Will the new SA leader give them all a million. No need to get out of bed to earn their 22 virgins, just buy themseves a harem.
Printable View
Will the new SA leader give them all a million. No need to get out of bed to earn their 22 virgins, just buy themseves a harem.
The Islamic State "state" doesn't really exist anymore, does it? They hardly control any land now. A few acres here and there. Hardly a "state".
And the Caliphate isn't really working out, is it? They had a good go at it but they have failed. Just a few pockets of terrorists left, to be mostly killed. A few symathisers and a few survivors that will either be killed, arrested and possibly jailed, and a few to go back to their earlier lives. It's almost over. Just waiting for the fat lady to sing.
This was my original post when I started this post back in February of 2015:
"What Will It Take To Get Rid Of ISIS?ISIS has surely enraged enough countries in the world to warrent their demise.
What will it take to get rid of these assholes?"
It seems ISIS has pissed off enough people to cause their territorial dominance to be deminished to almost nothing. Will ISIS change their name before continuing their cause? If it was me, I would retreat and come back a little later under another name and a completely different strategy. The current ISIS movement has run its course.
For anyone desperate to believe what dumb leaders and complicit media tell you about "mercenaries" being the backbone of the Islamic State, sure, go ahead, give them a wad apiece and see if they stampede for the beach or the gun store.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Far from, though I do hope she pleases you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
So you think they currently have a viable state?
And a caliphate? How's that working out for them, in your opinion?
ISIS will continue to be funded, armed and inserted into any country their providers wish to destabalise. SE Asia, central Asia. All for the good of the ameristani's desire for blood and chaos.
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
Be great to see Louis Theroux pose that to a nutty mullah.
:smileylaughing:
"Currently" and "viable"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverna
The caliphate was created through no tiny level of mismanagement by a naive and utterly clueless west, was and is funded and supported by 'friends' of the west; the idea exists, is real and borderless and spreading as you talk it down, and difficult to defeat short of global upheaval.
In the unlikely event it is ever wiped out as in eliminated, this will not be by a western coalition stifled by ethical concerns that is incapable of comprehending its aspirations and even less capable of understanding that the Islamic State is the purest form of Islam witnessed on the planet for more than a thousand years. Yet western leaders and so-called Islamic experts still insist the IS is un-Islamic.
Get your head around these lies borne of hope and fantasy about how things 'should' be, because the Islamic State will be around long after you and I are forgotten.
Isis doesn't exist, the naive and clueless west says it doesn't exist, but Daesh does exist.
Of course, and it has been around for over a thousand years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
??? There is no need to defeat the idea, and there is no way you would know the "idea" was defeated, so there will be no global upheaval in "defeating" the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Presumably you are not now talking about the "idea" but the physical "Islamic State". If so, it is on the verge of being defeated in Iraq and Syria. There will be small pockets left here and there (not just in Syria and Iraq) but it is not now a "state" and IMO will not be a state in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
The battle for the REAL Islam, eh? How is "real" Islam defined?Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Rubbish. The so-called Islamic "State" is on its last legs. The idea of the Caliphate will live on, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
IS is like Wimbledon Football Club.
It will reappear under a new name in the Muslim equivalent of Milton Keynes, only with fibreglass camels instead of cows.
Interesting BBC report on the victory at Raqqa vs what was reported by our glorious leaders that occasionally lie to keep the people dumb and clueless.
Raqqa’s dirty secret
Raqqa's dirty secret - BBC News
Mind you, the Beeb has form for creative reporting, so the truth probably rests somewhere between two sets of lies.
I watched this report on the BBC and it appears to have a lot of truth, compared to the numerous fake stories that precedes it. There was actual footage of numerous trucks and buses leaving Raqqa that contained hundreds, if not more, ISIS fighters who were allowed to leave with their small arms. This alone would not prove everything, but the interviews with several of the foreign drivers is what convinced me. Many of the remaining fighters escaped into Turkey where they could then gain entrance into Europe. This is not a good thing and spells more mahem may follow in many European countries. I believe I referred to this occurrence earlier as round two for ISIS, or whatever they will be calling themselves. It is time for Europe to tighten their security even more.
Europe is asleep, its leaders think everything will be fine if they keep the people ignorant; and I believe they're doing a fine job in this respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
I posted this back a ways and when I did, I did not think it would be happening this quickly. My thought was that it would take many years before ISIS would lose its stronghold and retreat as they recently have done. Maybe a combination of having their butts kicked and realizing their message could be spread through other means such as terrorist attacks directly on the west. One has to think losing real estate, as they have done, stings a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
...what stings more, I imagine, is the loss of the grandiose notion of empire with its own taxes, torture squads, propaganda, flag and..who knows...maybe even an airline...while its adherents appear to have manipulated the internet semi-effectively, they grossly over-estimated their ability to survive as a "state" against the superpowers and their local minions...I imagine, however, that Assad & Co. have learned little and internalized even less about the roots of the uprising...thus sowing the seeds for the next one...Quote:
Originally Posted by rickschoppers
^^ I disagree. It's just one part of the war of attrition on the West. The leaders knew it wouldn't last long and intentionally sacrificed many lives for their cause.
...ftfy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
@2997
Now the planners, funders, feeders, armers, airforce has been correctly identified some are taking steps. But as some here say it is nigh on impossible to destroy an idea. Only through ensuring all are included in society can these violent acts stop.
You're too modest. I'm sure you're knowledgeable in some areas. Maybe you should post on those?Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Wasting your time, according to our 'experts' the 'idea' of the caliphate is diluted to redundant because it is centuries old.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Barely worth a response when people start bleating to justify cowardice and impotence.
^
Don't let the fuckers get you down.
Never did, won't, never will.
US-led anti-ISIS coalition under-reports civilian deaths - and the media lets them get away with it
Published time: 21 Nov, 2017
The US-led coalition against ISIS has vastly played down the number of civilians that have been killed in Iraq as a result of their own airstrikes. In fact, the war against ISIS may be the 'least transparent war in recent American history.'
The conclusion comes from a report published by the New York Times, reporters Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal spent 18 months investigating coalition bombing in Iraq, traveling to more than 150 sites of airstrikes across the northern part of the country. Their goal was to determine which air force launched which strikes — and whom they killed.
Troubling findings
The US-led coalition has admitted to killing civilians in a tiny minority of airstrikes. According to official figures, one civilian has been killed for every 157 airstrikes. In reality, Khan and Gopal found the actual rate is one civilian died for every five airstrikes. That means the rate of civilian deaths is 31 times higher than the US military has admitted.
Coverage too late
When strikes like this occur, most in the media take US military officials at their word. There is very little inquiry as to the veracity of the claims regarding the numbers of civilians killed, the time and location of strikes and so on. When the media does report on civilian deaths or suggest that numbers may be higher than the US military leads us to believe, it is done in a clinical manner, and there is rarely any investigative follow-up reporting done. When caused by US coalition forces, civilian deaths are generally regarded as inevitable collateral damage.
The opposite appears to be true in the case of civilians deaths caused by either the Syrian or Russian air forces in Syria, for example. Those cases are regarded as reckless, barbaric attacks on civilians, and the more emotion-laden headlines the media can pump out about them, the better.
More exposure?
This new report is a serious feat of investigative journalism. It should shine a much-needed spotlight on the reality of what the US military falsely claims is “one of the most precise air campaigns in military history.”
Unfortunately, few major outlets have followed up on the Times report. It has not been radio silence. There has been some follow-up. Both MSNBC and CBS ran short segments about the report. It was also covered by Vox, Business Insider, Esquire, The Week — and some lesser known websites. Indeed, there has not been a huge amount of coverage.
It is hard to imagine the coverage would have been so contained if Khan and Gopal had been reporting on casualties caused, for example, by the Russian or Syrian militaries.
It is also hard to imagine how this “fact of life” attitude toward civilian deaths in places like Iraq and Syria would stand up if the bombs were hitting American homes and wiping out American families as they slept. How many deaths would be acceptable then?
Of course, the media can’t control how the US-led coalition operates in places like Iraq or Syria, but it is undeniable that the lack of sustained interrogation from journalists makes it a lot easier for the US military and its allies to continue killing civilians, not bothered by any kind of serious public criticism.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/410512-us-syria-iraq-media/
How very different from ^ the photos of wounded Syrian babies being carried by a first aid workers after a Russian bombing raid on Daesh, and the follow up of propaganda saying that it was chemical warfare. Amazing how when it suits them they can report civilian casualties, resulting from enemy action.
I just wish those NYT reporters had commensurate figures for how many civilians have died when Russians have "killed terrorists".Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
However, there is not even a single fucking mention in their article of Russia, so it shows what their angle is.
The fact is that if they'd even tried doing a story on Russian kills for RT, they'd be guzzling down a nice polonium cuppa before it even got saved on a server.
Don't mess with the Vlad!
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2017/12/1074.jpg
No more ‘fighting ISIS?’ US to stay in Syria to prevent ‘win’ for Assad and Iran – report
Published time: 23 Nov, 2017
The US plans to keep its troops in Syria long after the defeat of ISIS – the goal used to justify their illegal presence in the first place – because the Syrian government and its ally Iran would “win” if they were withdrawn, the Washington Post reported.
The Trump administration is “expanding its goals” in Syria to include a “potentially open-ended commitment” to support the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing several anonymous US officials. The change comes as the defeat of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist group in Syria seems imminent.
Washington has been justifying its deployment of ground troops in Syria, which violates the embattled nation’s sovereignty, by citing the need to fight IS. US Defense Secretary James Mattis last week went so far as to erroneously claim that the US had been given a mandate to be in Syria, stating: “You know, the UN said that … basically we can go after ISIS. And we're there to take them out.”
“An abrupt US withdrawal could complete Assad’s sweep of Syrian territory and help guarantee his political survival – an outcome that would constitute a win for Iran, his close ally. To avoid that outcome, US officials say they plan to maintain a US troop presence in northern Syria… and establish new local governance, apart from the Assad government, in those areas,” the newspaper said.
https://www.rt.com/news/410735-ameri...ps-stay-syria/
Lost in reverie: Mattis claims UN let US intervene in Syria, although it never did
Published time: 14 Nov, 2017
https://www.rt.com/usa/409881-mattis-us-syria-un/
...:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Novel concept when you wipe out a bunch of civvies with a not very smart bomb, blame the other guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasabi
I'm all for sorting out this chemical warfare issue, however one country is blocking further investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
Guess who, comrades?
Similarly, when one country has been supressing another country, however, one country is blocking further investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Guess who?
However, there is quite a coarse difference in the numbers affected. (and in the judgements either...)
What a load of fucking drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Moscow says ISIS has been defeated in Syria
The Russian Defense Ministry declared on Wednesday that Syria has now been liberated completely from ISIS forces. General Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia's General Staff, made the announcement on December 6, following what Moscow says is the defeat of ISIS in Deir ez-Zor.
“All ISIS armed groups on Syrian territory have been destroyed, and the territory itself has been liberated. An hour ago, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu reported this information to the commander-in-chief, President Vladimir Putin,” Gerasimov said at his annual briefing with foreign military attaches.
Gerasimov claimed that Syrian General Suheil al-Hassan and the 5th Volunteer Assault Corps have defeated ISIS remnants in Deir ez-Zor and liberated settlements in Salihia, El-Khite, El-Katya, and Musalaha, and joined forced with government troops advancing from the south.
Other sources have yet to report that ISIS has been forced out of Syria entirely, claiming that the terrorist organization still controls several regions throughout the country, especially west of the Euphrates and to the south of Deir ez-Zor.
Russia's military intervention in Syria began in the fall of 2015, with the aim of aiding the Assad government against terrorist insurgents.
Throughout the campaign, Russia has repeatedly been accused of attacking so-called “moderate rebels,” in addition to forces from ISIS and Al-Nusra Front.
Moscow has confirmed the combat deaths of 40 Russian soldiers in Syria, though an unknown number of Russian mercenaries have also fought and died in the war.
Russian citizens have also fought for terrorist organizations in Syria. According to Russian defense officials, more than 2,800 Russians have been killed fighting for various terrorist groups.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2017/12/06...eated-in-syria
:rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Russia's military intervention in Syria began in the fall of 2015, with the aim of aiding the Assad government against terrorist insurgents.
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
17th August 2014
John Podasta wrote the following to Hillary Cvnton.
we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353
You didn't see this on CNN... BBC....
Apparently Saudi and Qatar are our best friends, but they assist our alleged worst enemy?
Or more likely that ISIS is just another in a long line of the Zbigniew Brzezinski tactic? Yes it is. Stop ISIS? That would mean stopping western governments and holding them to account because all ISIS roads lead back to London Paris and Washington.
...maybe not this particular quote, but WaPo and NYT commented years ago on Saudi and Qatari citizens (among many others) aiding ISIS...this is not news (unless the courier has just reached your outpost)...Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
^^Your good buddy Vlad, as of late, is selling arms to the Saudis also. Not sure how that works out with the ISIS support from the Saudis an all.
we should fucking bomb Quatar and Saudi Arabia, better yet, let ISIS fuck up those countries and then nuke the whole fucking thing :)