America protects Americas interests worldwide.
Printable View
America protects Americas interests worldwide.
No need, it's quite basic comprehension of a written piece of information:Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
We'll do this one by one . . . easier that way.
Correct. I did not say this. I said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Do you see the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by OckerRocker
Part 2
Not at all. You mentioned:Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Just because some nutjobs say and possibly believe they are representing the 'true' or any ideology doesn't make it so and certainly doesn't make a billion people follow them. Muslims are just as varied as Christians - some like a message and some don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
. . . you are contradicting yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Ah, but I have and you are not me (to use your preferred 'to know you must be' strawmen so you are not in a position to say whether or not I amQuote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Irrelevant, yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Taking your position, yet again, no-one but those directly involved 100% at top leadership level can possibly know what is going on . . . but even then does a commander know what every one of his troops is doing? Here's a hint: No.
Part 3
Yes and no. You said that ISIS aims to take over the world and kill all those who resist. They do not have the numbers to do anything much . . . estimated at between 31.000 and 200.000 . . . and are located in a 'tiny' stretch of what was once Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
The US has roughly 1.5 million personnel spread out all over the world as per my maps.
Are the US in any way as bad as ISIS?
Hardly, though if I were Afghan or Iraqi whose family has been blasted to smithereens etc.... I'd probably say yes.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/1338.jpg
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/1337.jpg
My understanding it can also mean to crush underfoot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
It means the same thing. It's just an acronym from Arabic rather than from English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)
Actually, there is no such word that equates to the acronym daesh/daa'sh - داعش) and there is no root form using those 3 consonants in that order in Arabic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio HornblowerMy understanding it can also mean to crush underfoot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NevernaIt means the same thing. It's just an acronym from Arabic rather than from English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)
The verb for "to crush underfoot" is da'asa - دعس ) - a different word, different spelling, but with two consonants the same. Perhaps Arab speaking opponents of IS like to use daesh because of the similarities in sound with da'asa.
Daesh, sometime spelled DAIISH or Da'esh, is short for Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq wa al-Sham.
Many Arabic-speaking media organisations refer to the group as such and there is an argument it is appropriately pejorative, deriving from a mixture of rough translations from the individual Arabic words, notably the Arabic verb دعس, within the name, which means to tread underfoot or crush.
I thought it was short for douche.
Thanks for telling me what I just told you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
And thanks for quoting part of the Independent article below.
Isis vs Islamic State vs Isil vs Daesh: What do the different names mean ? and why does it matter? - Middle East - World - The Independent
OK Ocker. Your opinions and rebuttals are noted. All you have to do now is go on CNN and the BBC to tell them both that all the guests they have had are wrong with regard to ISIS since they are, along with various articles I have read, the basis for my statements.
I told you that I am not an expert on this topic and you have agreed you are not as well. Which is more accurate, to believe one who quotes what they hear and read, or someone that is just pulling stuff out of the air and using misdirection and misrepresentation as a basis for their responses?
And thanks for telling me what i told you, and thats what the internet is for.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NevernaThanks for telling me what I just told you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
And thanks for quoting part of the Independent article below.
Isis vs Islamic State vs Isil vs Daesh: What do the different names mean ? and why does it matter? - Middle East - World - The Independent
Except that there was a flaw in your earlier post ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio HornblowerAnd thanks for telling me what i told you, and thats what the internet is for.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
The acronym Daesh includes the word for state. So using daesh is no better at removing 'state' from the acronym than using ISIL - unless, of course, it is just to confuse the English speaking masses, in which case it's an excellent choice. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
daesh = ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)
. . . absolutely nothing you suggestQuote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Ok, link to 'all the guests' that contradict what I said and support your assertions, otherwise you're simply talking rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Hang on, I see what you're doing - allow me to try it as well:
PH/OR says:
All you have to do now is go on CNN and the BBC to tell them both that all the guests they have had are wrong with regard to ISIS since they are, along with various articles I have read, the basis for my statements.
If you quote you should quote the sources, links, otherwise you're just fabricating not only your statements but also that you are quoting someone/thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Then you should really stop doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
I broke my rebuttal into three sections for ease of discussion and you reply by throwing utter juvenile and sophomoric whinces back, as is your wont:
I see - thank you. I shall now go on CNN and BBC and . . . . Seriously, how infantile are you?Quote:
All you have to do now is go on CNN and the BBC to tell them both that all the guests they have had are wrong with regard to ISIS since they are, along with various articles I have read, the basis for my statements.
Go on, rick - this is the easiest one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OckerRocker
My life is full of mistakes but hey such as, so Neverna are you Arabic ?
Here's something i got from the internet as well, so did you get your info from the net?
On the Origin of the ‘Name’ DAESH – The Islamic State in Iraq and as-Shām Feb
18
by pietervanostaeyen
On the origin of the name DAESH
It seems more and more Western media are using the derogatory DAESH when they’re talking about the Islamic State in Iraq and as-Shām (commonly known as ISIS).
As nobody seems to have the faintest idea what DAESH stands for, here’s an attempt to explain.
The capitals in the word DAESH point out it is an acronym of some sort. And indeed if we single out the beginning letters of the Arabic name for ISIS : الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام
we get the Arabic: داعش
د = Dawlat (Nation)
ا = (al-) Islāmiyya
ع= (fī’l-) ‘Irāq
ش = (wa’s-) Shām (Greater Syria or the Levant)
So, roughly transcribed to the Latin alphabet that leaves us with DAESH. (The E stands for the ‘ayn in ‘Iraq)
At first the name DAESH was merely an acronym indeed. Activists and more moderate rebel coalitions used it as referral to Dawlat al-Islāmiyya fī al-Irāq wa s-Shām. But it didn’t take long before all kinds of interpretations arose.
In se the Arabic word داعش doesn’t even exist. But if we look at the tone of voice within circles (opposing ISIS) ever since they introduced the acronym, we might conclude the acronym has a double meaning.
Most likely ISIS opponents are referring to the Arabic verb دعس, meaning : to thread underfoot, trample down, crush (see The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, p. 325 and 326)
Another theory is that the name refers to the Jāhiliyya (pre-Islamic) strife between two Arab tribes on the Arabian peninsula : داحس والغبراء
Dāhis wa’l-Ghabrā’ can be literary translated as ‘felon and dust’ (see ??? ????????? - ?????????? ???????? ????? ). This referral seems to have a more theological background yet it seems unlikely all sources using this would have in depth knowledge of the Jāhiliyya.
Which ever theory suits best, it is quite clear that the acronym DAESH (داعش) is mostly, if not only, used by opponents of ISIS in Syria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NevernaExcept that there was a flaw in your earlier post ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio HornblowerAnd thanks for telling me what i told you, and thats what the internet is for.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
The acronym Daesh includes the word for state. So using daesh is no better at removing 'state' from the acronym than using ISIL - unless, of course, it is just to confuse the English speaking masses, in which case it's an excellent choice. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower
daesh = ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)
Gee whiz Ocker, you post up some absolute BS. You are so far off the mark that if I didn't know better, I would think I pose a threat to your MBA mentality. Why do you continually follow me around TD wanting to disect everything I say with a totally crap rebuttal which usually includes rediculous remarks about the US?
Are you stalking me?
^^ Horatio Hornblower, I can read Arabic. The internet is great but it's not the only source of information, even in the 21st century. Like the author of the blog you just quoted, I also have a Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, but we must have different versions/prints because in my copy the Arabic verb دعس, (meaning to thread underfoot, trample down, crush) is on page 282 and not p.325 and 326.
So let's get back on topic. I believe it was what will it take to get rid of ISIS.
Personally, I believe it will take agreement within the Muslim world that this paticular organization would be allowed to declare their existence, or not.
From what I know it seems that most Muslims would say they do not represent their beliefs. Whether the answer can be posed in a way that ISIS will agree remains to be seen.
Rick, IS has already declared its existence. The rest of the world can only either agree or disagree that the "Islamic State" is a legitimate state (in the sense of the UN and international politics). As for Muslims, the Muslim world has the added option of agreeing or disagreeing with existence of the Caliphate that IS claims it has set up. I think a lot of Muslims would like to see the restoration of the Caliphate but not one that is led by IS.
I would agree with you regarding the Muslims not really wanting IS to be the ones.
As for the rest of the world, I don't think IS cares whether they agree or not.
The Hezbollah guy in Lebanon has called exactly for the Arab world to unite against ISIS/DESHA/..........
http://thesaker.is/hezbollah-secreta...over-in-syria/
It's long and rambling, but the statement is there.
Thanks for that, OhOh. A fascinating read.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Interesting to note that Nasrallah uses the term takfiri to describe ISIL/daesh - Takfiri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nasrallah also seems to be saying that Arab and Muslim countries should put their differences aside and unite against IS. I wonder if they will.
As soon as it snows in Qatar in August . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
So then you have to make a conscious decision to commit to total war, and re-establishing imperial rule over these backwaters, and enforcing law and order. It's like pregancy - you're either all the way in or all the way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon MeeShure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
Then what? They go on chopping heads whilly nilly?
W/out the presentation upon the word's stage re the atrocities they won't have any
conpulsion to not chop away whenever. Remember, we're living in the world of Twitter, Snapcheck etc. This isn't contained or spun ala Walter Concrite, Dan Rathers etc. :yup:
Lefties obviously don't want war, but the world benefits from a really good war... cull the population, reorganise things, and lots of innovation happens... not to mention it reminds people of what's important, and fosters unity.
...but you can't run a successful campaign with a constant running commentary from the media, and the threat of legal action against soldiers for fog of war incidents. The media are complicit in ISIS, they are a function of which ISIS is the output, and need to be temporarily muzzled to fix this problem (as happened in WWII).
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/02/1384.jpg
War will not rid the world of ISIS, as has previously been explained. Armed conflict, in this case, will only slow the advance of ISIS domination. My preference would be to have a less destructive solution. I would also prefer any confict be muslim against muslim as it has been for thousands of years.
IS or some form of it exists in every Islamic country.
All it take for fundamentalist Islam to rise and begin fighting is the absence of suppression.
No power vacuum, no IS.
The comment "or some form", is a pretty broad statement. It is also a theory that every Islamic country contains ISIS counterparts. We need more specific facts to validate your thought that a power vacuum would end IS.
Quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necron99
If ISIS or some other extremist group were to try to overthrow a government from within, SA, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia etc... they would be rotting in jail.
Give them a lawless area and they will cause havoc . . . irrespective of how well someone like the so-called Iraqi amy is armed and trained
Boko Haram, MILF, IS, South Thailand, they (Fundamentalist Muslims who will use extreme violence to secure their Islamic state are everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Libya was fine under Ghadaffi, take him away and it's a basket case, same with Saddam and Iraq. Weaken Assad by supporting rebels and look what's happened...
Give Egypt democracy and what did they do?
There is a reason the only relatively successful countries in the area are ruled by Despots who will not brook a sliver of dissent.
And when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?
And that there is it in a nutshell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Necron99Boko Haram, MILF, IS, South Thailand, they (Fundamentalist Muslims who will use extreme violence to secure their Islamic state are everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
Libya was fine under Ghadaffi, take him away and it's a basket case, same with Saddam and Iraq. Weaken Assad by supporting rebels and look what's happened...
Give Egypt democracy and what did they do?
There is a reason the only relatively successful countries in the area are ruled by Despots who will not brook a sliver of dissent.
Well said that man.
What makes you so sure the winning Muslim faction will turn its aggression toward the west?Quote:
Originally Posted by KoojoAnd when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?
As has already been mentioned, Muslim talking to Muslim does not always mean they have to go to war against each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppersWhat makes you so sure the winning Muslim faction will turn its aggression toward the west?Quote:
Originally Posted by KoojoAnd when the one Muslim faction wins out against the other and turns it's agression towards the west, what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
And by the way, what would your 'less destructive solution' be?
As has already been mentioned, Muslim talking to Muslim does not always mean they have to go to war against each other.
Because the west supports the stable moderate Islamic states. The states they will want to add to their Caliphate.
You are assuming the stable moderate islamic states will not be the muslim faction that comes out on top.
The deed has been accomplished right under our noses.
Another series of boggiemen created, and we continue to debate about good and evil, just as they want us to.
They will have to if they really want to either put an end to ISIS or fold them into the large entity known as the Muslim nation. I personally have found that Muslims are not the easiest to deal with when it means a concession or two is needed by one or more of the partys.Quote:
Originally Posted by NevernaThanks for that, OhOh. A fascinating read.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Interesting to note that Nasrallah uses the term takfiri to describe ISIL/daesh - Takfiri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nasrallah also seems to be saying that Arab and Muslim countries should put their differences aside and unite against IS. I wonder if they will.
I would hope this putting of differences aside can work. If it doesn't we all could be in for quite a long and wild ride.
Because Hezbollah is Shiite.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
^ So's the weather. S'posed to be Spring
Miss You big time, You fought Iran, in a context of Europe's WW1 madness because the west controlled your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pound Hound
West sold you arms big time, and Russia supplied the other side, haven't we been here before.
You are a Martyr of Western deception , and now they follow You, in death Ba'ath Party .
How did Bush get this so wrong.