

About the other arguments, I'm fortunately not from a country that was any good in doing colonial business. In some cases we actually even left behind us more than we actually took. Not intentially, though.

But, do you want to tell me that this is a post-colonial-war? That the killing on 100 teenagers and twens from 20 different countries in Paris has anything to do with any colonial past? If so, please explain. And please also explain how this would help your case. I just don't get it.

Completely incorrect.

The colonists have done exactly this before. Between them, they have done countless acts of terror against colonised people. Not that long ago. Now of course this is not anything exclusive to Western colonialists, people across the world who have colonised other peoples have treated others like crap. That is undoubted. However, you cannot dispute that the colonialists never did anything like that because they did.
 
@steve9 do you come out to protest after 9/11, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo etc...? Did your family, your friends?

Why should European Muslims be obligated to protest after acts of terrorism committed by radical Islamists, if you don't, given that they are just as likely to suffer from those attacks, directly or indirectly?
 
The most very, very good question. And I have an easy answer, that is not that easy.

Honestly, I do feel that this Europe we have today, is what we were fighting for 1,000 years. Against each other, and against any church or religion above us. We are the most free people in the world, and I am very proud if this,

But do we share with all our immigrants the same way of feeling regaring freedom? In other words: Is this the way of life we ALL want?

I would fight to death for my neighbours for them to pratice their Islam, if that's necessary, because their freedom is important to my freedom too. But would they fight for my bacon and my porn watching too? In the same name of freedom? I have serious doubts.

Therefore: Let's rather separate. You Muslim people better go back were you came from.

UNLESS. You Muslim part of Europe WOULD HAVE THE BALLS to stand up and say lound and clear that you will defend us, and the whole or Europe.

Do it. Or be cowards.

ISIS, al Qaeda and the rest of the jihadis absolutely love people like you. In fact, to a certain extent, they would find it quite hard to function without you.
 
It's all good gang, according to the LAD Bible the cripps and bloods have set aside their differences to take on ISIS. Meanwhile the New York Mafia are rolling up their sleeves and now Bikie Gangs are going to take them on.

We're in good hands.
 
Didn't one of his officialls suggest isis setting up an embassy in Turkey recently as well.
I think Turkey could find its self under a lot of pressure to harden it's stance and to properly shut it's boarders (plus keep their bombing raids more in line with their stated objectives rather than blowing up the Kurds)
 
So the report is out and it reads like it was written for an undergraduate thesis. Very poor and provides no "reasoning" that we haven't already heard.

Basically others are involved against ISIS, we hate ISIS l, we should be involved too. Doesn't matter whether it'll make any difference or not.
 
Didn't one of his officialls suggest isis setting up an embassy in Turkey recently as well.
I think Turkey could find its self under a lot of pressure to harden it's stance and to properly shut it's boarders (plus keep their bombing raids more in line with their stated objectives rather than blowing up the Kurds)


Since the earliest months of the Syrian war, Turkey has had more direct involvement and more at stake
than any of the regional states lined up against Bashar al-Assad.

Turkish borders have been the primary thoroughfare for fighters of all kinds to enter Syria.
Its military bases have been used to distribute weapons and to train rebel fighters.

And its frontier towns and villages have taken in almost one million refugees.

Turkey’s international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign
fighters to have joined Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry
along its Mediterranean coast.

Link:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-isis-terrorists-warplane-analysis

And especially the oil-trade with ISIS and other groups that are supporting them or Al Qaida affiliates.

Russia is going to destroy anything that moves inside Syria which is not a Syrian state asset.
They are already doing it.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 
Link:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-isis-terrorists-warplane-analysis

And especially the oil-trade with ISIS and other groups that are supporting them or Al Qaida affiliates.

Russia is going to destroy anything that moves inside Syria which is not a Syrian state asset.
They are already doing it.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available



That last video was probably a convoy of ISIS oil on its way to Turkey, the Russians did well to stop it.

The Turks need to remember that they opened this can of worms, hopefully they back the feck out, leaving the Kurds to continue their onslaught against ISIS in the North.
 
It puzzles me how these maps often show a lot of IS territory as narrow strips following the main roads, but the lands to either side are left blank. Are IS allergic to traveling off A roads, or do the map-makers want to make them appear less successful than they are?