Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS)

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

1) I do not desire anything, you're making stuff up that isn't there.
2) Its about realism, nothing more.

Well, clearly you seem to support and promote Iran's actions which are clearly meddling in the affairs of Arab states. This is the exact same thing the Americans have done for some time. What is realism? The fact that there are only two sides in this war? Come on give me break, Iran and its puppets may have the strong hand on one side and Daesh, Al Qaeda, corrupt Gulf money may have the upper hand in another but that doesnt mean thats all their is to the conflict.

1) I indeed support Iran's actions in Syria and Iraq.
2) No, its the realism of what is possible, and out of all realistic possibilities, the Iranian one is the lesser harmfull both on matters of peace but also on matters of human rights.

[Al Nahar]

Well, clearly you seem to support and promote Iran's actions which are clearly meddling in the affairs of Arab states. This is the exact same thing the Americans have done for some time. What is realism? The fact that there are only two sides in this war? Come on give me break, Iran and its puppets may have the strong hand on one side and Daesh, Al Qaeda, corrupt Gulf money may have the upper hand in another but that doesnt mean thats all their is to the conflict.

1) I indeed support Iran's actions in Syria and Iraq.
2) No, its the realism of what is possible, and out of all realistic possibilities, the Iranian one is the lesser harmfull both on matters of peace but also on matters of human rights.

Exactly, the question is unless you are living in Iran or Damascus, or rather part of their regimes what makes you love them so much? People denounce western intervention yet Iran has so far increased the chaos and destruction that was also started by the United States. And has also waged its campaign of trying to create a Shia crescent under its control in Arab countries. You want human rights, yet you support regimes that pretty much systematically oppress religious and ethnic groups. The only difference between them and Daesh is that Daesh cuts heads and puts it on TVs. Iran and her allies are just more...say sophisticated or just hide it better.

[The Greater Lebanon]

You see it as a black and white issue, you see it as a Terrorist vs Non-terrorist right from the beginning.

Experience shows that whatever the beginning, the outcome is always one and the same.

People didn't join Nusra and Daesh right at the begining of the war immediately. The Groups that were organized apart from Radical groups, simply the ones who wanted to fight Assad were underfunded, disorganized, and thought the West would help them.

A disorganised "freedom fighter" group is nothing but a menace. If you want regime change, clarify your goals, your strategy and work on it. If you can't do that, GTFO. It's as simple as that. Such "freedom fighters" are inevitably responsible for creating the chaos where fundamentalists thrive, so they should be considered legitimate targets as well. Differentiation between them and radicals should be made for tactical purposes only.

Islamist gorups had much better funding and support from Erdogan, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood. They saw for example Nusra as the leading force that could combat assad. People never really experienced living in an Islamic State but they have under a regime like Assad. From their experience they obviously chose the one that was fighting the regime.

Thanks for confirming what I just said.^

I never called for the elimination of Shias, I simply am against Hezbollah and Iranian dominance. We dont want to live with a terrorist group and a government far away dominating our politics and region. The fact that you support a dictator who oppresses his Sunni majority is impressive. This isn't Saddam who kept the balance by being a massive counter-weight to Iran, Assad is a pawn for Tehran that has his own regional ambitions that are in line with Iran's much larger ones.

Well if you don't want that, what are you waiting for ? It's not Iran's fault that Lebanon can't choose a fucking president, it's not Iran's fault that Lebanon is doing a piss-poor job of being the island of stability it tries to be. Building a thriving economy, a stable society and a sound political system is entirely the responsibility of Lebanon, nobody else. I'm pretty sure Assad has absolutely no desire to be an Iranian pawn (I, for one, don't want to see Syria being one either), but he jumped into Iran's embrace mainly because everyone else isolated him in a critical situation out of ridiculous ideological reasons ("hurr durr support freedomz tyrants must go"). If you don't want your neighbors to become someone's pawns, you interact with them, not isolate them.

1. Those causes are not due to the rebels themselves, there was attempts at forming large command structures and an organization as the Syriac Military Council(Christian militia that actively fights the regime and daesh) have done, its due to the betrayal of the West and surrounding nations to help leaving the only other radical groups which are funded by nations and groups that have clear strategic goals. Even at this time its not 100% terrorist vs regime(another form of terrorism). Even the Hazzm movement and most in the Syrian revolutionaries front oppose the Nusra and Daesh along with the regime and hezbollah.

2. There is a clear goal among the opposition. Extremists and their funders have taken advantage of the oppositions weakness due to not being helped by pretty much no one on this planet and have therefore created the chaos you speak of. You consider targeting regular opposition rebels just places you among the same ranks as Daesh. Theres a reason why the majority of the NDF, the Militias and forces for the regime are predominantly non-sunni they are not fighting for any bullshit equality among all in Syria instead for the continued control by one minority leader that systematically murders his own people long before Nusra and Daesh ever existed. If Assad had used the majority of his Syrian Arab Army it would have faltered as most of the soldiers are Sunni.

3. Yes, i was making you understand why they gained much support as people aren't naturally born as radicals as many seem to think.

4. THe notion that Lebanon is a island of stability is a bunch of crap generated by politicians to make our country look good. If you know anything on Lebanon you will see that the notion ceased to exist in 1975 when the civil war started. How can the country even move if there is a group threatening every aspect of progress in the country. Assassinating countless ministers and progressive political leaders, launching terrorist attacks, attacking ethnic communities(druze), launching an assault into West Beirut, blackmailing, threatening, infiltrating the army? Hezbollah acts on orders from iran to ensure its own survival to ensure its survival in Lebanon for Iran. Without Iranian money and funding Hezbollah's power would decrease big time. Haffez al Assad was incapable of creating any group in Lebanon that could serve his direct interests, he had to allow a much stronger Iran to bring revolutionary guards to train and create a group in Lebanon(mind you those zones were under the control of Syria). Even within his own country Iran has been responsible for the creation of Hezbollah like militias and groups that would only serve to make Assad an even greater puppet as he cant even survive on his own. Bashar didnt jump into iran's embrace all of a sudden. Haffez al Assad, abandoning his Baath party beliefs of Arab unity and furthered by his Shia Alawi religion opposed Saddam and supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, something the Iranians never forgot. The general Arab world saw this and marginalized Assad because he supported a country that directly threatened their countries but anyways I dont care about the Arab states.

[Papait]

Experience shows that whatever the beginning, the outcome is always one and the same.



A disorganised "freedom fighter" group is nothing but a menace. If you want regime change, clarify your goals, your strategy and work on it. If you can't do that, GTFO. It's as simple as that. Such "freedom fighters" are inevitably responsible for creating the chaos where fundamentalists thrive, so they should be considered legitimate targets as well. Differentiation between them and radicals should be made for tactical purposes only.



Thanks for confirming what I just said.^



Well if you don't want that, what are you waiting for ? It's not Iran's fault that Lebanon can't choose a fucking president, it's not Iran's fault that Lebanon is doing a piss-poor job of being the island of stability it tries to be. Building a thriving economy, a stable society and a sound political system is entirely the responsibility of Lebanon, nobody else. I'm pretty sure Assad has absolutely no desire to be an Iranian pawn (I, for one, don't want to see Syria being one either), but he jumped into Iran's embrace mainly because everyone else isolated him in a critical situation out of ridiculous ideological reasons ("hurr durr support freedomz tyrants must go"). If you don't want your neighbors to become someone's pawns, you interact with them, not isolate them.

1. Those causes are not due to the rebels themselves, there was attempts at forming large command structures and an organization as the Syriac Military Council(Christian militia that actively fights the regime and daesh) have done, its due to the betrayal of the West and surrounding nations to help leaving the only other radical groups which are funded by nations and groups that have clear strategic goals. Even at this time its not 100% terrorist vs regime(another form of terrorism). Even the Hazzm movement and most in the Syrian revolutionaries front oppose the Nusra and Daesh along with the regime and hezbollah.

2. There is a clear goal among the opposition. Extremists and their funders have taken advantage of the oppositions weakness due to not being helped by pretty much no one on this planet and have therefore created the chaos you speak of. You consider targeting regular opposition rebels just places you among the same ranks as Daesh. Theres a reason why the majority of the NDF, the Militias and forces for the regime are predominantly non-sunni they are not fighting for any bullshit equality among all in Syria instead for the continued control by one minority leader that systematically murders his own people long before Nusra and Daesh ever existed.

3. Yes, i was making you understand why they gained much support as people aren't naturally born as radicals as many seem to think.

4. THe notion that Lebanon is a island of stability is a bunch of crap generated by politicians to make our country look good. If you know anything on Lebanon you will see that the notion ceased to exist in 1975 when the civil war started. How can the country even move if there is a group threatening every aspect of progress in the country. Assassinating countless ministers and progressive political leaders, launching terrorist attacks, attacking ethnic communities(druze), launching an assault into West Beirut, blackmailing, threatening, infiltrating the army? Hezbollah acts on orders from iran to ensure its own survival to ensure its survival in Lebanon for Iran. Without Iranian money and funding Hezbollah's power would decrease big time. Haffez al Assad was incapable of creating any group in Lebanon that could serve his direct interests, he had to allow a much stronger Iran to bring revolutionary guards to train and create a group in Lebanon(mind you those zones were under the control of Syria). Even within his own country Iran has been responsible for the creation of Hezbollah like militias and groups that would only serve to make Assad an even greater puppet as he cant even survive on his own. Bashar didnt jump into iran's embrace all of a sudden. Haffez al Assad, abandoning his Baath party beliefs of Arab unity and furthered by his Shia Alawi religion opposed Saddam and supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, something the Iranians never forgot. The general Arab world saw this and marginalized Assad because he supported a country that directly threatened their countries but anyways I dont care about the Arab states.

Well, maybe some CHristian millitias are among the rebels, but most support Assad, as they were treated good under Assad, and don't want to take any chances with anyone else.
Most rebels are acting counter pro-ductive to their own interests, because they all (allmost) prefer even Assad over the Daesh. But now have again picked up arms against Assad, weakening both themselves and Assad, instead of moving to the Daesh. The real solution may be negotiations, working together and perhaps splitting the country in 3 afterwards. Assads Syria, free Syria and Kurd territory. And Lebanon may be somewhat unstable (especially on fridays and other relgious days) but it is far more stable than other nations, something like in Syria could never happen, since enemies in Lebanon tend to band together against a common enemy, and Hezbollah may be guided by Iran, but it isnt controlled, more vital to its survival than Irani money, is the support of the population. It will never follow iranian orders if they believe it harms themselves, Lebanon or pisses the CHristians or Shia who they get most support from. Nothing is black and white, not even in the middle east

[The Greater Lebanon]

1. Those causes are not due to the rebels themselves, there was attempts at forming large command structures and an organization as the Syriac Military Council(Christian militia that actively fights the regime and daesh) have done, its due to the betrayal of the West and surrounding nations to help leaving the only other radical groups which are funded by nations and groups that have clear strategic goals. Even at this time its not 100% terrorist vs regime(another form of terrorism). Even the Hazzm movement and most in the Syrian revolutionaries front oppose the Nusra and Daesh along with the regime and hezbollah.

2. There is a clear goal among the opposition. Extremists and their funders have taken advantage of the oppositions weakness due to not being helped by pretty much no one on this planet and have therefore created the chaos you speak of. You consider targeting regular opposition rebels just places you among the same ranks as Daesh. Theres a reason why the majority of the NDF, the Militias and forces for the regime are predominantly non-sunni they are not fighting for any bullshit equality among all in Syria instead for the continued control by one minority leader that systematically murders his own people long before Nusra and Daesh ever existed.

3. Yes, i was making you understand why they gained much support as people aren't naturally born as radicals as many seem to think.

4. THe notion that Lebanon is a island of stability is a bunch of crap generated by politicians to make our country look good. If you know anything on Lebanon you will see that the notion ceased to exist in 1975 when the civil war started. How can the country even move if there is a group threatening every aspect of progress in the country. Assassinating countless ministers and progressive political leaders, launching terrorist attacks, attacking ethnic communities(druze), launching an assault into West Beirut, blackmailing, threatening, infiltrating the army? Hezbollah acts on orders from iran to ensure its own survival to ensure its survival in Lebanon for Iran. Without Iranian money and funding Hezbollah's power would decrease big time. Haffez al Assad was incapable of creating any group in Lebanon that could serve his direct interests, he had to allow a much stronger Iran to bring revolutionary guards to train and create a group in Lebanon(mind you those zones were under the control of Syria). Even within his own country Iran has been responsible for the creation of Hezbollah like militias and groups that would only serve to make Assad an even greater puppet as he cant even survive on his own. Bashar didnt jump into iran's embrace all of a sudden. Haffez al Assad, abandoning his Baath party beliefs of Arab unity and furthered by his Shia Alawi religion opposed Saddam and supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, something the Iranians never forgot. The general Arab world saw this and marginalized Assad because he supported a country that directly threatened their countries but anyways I dont care about the Arab states.

Well, maybe some CHristian millitias are among the rebels, but most support Assad, as they were treated good under Assad, and don't want to take any chances with anyone else.
Most rebels are acting counter pro-ductive to their own interests, because they all (allmost) prefer even Assad over the Daesh. But now have again picked up arms against Assad, weakening both themselves and Assad, instead of moving to the Daesh. The real solution may be negotiations, working together and perhaps splitting the country in 3 afterwards. Assads Syria, free Syria and Kurd territory. And Lebanon may be somewhat unstable (especially on fridays and other relgious days) but it is far more stable than other nations, something like in Syria could never happen, since enemies in Lebanon tend to band together against a common enemy, and Hezbollah may be guided by Iran, but it isnt controlled, more vital to its survival than Irani money, is the support of the population. It will never follow iranian orders if they believe it harms themselves, Lebanon or pisses the CHristians or Shia who they get most support from. Nothing is black and white, not even in the middle east

Most rebels are counter-productive because they have experienced the brutality of Assad much longer throughout their lives rather than Daesh. They are so hellbent on removing Assad over anyone because they only know his brutality. Perhaps yes, splitting the country would be a good idea, giving people a chance to help themselves. Lebanon however im not so sure of what you said. THroughout history Lebanon's groups have always worked with foreign powers to achieve their interests. In the civil war the Muslim militias and Druze worked with the PLO and the Assad regime to fight the Christian militias and later on the Lebanese Forces. Even the South Lebanon Army sought the support of the israelis through out the 80s and 90s. The Lebanese army also fought the Syrians in 1989 dealing them numerous losses. I dont see Lebanon as unified. Im just saying all the weapons, the sophisticated technology, the missiles, the upkeep, the drones, everything would be nearly impossible to continue if Iran suddenly withdrew all of its money from hezbollah. Also hezbollah's actions in Lebanon have been completely counter intuitive to the progression of Lebanon economically, politically, and militarily. Hezbollah's propaganda campaign as being the resistance is also a lie if one actually studies the war in the south. the South Lebanon Army supported by the IDF with only 3,000 soldiers at their height held off countless suicide waves by hezbollah throughout the conflict. It was due to the Israeli army gradually pulling out due to international pressure and minimizing of support for the SLA that hezbollah claimed it defeated Israel. All hezbollah did was take abandoned positions and raised their flags. If Israel really wanted to it would annihilate hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon just like it wiped out the Syrian Army, Amal, the PLO, and many other militias in 1982 when it invaded. And that was just the south..

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

1) I indeed support Iran's actions in Syria and Iraq.
2) No, its the realism of what is possible, and out of all realistic possibilities, the Iranian one is the lesser harmfull both on matters of peace but also on matters of human rights.

Exactly, the question is unless you are living in Iran or Damascus, or rather part of their regimes what makes you love them so much? People denounce western intervention yet Iran has so far increased the chaos and destruction that was also started by the United States. And has also waged its campaign of trying to create a Shia crescent under its control in Arab countries. You want human rights, yet you support regimes that pretty much systematically oppress religious and ethnic groups. The only difference between them and Daesh is that Daesh cuts heads and puts it on TVs. Iran and her allies are just more...say sophisticated or just hide it better.

How ignorent can you be? The biggest creators and supporters are Arab themselves, look at Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. All famous supporters of Al-Qaeda & the likes. These are the groups that create the chaos that there is, not Iran. Please get yourself a good and objective look at the situation in the middle east and see where it comes from.
There are only two realistic options in the Middle-East, either Saudi-Arabia controlls it or Iran does, well i don't know about you but i rather have Iran then Saudi-Arabia in charge, if only for the sake of the people.

[Papait]

Well, maybe some CHristian millitias are among the rebels, but most support Assad, as they were treated good under Assad, and don't want to take any chances with anyone else.
Most rebels are acting counter pro-ductive to their own interests, because they all (allmost) prefer even Assad over the Daesh. But now have again picked up arms against Assad, weakening both themselves and Assad, instead of moving to the Daesh. The real solution may be negotiations, working together and perhaps splitting the country in 3 afterwards. Assads Syria, free Syria and Kurd territory. And Lebanon may be somewhat unstable (especially on fridays and other relgious days) but it is far more stable than other nations, something like in Syria could never happen, since enemies in Lebanon tend to band together against a common enemy, and Hezbollah may be guided by Iran, but it isnt controlled, more vital to its survival than Irani money, is the support of the population. It will never follow iranian orders if they believe it harms themselves, Lebanon or pisses the CHristians or Shia who they get most support from. Nothing is black and white, not even in the middle east

Most rebels are counter-productive because they have experienced the brutality of Assad much longer throughout their lives rather than Daesh. They are so hellbent on removing Assad over anyone because they only know his brutality. Perhaps yes, splitting the country would be a good idea, giving people a chance to help themselves. Lebanon however im not so sure of what you said. THroughout history Lebanon's groups have always worked with foreign powers to achieve their interests. In the civil war the Muslim militias and Druze worked with the PLO and the Assad regime to fight the Christian militias and later on the Lebanese Forces. Even the South Lebanon Army sought the support of the israelis through out the 80s and 90s. The Lebanese army also fought the Syrians in 1989 dealing them numerous losses. I dont see Lebanon as unified. Im just saying all the weapons, the sophisticated technology, the missiles, the upkeep, the drones, everything would be nearly impossible to continue if Iran suddenly withdrew all of its money from hezbollah. Also hezbollah's actions in Lebanon have been completely counter intuitive to the progression of Lebanon economically, politically, and militarily. Hezbollah's propaganda campaign as being the resistance is also a lie if one actually studies the war in the south. the South Lebanon Army supported by the IDF with only 3,000 soldiers at their height held off countless suicide waves by hezbollah throughout the conflict. It was due to the Israeli army gradually pulling out due to international pressure and minimizing of support for the SLA that hezbollah claimed it defeated Israel. All hezbollah did was take abandoned positions and raised their flags. If Israel really wanted to it would annihilate hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon just like it wiped out the Syrian Army, Amal, the PLO, and many other militias in 1982 when it invaded. And that was just the south..

Maybe you do not see Hezbollah as a helpfull force in Lebanon, but do you see them as helpfull in Syria. Where they have been protecting Christian villages, holding the line at Aleppo, training Christian and Shia millitias to fight Daesh and their general fight against the Daesh

[The Greater Lebanon]

Most rebels are counter-productive because they have experienced the brutality of Assad much longer throughout their lives rather than Daesh. They are so hellbent on removing Assad over anyone because they only know his brutality. Perhaps yes, splitting the country would be a good idea, giving people a chance to help themselves. Lebanon however im not so sure of what you said. THroughout history Lebanon's groups have always worked with foreign powers to achieve their interests. In the civil war the Muslim militias and Druze worked with the PLO and the Assad regime to fight the Christian militias and later on the Lebanese Forces. Even the South Lebanon Army sought the support of the israelis through out the 80s and 90s. The Lebanese army also fought the Syrians in 1989 dealing them numerous losses. I dont see Lebanon as unified. Im just saying all the weapons, the sophisticated technology, the missiles, the upkeep, the drones, everything would be nearly impossible to continue if Iran suddenly withdrew all of its money from hezbollah. Also hezbollah's actions in Lebanon have been completely counter intuitive to the progression of Lebanon economically, politically, and militarily. Hezbollah's propaganda campaign as being the resistance is also a lie if one actually studies the war in the south. the South Lebanon Army supported by the IDF with only 3,000 soldiers at their height held off countless suicide waves by hezbollah throughout the conflict. It was due to the Israeli army gradually pulling out due to international pressure and minimizing of support for the SLA that hezbollah claimed it defeated Israel. All hezbollah did was take abandoned positions and raised their flags. If Israel really wanted to it would annihilate hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon just like it wiped out the Syrian Army, Amal, the PLO, and many other militias in 1982 when it invaded. And that was just the south..

Maybe you do not see Hezbollah as a helpfull force in Lebanon, but do you see them as helpfull in Syria. Where they have been protecting Christian villages, holding the line at Aleppo, training Christian and Shia millitias to fight Daesh and their general fight against the Daesh

In Syria its different because the opposition doesn't have the same power to fight Daesh and the regime at the same time. So yes, the fact that Hezbollah does defend Christian villages from the Baghdadis is well good. However the overall goal in training these majority Shia militias serves a greater goal that I am against. And people who claim there is nothing else in Syria but Salafi Jihadists and the great "secular amazing good Assad and Iranian saviors" are just ignorant. Its a four way battle with the regime and the extremists both with the upper hands, the kurds in their territories and regular people who dont want a brutal regime nor a crazy theocracy.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

Maybe you do not see Hezbollah as a helpfull force in Lebanon, but do you see them as helpfull in Syria. Where they have been protecting Christian villages, holding the line at Aleppo, training Christian and Shia millitias to fight Daesh and their general fight against the Daesh

In Syria its different because the opposition doesn't have the same power to fight Daesh and the regime at the same time. So yes, the fact that Hezbollah does defend Christian villages from the Baghdadis is well good. However the overall goal in training these majority Shia militias serves a greater goal that I am against. And people who claim there is nothing else in Syria but Salafi Jihadists and the great "secular amazing good Assad and Iranian saviors" are just ignorant. Its a four way battle with the regime and the extremists both with the upper hands, the kurds in their territories and regular people who dont want a brutal regime nor a crazy theocracy.

So, you claim that 70% of the Syrian people aren't regular?

[Al Nahar]

Exactly, the question is unless you are living in Iran or Damascus, or rather part of their regimes what makes you love them so much? People denounce western intervention yet Iran has so far increased the chaos and destruction that was also started by the United States. And has also waged its campaign of trying to create a Shia crescent under its control in Arab countries. You want human rights, yet you support regimes that pretty much systematically oppress religious and ethnic groups. The only difference between them and Daesh is that Daesh cuts heads and puts it on TVs. Iran and her allies are just more...say sophisticated or just hide it better.

How ignorent can you be? The biggest creators and supporters are Arab themselves, look at Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. All famous supporters of Al-Qaeda & the likes. These are the groups that create the chaos that there is, not Iran. Please get yourself a good and objective look at the situation in the middle east and see where it comes from.
There are only two realistic options in the Middle-East, either Saudi-Arabia controlls it or Iran does, well i don't know about you but i rather have Iran then Saudi-Arabia in charge, if only for the sake of the people.

Ignorant? Do you realize Saudi Arabia has cracked down more on Al Qaeda in its country more than any other Arab nation? the UAE recently came out of with a list of terrorist organizations that went so far as to even called CAIR in the U.S. a terror sponsor along with the Muslim Brotherhood. Bahrain's foreign minister went as far as to say Hezbollah is among the likes of Daesh and Al Qaeda highlighting that those Sunni groups pose a threat to themselves as well. The deposition of Morsi and the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in Egypt was another victory of the Arab world against radical fundamentalism. Jordan is another example of a state that participates against the likes of Al Qaeda and Daesh. The Kingdoms of the peninsula care about their own security, they have no desire to launch a caliphate and conquer the world. The Kingdom's sponsorship of teachings of Islam in its own country are those of conservative Islam that seek to give the Kingdom a legitimacy to rule. clerics from the kingdom and elsewhere have also denounced Daesh and Al Qaeda as illegitimate. Qatar is the only one that directly and activley supports the Muslim Brotherhood and whose funds go directly from the government to facilitators which end up in the hands of Daesh and Qaeda. Perhaps in Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, their are private donors to these groups but to say that these kingdoms officially and openly sponsor the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" when they openly know and admit that they are a threat to their own security is false. I dont know about you, but i'd rather live in a country like Egypt or Jordan then to live in a hell like Iran. Syria can never become like Saudi, the culture wont allow it nor would the people. Even muslims in Syria and Lebanon do not marry more than one wive. This is a cultural thing from the Arabian peninsula that merged into Islam. Now Iran, which sponsors state-terrorism, advances its theocratic revolutionary agenda through Iraq and Lebanon to prop up groups and regimes that serve its own agenda. May i add the most recent two attacks in Bahrain between yesterday and today. Do you realize that ethnic Persians look down on Arabs? Even the Shia rulers of Iran look at the Shia arabs as second class. I mean lets take look at the oppression of Arabs in Iran. The only one who stopped Iran from really interfering in our affairs was Saddam after the "amazing" decision of the U.S. to take him out and mismanage Iraq, Iran was virtually free to move in. Cause as we all know Egypt is too far and Saudi's military is pretty much a bunch of expensive toys on paper that would never directly engage in any conflict.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

How ignorent can you be? The biggest creators and supporters are Arab themselves, look at Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. All famous supporters of Al-Qaeda & the likes. These are the groups that create the chaos that there is, not Iran. Please get yourself a good and objective look at the situation in the middle east and see where it comes from.
There are only two realistic options in the Middle-East, either Saudi-Arabia controlls it or Iran does, well i don't know about you but i rather have Iran then Saudi-Arabia in charge, if only for the sake of the people.

Ignorant? Do you realize Saudi Arabia has cracked down more on Al Qaeda in its country more than any other Arab nation? the UAE recently came out of with a list of terrorist organizations that went so far as to even called CAIR in the U.S. a terror sponsor along with the Muslim Brotherhood. Bahrain's foreign minister went as far as to say Hezbollah is among the likes of Daesh and Al Qaeda highlighting that those Sunni groups pose a threat to themselves as well. The deposition of Morsi and the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in Egypt was another victory of the Arab world against radical fundamentalism. Jordan is another example of a state that participates against the likes of Al Qaeda and Daesh. The Kingdoms of the peninsula care about their own security, they have no desire to launch a caliphate and conquer the world. The Kingdom's sponsorship of teachings of Islam in its own country are those of conservative Islam that seek to give the Kingdom a legitimacy to rule. clerics from the kingdom and elsewhere have also denounced Daesh and Al Qaeda as illegitimate. Qatar is the only one that directly and activley supports the Muslim Brotherhood and whose funds go directly from the government to facilitators which end up in the hands of Daesh and Qaeda. Perhaps in Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, their are private donors to these groups but to say that these kingdoms officially and openly sponsor the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" when they openly know and admit that they are a threat to their own security is false. I dont know about you, but i'd rather live in a country like Egypt or Jordan then to live in a hell like Iran. Syria can never become like Saudi, the culture wont allow it nor would the people. Even muslims in Syria and Lebanon do not marry more than one wive. This is a cultural thing from the Arabian peninsula that merged into Islam. Now Iran, which sponsors state-terrorism, advances its theocratic revolutionary agenda through Iraq and Lebanon to prop up groups and regimes that serve its own agenda. May i add the most recent two attacks in Bahrain between yesterday and today. Do you realize that ethnic Persians look down on Arabs? Even the Shia rulers of Iran look at the Shia arabs as second class. I mean lets take look at the oppression of Arabs in Iran. The only one who stopped Iran from really interfering in our affairs was Saddam after the "amazing" decision of the U.S. to take him out and mismanage Iraq, Iran was virtually free to move in. Cause as we all know Egypt is too far and Saudi's military is pretty much a bunch of expensive toys on paper that would never directly engage in any conflict.

I'm gonna end it here, you cannot even aknowledge the Arab support of terrorism world wide, its just pathetic.

[West Aurelia]

Senate Panel Approves Limited Fight Against ISIS, Reopening War Powers Debate.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Thursday to authorize the military campaign against the Islamic State, a party-line decision that raises difficult questions for Republicans and intensifies a debate over war powers that has split President Obama from many in his own party.

The 10-to-8 vote put on display an unusual alliance between some Democrats and some Republicans as well as contemplations about morality, obligation, constitutional prerogatives and the proper balance of power between branches of government. It was also a foreshadowing of a debate likely to be held on the Senate floor after the Republican-controlled Congress returns in January.

All Democrats voted in favor of the measure that would authorize Mr. Obama’s war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, but greatly restrict the use of ground forces and limit the operation to three years before Congress has to revisit it. Opposed were all the Republicans, seven of whom warned of binding the hands of the commander in chief. One Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against the measure for a different reason, which, he said, is that the restrictions did not go far enough.

Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who leads the committee, said that Mr. Obama should not have the sole power to send the nation’s young people to dangerous overseas conflicts. He rejected the idea that “Congress should just succumb to what the executive wants.”

“It is the Congress’ imperative,” he said, “to ultimately make that decision as to how we are going to send America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way.”

But Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is considering a run for president, said that Congress would set a dangerous precedent by putting statutory limitations on any conflict, even as he agreed that the Senate was exercising what many lawmakers considered their most solemn obligation: approving war.

“The role we play is in deciding whether or not we should go into war, but our role is not to decide how to go to war,” he told his colleagues before the vote. “It is up to the commander in chief to carry out this war.”

Though the political implications of the debate went unspoken, they were hard to ignore. Mr. Paul is also considering seeking the Republican nomination for president, yet he wants to lead the party in far different directions on foreign policy than Mr. Rubio. As the two gently but vigorously disagreed Thursday, each seemed keenly aware of how their words would be seen through the prism of a presidential campaign.

Mr. Paul, unlike many Republicans, said he believed that the administration was improperly justifying its campaign against the Islamic State with the same authorization of force that Congress passed to justify military action after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The administration maintains that a war resolution that had us going against the people who attacked us on 9/11 has something to do with ISIL,” Mr. Paul said. “I think that’s absurd on the face and almost embarrassing that anyone even makes that argument.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
But in a nod to how his foreign policy views are well outside Republican Party orthodoxy, Mr. Paul insisted that he would challenge a Republican president on the same grounds. And he scoffed at the idea floated by the Obama administration that it would set its own parameters for war.

“Yeah, that’s great,” Mr. Paul said. “I’m glad they set limitations. But the limitations have to come from a coequal branch or they’re not of any value.”

Mr. Paul’s idea of limitations goes further than even those of some of the Democrats on the committee. He offered an amendment, which was defeated, that would have limited the engagement geographically to Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Rubio, who looked on intently as Mr. Paul spoke, said that would be “a terrible mistake” that would jeopardize any chance of victory.

“To put forth something that says we are willing to fight ISIL, but we are not willing to do it here, there or the other place, I think, imperils that,” Mr. Rubio said.

What seemed to bother many senators was the idea that Congress, by failing to agree earlier on a resolution to set parameters on the military campaign against the Islamic State, had abdicated its powers. Many spoke of re-exerting Congress’s constitutional authority to act as a check against the president.

“Many of us, myself included, believe the president is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

Senator Bob Corker, the senior Republican on the committee who is expected to become chairman in January once his party takes control of the Senate, rejected that. “We are rushing to make this legal — as if that makes us relevant,” he said.

There are political considerations for Democrats as well. Senators like Mr. Murphy and Tim Kaine of Virginia are viewed as two of the party’s rising stars. They strongly favor curtailing the president’s war powers. Those sentiments could prove unsettling in a 2016 election that features Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as secretary of state put in place and defended the Obama foreign policy.

How a war powers resolution will be handled by the new Republican Congress is still being worked out. Mr. Corker has said he would like to continue the discussions but would prefer to wait until the administration presents lawmakers with a formal plan of action.

Republicans, with the exception of Mr. Paul and a few others who take a more libertarian-minded approach to American military intervention, are not likely to vote for anything that sets the kinds of strict limits that the Democratic-controlled committee supported Thursday.

Yet, how they respond to the demands of a war-weary American public that overwhelmingly disapproves of sending troops into combat will be one of the party’s biggest tests once it assumes power.

“We really don’t want to use ground troops,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. But, he added, to have that restriction written into law, “I think is not the right way to go.”

That is a view the administration shares. Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the committee on Tuesday that the president would fight any effort to preclude the use of ground forces because, he argued, there are simply too many unknowns.

Whatever the resolution is next year, lawmakers agreed that this was a debate that Congress had put off for too long.

“This is what the American people expect their elected officials to do — to ask the tough questions, to try to look over the horizon,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Markey went through a list of grim statistics: the millions of troops who had served in 14 years of conflict since Sept. 11, the hundreds of thousands who are now disabled, and the nearly 7,000 who have died.

“This debate which we’re having is historic,” he said. “And it’s just beginning. And it’s about time.”

So this is an authorization for use of military force that somehow permits more military action than the declaration of war against IS sponsored by Rand Paul earlier this year…

[West Aurelia]

India police detain man said to be behind pro-Islamic State Twitter posts.

Indian police on Saturday arrested a company executive suspected of operating a pro-Islamic State Twitter account that pumped out a stream of updates on the violent group's military campaign from his base in Bengaluru.

Mehdi Masroor Biswas's arrest at home came days after Britain's Channel Four identified him as the man behind "Shami Witness", the Twitter handle followed by thousands of people including most foreign fighters for the Islamic State.

Police said the 24-year-old used to post Twitter messages after office hours, cheering the Islamic State's advances in Iraq and Syria, and mocking its enemies.

"He was particularly close to the English-speaking terrorists of ISIS and became a source of incitement and information for the new recruits trying to join ISIS/ISIL," police commissioner M. N. Reddi told reporters.

Police have "registered a case" against him for abetting war against the state. But Mehdi's father told Times Now Channel that his son was innocent and had been framed.

"My son is not linked to any jihadi group," his father - whose identity was withheld - told the channel.

India has the world's third-largest Muslim population, but police say only four men are known to have flown to the Middle East to fight for the Islamic State. One has since returned and is in police custody.

But officials say it is hard to track the number of sympathizers of the Islamic State's ideology as there is no central figure or recruiting authority.

Mehdi told Channel 4 in an interview this week that he would have liked to join the Islamic State but for his family who were dependent on him.

He regularly shared jokes, funny images and talked about superhero movies on his Facebook page, posting pictures of pizza dinners with friends and Hawaiian parties at work, the British channel said.

[The All-Natural Future]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

[The balkens]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

How the fuck are Kurd's and Iraqis and Syrians former occupiers?

[The All-Natural Future]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

How the fuck are Kurd's and Iraqis and Syrians former occupiers?

Asaad's Syria is an Alawite occupation of Sunni lands. Iraq is a Shia/American occupation of Sunni lands.

[The balkens]

How the fuck are Kurd's and Iraqis and Syrians former occupiers?

Asaad's Syria is an Alawite occupation of Sunni lands. Iraq is a Shia/American occupation of Sunni lands.

I know i never took you seriously, but goddamn.

[Buse]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

You seem to live somewhere in western Europe and probably have parents living from welfare.

[Organized States]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

Yeah, by raping, pillaging, and genociding their way across the countries they occupy...

Clearly ethnic cleanising is a liberation. *nods.

[The Seleucids (Ancient)]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

Yeah, by raping, pillaging, and genociding their way across the countries they occupy...

Clearly ethnic cleanising is a liberation. *nods.

Well, liberation from all non-wahabbi's that is...

[Herskerstad]

Asaad's Syria is an Alawite occupation of Sunni lands. Iraq is a Shia/American occupation of Sunni lands.

I know i never took you seriously, but goddamn.

Look, he's got a cute little genocide list. I wonder how long it will take before my name appears at it.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

You seem to live somewhere in western Europe and probably have parents living from welfare.

And you seem to have an extreme difficulty in developing your learning curve. It's fallen a bit flat, given your record here. *** 7 day ban for yet more trolling *** I wouldn't normally go so heavy for something this childish, but your previous posts, and subsequent warnings and bans, warrant it.

Go read the rules before you end up banned from the site entirely. Thanks.

[Baltenstein]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

Do you also recommend Sunnis leaving all the regions which have historically been conquered/occupied by Sunnis?

Also, I wonder how long a "druidic neopagan" would survive in ISIS territory.

[Fortschritte]

ISIS are liberators. They are young people taking their country back from the international foreign occupiers.

They're committing a god damn genocide. How that's "taking their country back" is beyond me.

[Gauthier]

Another edgy hipster cheerleading for ISIS. How original.