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

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Bob you may want to research Casey Britton regarding Dabiq

I've hard the claims re Casey Britton before. I don't find them very convincing. These kind of mags and videos have been coming out for over a decade now and most of them seem pretty convincing, more importantly their target market - Islamist cannon-fodder living in the West - seems convinced. That said, I have no way of knowing who really produces them and sometimes, looking at the gibberish in them, it's hard to believe they're serious.

Do research on linkedin and see the contacts

Anyone wondered why a ISIS mag is written in English.

Funny how Muslims speak and write Arabic but post in English.

Maybe its there christian recruitment drive

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Funny how Muslims speak and write Arabic but post in English.

Islam is an international religion. All Muslims do NOT speak and write Arabic, what a weird idea. They speak the languages of their own countries.

Muslims, like most other people in the world, will usually post in their own language.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Maybe its there christian recruitment drive

What has publishing in English got to do with Christianity?

So religious practice and study are performed in what language.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

So religious practice and study are performed in what language.

Classical Arabic, a scriptural and scholarly tongue which is not used or generally understood as an everyday language anywhere. That would be the same as expecting Christians to use Latin, Koine, or Aramaic as their normal means of communication or that the English should talk in Anglo Saxon.

Bob Try Koranic Arabic.

and as i said go like at Casey Britton

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

So religious practice and study are performed in what language

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Classical Arabic, a scriptural and scholarly tongue which is not used or generally understood as an everyday language anywhere

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Bob Try Koranic Arabic.

Errr, Koranic Arabic IS Classical Arabic!

Classical Arabic (CA), also known as Quranic Arabic, is the form of the Arabic language used in literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). It is based on the medieval dialects of Arab tribes.
Classical Arabic -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Bring back Reagan and Thatcher

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

They're dead.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

That's why I said that.

Yes, clearly Because if they were still alive one couldn't bring them back?

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

More human intel would go long way. Freezing their assets would hit them hard.

Indeed, but what a daunting task infiltrating this group . . .

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So if this report is true, ISIS is "Blowback" for Obama's Administration's support for the Anti-Assad Rebels:

Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset. Well, you know, when the Germans put Lenin on that train to Moscow, they saw him as a strategic asset, too.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria. . . . The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies. . . . The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

That would make Obama’s Iraq failure even bigger than previously assumed, on a par with his (and Hillary’s) Libya failure."

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...t-b99ad7a29092

Instapundit

Sorta blows that it's all Bush's fault for ISIS right out of the H2O, eh?

Are you the Court Jester or just an attention seeking prat. You should read your posts thorougly before pasting them up as support for your unlikely accusations. To wit, here is what the author of the article, Naveez Ahmed, says about your hero Boy George.

Ahmed followed up with a detailed critique of Hitchens' attack on both himself and Gore Vidal in a feature article published by The Independent on Sunday. He argued that:

“ .. the pre-9/11 intelligence failure was not simply because of a lack of reliable intelligence, or because intelligence bureaucracy was hopelessly incompetent (which it was and is), but ultimately because the Bush administration made political decisions that obstructed critical intelligence investigations and ongoing information-sharing that could have prevented 9/11. Those decisions were made to protect vested interests linked to US support of Islamist extremist networks like the Taliban and their state-sponsors, such as the Gulf kingdoms, rooted in Western oil dependency and intersecting financial investments. The inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission investigation, in this regard, is an open secret to many intelligence experts. ”

He went on to discuss overlooked evidence that the US air defence failure on 9/11 was due to the latter having been contracted out to an obscure firm, Ptech, with connections to Saudi-sponsored and al-Qaeda linked terrorists and terrorist-funders, which was able to interfere with the FAA and other agencies.[12]

On the same day, The Independent on Sunday ran a news story on the whole episode, reporting that Ahmed "had not suggested there was a conspiracy [on 9/11], rather a 'dereliction of duty'", and that he had "used the word 'complicity' in a legal sense."[13]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraquis have launched a counterattack near Ramadi.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/23/mi...is-iraq-syria/

Originally Posted by MrG

Are you the Court Jester or just an attention seeking prat. You should read your posts thorougly before pasting them up as support for your unlikely accusations. To wit, here is what the author of the article, Naveez Ahmed, says about your hero Boy George.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steady on there old timer. Everything I post is read thorougly(sic)

The article addresses Obama’s Iraq failure. "The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS."

btw, my subjective comment re Bush is a valid one.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by MrG

Are you the Court Jester or just an attention seeking prat. You should read your posts thorougly before pasting them up as support for your unlikely accusations. To wit, here is what the author of the article, Naveez Ahmed, says about your hero Boy George.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steady on there old timer. Everything I post is read thorougly(sic)

The article addresses Obama’s Iraq failure. "The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS."

btw, my subjective comment re Bush is a valid one.

Interesting, except that I think the issue of who supported the rise of ISIS is clear below. As to who supported whom, when, with other allies is rather liquid over there. The tribes have loyalties of their own.

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

Under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, the ISI sent delegates into Syria in August 2011 after the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011. This group named itself Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām or al-Nusra Front, and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo.[35]

In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of his ISI with al-Nusra Front, and announced that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".[27][36]

Not a bad article.


http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/...hey-be-stopped

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So if this report is true, ISIS is "Blowback" for Obama's Administration's support for the Anti-Assad Rebels:

Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset. Well, you know, when the Germans put Lenin on that train to Moscow, they saw him as a strategic asset, too.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria. . . . The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies. . . . The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

That would make Obama’s Iraq failure even bigger than previously assumed, on a par with his (and Hillary’s) Libya failure."

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...t-b99ad7a29092

Instapundit

Sorta blows that it's all Bush's fault for ISIS right out of the H2O, eh?

Are you the Court Jester or just an attention seeking prat. You should read your posts thorougly before pasting them up as support for your unlikely accusations. To wit, here is what the author of the article, Naveez Ahmed, says about your hero Boy George.

Ahmed followed up with a detailed critique of Hitchens' attack on both himself and Gore Vidal in a feature article published by The Independent on Sunday. He argued that:

“ .. the pre-9/11 intelligence failure was not simply because of a lack of reliable intelligence, or because intelligence bureaucracy was hopelessly incompetent (which it was and is), but ultimately because the Bush administration made political decisions that obstructed critical intelligence investigations and ongoing information-sharing that could have prevented 9/11. Those decisions were made to protect vested interests linked to US support of Islamist extremist networks like the Taliban and their state-sponsors, such as the Gulf kingdoms, rooted in Western oil dependency and intersecting financial investments. The inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission investigation, in this regard, is an open secret to many intelligence experts. ”

He went on to discuss overlooked evidence that the US air defence failure on 9/11 was due to the latter having been contracted out to an obscure firm, Ptech, with connections to Saudi-sponsored and al-Qaeda linked terrorists and terrorist-funders, which was able to interfere with the FAA and other agencies.[12]

On the same day, The Independent on Sunday ran a news story on the whole episode, reporting that Ahmed "had not suggested there was a conspiracy [on 9/11], rather a 'dereliction of duty'", and that he had "used the word 'complicity' in a legal sense."[13]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be interesting to know what these decisions made by Bush were.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It would be interesting to know what these decisions made by Bush were.

He chose to ignore the Intelligence Reports that were handed to him by the outgoing Clinton Admin. He and that profoundly incompotent Candoliza Rice, who was playing at being National Security Advisor at the time.

Afterwards, he chose to allow his compatriots in the oil game, the Saudis, escape the country on the only flights permitted in the air over America immediatly after 911.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

So if this report is true, ISIS is "Blowback" for Obama's Administration's support for the Anti-Assad Rebels:

Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset. Well, you know, when the Germans put Lenin on that train to Moscow, they saw him as a strategic asset, too.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria. . . . The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies. . . . The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

That would make Obama’s Iraq failure even bigger than previously assumed, on a par with his (and Hillary’s) Libya failure."

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...t-b99ad7a29092

Instapundit

Sorta blows that it's all Bush's fault for ISIS right out of the H2O, eh?

Are you the Court Jester or just an attention seeking prat. You should read your posts thorougly before pasting them up as support for your unlikely accusations. To wit, here is what the author of the article, Naveez Ahmed, says about your hero Boy George.

Ahmed followed up with a detailed critique of Hitchens' attack on both himself and Gore Vidal in a feature article published by The Independent on Sunday. He argued that:

“ .. the pre-9/11 intelligence failure was not simply because of a lack of reliable intelligence, or because intelligence bureaucracy was hopelessly incompetent (which it was and is), but ultimately because the Bush administration made political decisions that obstructed critical intelligence investigations and ongoing information-sharing that could have prevented 9/11. Those decisions were made to protect vested interests linked to US support of Islamist extremist networks like the Taliban and their state-sponsors, such as the Gulf kingdoms, rooted in Western oil dependency and intersecting financial investments. The inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission investigation, in this regard, is an open secret to many intelligence experts. ”

He went on to discuss overlooked evidence that the US air defence failure on 9/11 was due to the latter having been contracted out to an obscure firm, Ptech, with connections to Saudi-sponsored and al-Qaeda linked terrorists and terrorist-funders, which was able to interfere with the FAA and other agencies.[12]

On the same day, The Independent on Sunday ran a news story on the whole episode, reporting that Ahmed "had not suggested there was a conspiracy [on 9/11], rather a 'dereliction of duty'", and that he had "used the word 'complicity' in a legal sense."[13]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naveez Ahmed: Closet 911truther.

His only decision was to choose which of the offered brown envelopes, containing his "fee" and the implied refusal threat, to choose.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It would be interesting to know what these decisions made by Bush were.

He chose to ignore the Intelligence Reports that were handed to him by the outgoing Clinton Admin. He and that profoundly incompotent Candoliza Rice, who was playing at being National Security Advisor at the time.

Afterwards, he chose to allow his compatriots in the oil game, the Saudis, escape the country on the only flights permitted in the air over America immediatly after 911.

Not much substance in that reply.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

It would be interesting to know what these decisions made by Bush were.

He chose to ignore the Intelligence Reports that were handed to him by the outgoing Clinton Admin. He and that profoundly incompotent (sic) Madeleine Albright...

Fixed that for you.

I love how repubtards try to pin the collapse of Iraq and Syria on Obama. It is utterly laughable.

The simple fact is that if Bush and his neocon handlers didn't invade Iraq in the first place ISIS would not even exist. The story stops there. Period. The blame lies there. Period.

The Iraq war was a false flag conflict orchestrated by neocons to line pockets. It should have never happened. If we would have left well enough alone Saddam would still be in power playing his key roll as a buffer between Iran and the Arab states. Now what to we have? We have ISIS, an emboldened unchecked Iran and devolving nation states.

Thanks to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and there nitwit puppet Bush Jr. War criminals.

Originally Posted by bsnub

I love how repubtards try to pin the collapse of Iraq and Syria on Obama. It is utterly laughable.

The simple fact is that if Bush and his neocon handlers didn't invade Iraq in the first place ISIS would not even exist. The story stops there. Period. The blame lies there. Period.

The Iraq war was a false flag conflict orchestrated by neocons to line pockets. It should have never happened. If we would have left well enough alone Saddam would still be in power playing his key roll as a buffer between Iran and the Arab states. Now what to we have? We have ISIS, an emboldened unchecked Iran and devolving nation states.

Thanks to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and there nitwit puppet Bush Jr. War criminals.