Thread: What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

ISIS does appear to be justifying what they have done because hey fèel they are the true representatives of Islam

They may but do you feel closer to that Norwegian idiot who slaughtered those kids because he believes his faith told him to?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

By taking selected writiings of the Quran, they have justified what they have done and will continue until all muslims recognize them as the only correct religion

There is just so much simplistic nonsense in that sentence I don't know where to begin.
Christians justify their actions by selecting passages of the bible that suits their agenda. Politicians do the same thing. WE ALL DO the same thing.
In what parallel universe do you think that ALL Muslims will simply accept their extremism? Why are their numbers so small? Why is there not a mass exodus from the 1 billion Muslims around them to join?
Why are Muslim nations fighting them?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

ISIS has also destroyed ancient artifacts in Mosul that they feel are false idols and have secretly sold many for cash to fund their fight.

As did the Taleban . . . what is your point?
Western nations destroyed civilisations . . . and artifacts and the rest

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Do you really think they will stop once they clense all of the Roman Empire as you state?

Where do I state this?

Come on, Rick - if you're going to have a discussion at least keep it real. Don't misquote me, don't attribute anything to me that I have nothing to do with.

You know, when I was doing my MBA we spent time extending what we used to do in school - debating.
You can't do it

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

If this does not smack of wanting to rule the world, I do not know what does.

Nothing to do with a simplistic Hitler-ism thrown in for good measure.

How about having troops in well over 50 countries the world over? Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Am I on the right track?

Why ask when you believe you are but are really not

Have a look at this, Rick, and tell me who has territorial ambitions and who has done rather well at this 'world' thing . .






Don't get me wrong - I prefer the US to be the dominant world power rather than China or some bizarre world-wide Radical Islamist Caliphate, which exists in some weirdoes imaginations, but that doesn't mean anyone is innocent

My understanding is that IS is predominantly Fundamentalist Sunni Muslim.
Keeping in mind this is quite different from Fundamentalist Shi'ia Muslim.

I believe it would be best to let the forces of the Sunni Muslim states take the fight to IS as it was from those states that the roots of IS (formerly ISIS) grew and it should be those states that denounce , reign in or crush the Fundamentalist 'believers' / 'terrorists' (whatever name you wish to utilize).

Where exactly are the military wings of those Sunni states in this fight ?
(I'm not talking fighter jets - I'm talking actual "boots on the ground"...firmly understanding that those boots would be on Iraqi and Syrian ground.)

Surely, "sovereign forces" would be required to stop carnage towards the Syrian and Iraqi Government and their civilian populations. This would probably become the toughest part. (IMO)

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Perhaps the govt's press etc,should stop using IS ISIS ISIL, as the terrorists are not a state.

I believe the term Daesh is used by the Arabs

It means the same thing. It's just an acronym from Arabic rather than from English.

ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)

America protects Americas interests worldwide.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Try using some of your MBA knowledge.

No need, it's quite basic comprehension of a written piece of information:

We'll do this one by one . . . easier that way.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

So you are saying you did not state IS is trying to take over a region that was once the Roman empire?

Correct. I did not say this. I said this:

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

they are fighting for their territory which happened to be vacated when the US chucked out Sadaam . . . Iraq and parts of Syria

Do you see the difference?

Part 2

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Your Norwegian idiot statement is a bit silly.

Not at all. You mentioned:

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

ISIS does appear to be justifying what they have done because hey fèel they are the true representatives of Islam. By taking selected writiings of the Quran, they have justified what they have done and will continue

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.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

You do a good job of trying to discredit what I am saying

Thank you

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

but you make youself look ignorant in that attempt.

. . . you are contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

You have not even tried to digest what I have said before you add silly comebacks

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 am

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I do not claim to be an expert with regard to ISIS and can only give my perspective as an outsider. Unless you are marching with the ISIS troops, I do not think you can do more than the same.

Irrelevant, yet again.

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

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Comparing the US to ISIS is a little over the top as well.

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.

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.

My understanding it can also mean to crush underfoot.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Perhaps the govt's press etc,should stop using IS ISIS ISIL, as the terrorists are not a state.

I believe the term Daesh is used by the Arabs

It means the same thing. It's just an acronym from Arabic rather than from English.

ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

My understanding it can also mean to crush underfoot.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Perhaps the govt's press etc,should stop using IS ISIS ISIL, as the terrorists are not a state.

I believe the term Daesh is used by the Arabs

It means the same thing. It's just an acronym from Arabic rather than from English.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

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.

Thanks for telling me what I just told you.

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.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

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.

Thanks for telling me what I just told you.

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

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

And thanks for telling me what i told you, and thats what the internet is for.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Thanks for telling me what I just told you.

Except that there was a flaw in your earlier post ..

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Perhaps the govt's press etc,should stop using IS ISIS ISIL, as the terrorists are not a state.

I believe the term Daesh is used by the Arabs

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.

daesh = ad-dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa ash-sham. (The Islamic State of/in Iraq and the Levant = ISIL)

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

All you have to do now is

. . . absolutely nothing you suggest

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

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.

Ok, link to 'all the guests' that contradict what I said and support your assertions, otherwise you're simply talking rubbish.

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.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Which is more accurate, to believe one who quotes what they hear and read

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.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

someone that is just pulling stuff out of the air and using misdirection and misrepresentation as a basis for their responses?

Then you should really stop doing that.

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:

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 see - thank you. I shall now go on CNN and BBC and . . . . Seriously, how infantile are you?

Go on, rick - this is the easiest one:

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Try using some of your MBA knowledge.

No need, it's quite basic comprehension of a written piece of information:

We'll do this one by one . . . easier that way.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

So you are saying you did not state IS is trying to take over a region that was once the Roman empire?

Correct. I did not say this. I said this:

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

they are fighting for their territory which happened to be vacated when the US chucked out Sadaam . . . Iraq and parts of Syria

Do you see the difference?

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.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

And thanks for telling me what i told you, and thats what the internet is for.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Thanks for telling me what I just told you.

Except that there was a flaw in your earlier post ..

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Perhaps the govt's press etc,should stop using IS ISIS ISIL, as the terrorists are not a state.

I believe the term Daesh is used by the Arabs

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.

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.