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

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quite why you hate Shia I don't know.

Let's make it crystal clear:

Hezbollah = Terrorists = Bad
ISIS = Terrorists = Bad
Israeli military = Terrorists = Bad
Any fucking terrorists = Terrorists = Bad

Is that simple enough for you?

Once again, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the comment or question of my post. Never mind, Harry. OhOh will be along to play with you again soon. Have a nice day.

I answered you question in post 2746 dumbass.

And the real point is that you have a hard on for terrorists, and you didn't even realise it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quite why you hate Shia I don't know.

Let's make it crystal clear:

Hezbollah = Terrorists = Bad
ISIS = Terrorists = Bad
Israeli military = Terrorists = Bad
Any fucking terrorists = Terrorists = Bad

Is that simple enough for you?

Once again, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the comment or question of my post. Never mind, Harry. OhOh will be along to play with you again soon. Have a nice day.

I answered you question in post 2746 dumbass.

But my question that you quoted and replied to was post 2747, you thickwad. So you now claim to be able to answer questions before you even know what they are.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quite why you hate Shia I don't know.

Let's make it crystal clear:

Hezbollah = Terrorists = Bad
ISIS = Terrorists = Bad
Israeli military = Terrorists = Bad
Any fucking terrorists = Terrorists = Bad

Is that simple enough for you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And the real point is that you have a hard on for terrorists, and you didn't even realise it.

I don't have a "hard on for terrorists". But I understand that someone asking simple you a question or showing your limited experience of something makes you come to a conclusion of something completely different. You really are a dumbass. But you haven't told us why you hate shia. Perhaps you can accuse me of something else instead of answering that question again.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And the real point is that you have a hard on for terrorists, and you didn't even realise it.

I don't have a "hard on for terrorists". But I understand that someone asking simple you a question or showing your limited experience of something makes you come to a conclusion of something completely different. You really are a dumbass. But you haven't told us why you hate shia. Perhaps you can accuse me of something else instead of answering that question again.

Fucking hell, have you been taking comprehension lessons from Buttplug or something?

Let's try again:

^ You blamed Iranians for that before. Now you seem to be blaming Lebanese. Next you'll be saying they are the same. But then again, you hate the Shia. Nuff said.

Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing, and they're all terrorist c u n t s.

Lebanese Christians are top chaps.

That OK?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quite why you hate Shia I don't know.

Let's make it crystal clear:

Hezbollah = Terrorists = Bad
ISIS = Terrorists = Bad
Israeli military = Terrorists = Bad
Any fucking terrorists = Terrorists = Bad

Is that simple enough for you?

Should it be you that determines who is a terrorist? Do you know what terrorism is, or will you resort to abuse because everyone knows?

How do you suppose your definition of terrorism compares with that of others, and why must yours be right over another?

For example, as a reasonable person, what do you think of the statement: 19 innocent Muslims killed 3000 terrorists on 911?

Is it absurd? What if I told you more people believe this than Europe's entire population? Are they all crazy, for disagreeing with you?

Lots of questions there, so answer what you want and ignore whatever's uncomfortable. Can't be simpler, eh?

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Neverna

Quite why you hate Shia I don't know.

Let's make it crystal clear:

Hezbollah = Terrorists = Bad
ISIS = Terrorists = Bad
Israeli military = Terrorists = Bad
Any fucking terrorists = Terrorists = Bad

Is that simple enough for you?

Should it be you that determines who is a terrorist? Do you know what terrorism is, or will you resort to abuse because everyone knows?

How do you suppose your definition of terrorism compares with that of others, and why must yours be right over another?

For example, as a reasonable person, what do you think of the statement: 19 innocent Muslims killed 3000 terrorists on 911?

Is it absurd? What if I told you more people believe this than Europe's entire population? Are they all crazy, for disagreeing with you?

Lots of questions there, so answer what you want and ignore whatever's uncomfortable. Can't be simpler, eh?

All wonderful questions, all of which you can shove up your trolling arse.

Ah yes, very simple.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Lebanese Christians are top chaps. That OK?

One wonders how a Christian group managed to survive in a region predominately Muslim. Could it be something to do with French/Syrian rule for the greater part of it's existence

An interactive map of Syria. Reporting wins and losses of all side, allegedly.

Syrian Civil War Map / Live Map of the Syrian Civil War

Allegedly France and ameristan have "probably" acknowledged that Assad's removal is not as important now.

https://www.rt.com/news/396258-trump...n-talks-paris/

“Indeed, we now have a new approach in Syria, because we want results and we want to work closely together with all our partners including the United States. We have one main goal which is to eradicate terrorism, no matter who they are, we want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution,” Macron said. “I do not require Assad’s departure, that’s no longer a prerequisite for France. For seven years, we did not have an embassy in Damascus - and still we have no solution.”

The golden hair boy also hinted at further de-confliction zones are in the pipeline.

"Speaking beside French President Macron, Donald Trump praised the ceasefire in south-western Syria that was agreed upon between Russia, the US and Jordan.

Trump then said that several other ceasefires are in the works in other parts of Syria and implied that it is through Russia-US cooperation that one could someday witness a Syria where “no bullets are fired”.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Allegedly France and ameristan have "probably" acknowledged that Assad's removal is not as important now.

Well once he got past 400,000 he was well past his dad anyway.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Lebanese Christians are top chaps. That OK?

One wonders how a Christian group managed to survive in a region predominately Muslim. Could it be something to do with French/Syrian rule for the greater part of it's existence

Not sure accurate numbers are available for Lebanon in the absence of a recent census, poor accounting and migrant waves, but the country was predominantly Christian when it became independent of the French in 1944. CIA Factbook gives around 40% Christian, and a wild guess says it will rapidly and significantly reduce further.

In earlier times the entire region was Christian before it became Muslim.

Europe is undergoing a similar transition, though that could be an illusion because keyboard warriors say it's just a wee problem to be addressed in due course.

Originally Posted by jabir

In earlier times the entire region was colonised by Christians before it was liberated by Muslims.

FTFY

Poor choice of timeline but a far better effort than most.

Did you notice what happens after the green appears and begins to spread? What is it spreading into? Who was in the rest of the ME, north Africa and central Asia all the way to India at the time? Oh, and what happens at the points of breakthrough?

But look at the bright side, it could never happen to Europe I am reliably informed by no end of scary internet warriors.

Originally Posted by jabir

Poor choice of timeline but a far better effort than most.

Did you notice what happens after the green appears and begins to spread? What is it spreading into? Who was in the rest of the ME, north Africa and central Asia all the way to India at the time? Oh, and what happens at the points of breakthrough?

What does that have to do with you ridiculously claiming that the "entire region was Christian" before the mussies arrived?

It seems you posted the vid without watching it, or watched it without bothering to check if it is reasonably accurate, which it is except when it very much isn't.

What is the green spreading into, and who or what did it obliterate? What was the dominant faith in pre-Islamic Egypt, Sudan, north Africa, Med islands, Turkey, central Asia, Afghanistan and northern India?

How do you suppose Islam managed to swallow two-thirds of the Christian world before the first Crusade was launched, with priorities not to destroy the Muslims but to deter them from Constantinople and to recover a narrow passage of safety for pilgrims into the Holy Land?

Europe has failed to understand Islam before that and since, and treated it as a conventional enemy, which makes it easy to want to ignore the product of an Islam with the same DNA and a far more enlightened 21st c Europe.

Originally Posted by jabir

It seems you posted the vid without watching it, or watched it without bothering to check if it is reasonably accurate, which it is except when it very much isn't.

What is the green spreading into, and who or what did it obliterate? What was the dominant faith in pre-Islamic Egypt, Sudan, north Africa, Med islands, Turkey, central Asia, Afghanistan and northern India?

How do you suppose Islam managed to swallow two-thirds of the Christian world before the first Crusade was launched, with priorities not to destroy the Muslims but to deter them from Constantinople and to recover a narrow passage of safety for pilgrims into the Holy Land?

Europe has failed to understand Islam before that and since, and treated it as a conventional enemy, which makes it easy to want to ignore the product of an Islam with the same DNA and a far more enlightened 21st c Europe.

Just because the colonists declared their territories to be "Christian" did not make them Christian, numbnuts.

There were other religions than Christianity prior to Islam you know.

Duh.

Yep, you're real bright, silly of me to miss the obvious.

Excellent map video harry.

Putin: Who created ISIS?

US contributed to ISIS creation, now tries to claim victory over it – Iraqi VP

While the US has provided support to the Iraqi army and allied forces, it has contributed to the emergence of IS in the first place, al-Maliki claimed, adding that Washington now seeks to establish military bases on Iraqi territory in order to maintain influence in the region.
"IS resembles the Taliban which was created by the US administration to counter the USSR in Afghanistan. The same way, IS was created to counter the Iraqi stance, which did not agree to blockade Syria, was against no-fly zones in Syria and against American military bases," he stated.

"The Iraqi society is against foreign military bases on the country's territory," al-Maliki told RIA, adding that he has already warned the Americans against "coming back to Iraq and setting up bases here."

https://ria.ru/interview/20170721/1498888378.html

https://www.rt.com/news/397171-iraq-...ory-interview/

Originally Posted by Neverna

US contributed to ISIS creation, now tries to claim victory over it – Iraqi VP

While the US has provided support to the Iraqi army and allied forces, it has contributed to the emergence of IS in the first place, al-Maliki claimed, adding that Washington now seeks to establish military bases on Iraqi territory in order to maintain influence in the region.
"IS resembles the Taliban which was created by the US administration to counter the USSR in Afghanistan. The same way, IS was created to counter the Iraqi stance, which did not agree to blockade Syria, was against no-fly zones in Syria and against American military bases," he stated.

"The Iraqi society is against foreign military bases on the country's territory," al-Maliki told RIA, adding that he has already warned the Americans against "coming back to Iraq and setting up bases here."

https://ria.ru/interview/20170721/1498888378.html

https://www.rt.com/news/397171-iraq-...ory-interview/

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Goebbels would have been proud of that shite.

So, enlighten us, who did create them?

The US, Saudi, Qatar and AQ, aided by Turkey and some minor players.

Clinton's already confirmed Saudi and Qatar (cricket noises), expectedly stayed neutral on the US (buried by diversions), and everyone knows or should know about Turkey's support role. AQ's great contributions were the absence of an endgame plan (not unlike Brexit), lack of imagination to create the infrastructure for a viable Islamic State, and that its own hardliners saw it as way too soft to go the distance.

But good news galore on the US decimating the IS, for those in search of a fix, much like Obama's fantasy about AQ clinging to the ropes while it strengthened and expanded.