Australian Politics Forum - Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #165 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:00pm

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:27pm:

Didn't Al Q'aeda kick IS out of Iraq for being "too violent" or something? Just think, a Terrorist organisation thinks another Terrorist organisation is "too violent". Tsk, tsk, which end of the egg did the open first, I wonder? Roll Eyes

No. For one thing there never was an AQ presense in Iraq - disregarding Al Zarqawi's self proclaimed AQ in Iraq - which in reality had nothing to do with, and received no endorsement from actual AQ (huddled as they were in their caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan).

What you are probably thinking of is Al Nusra in Syria, who did get the official endorsement from AQ central, and were commonly referred to as 'Al Qaeda' (in Syria). That is until last year when they rebranded themselves and symbolically broke their ties with AQ central in a bid to curry favour with the US, and they are now called something else. But they have been at war with ISIS basically from the beginning. You remember a few years ago there was a bit of media hype about one of, if not the first Aussies killed in Syria - a man and his wife. The ABC website still uses the picture of the woman. They actually went to fight for Al Nusra, and were killed in a battle with ISIS. Both Al Nusra and AQ central have basically publically disavowed ISIS ideology - the main issue they have is ISIS's hostility towards the shiites.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49798
At my desk.

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #166 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:03pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:21pm:

You keep saying it went on for a decade FD - yet you ommit two rather crucial facts of history: 1. Iraq was under occupation for half that time, and it was the US, not the Iraqi military doing most the fighting during that time, and 2. ISIS in its current form, didn't appear in Iraq until 2014. Before that Al Zarqawi's old AQ in Iraq had effectively been wiped out. So your suggestion that it was a continuous 10 year conflict with the same outfit, and no progress was made during any of that 10 years is simply wrong.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Those militias were deployed Gandalf. How much of the regime's strength do you think they were holding in reserve? And do you think it is wise to stretch a conflict like this out over a decade on your own soil because you don't want to upset people? Do you think it was a smarter idea to have America dropping bombs from a great height on your behalf than deploying your own citizens?

Most of that is nonsense, but in any case what does any of that have to do with your ridiculous assertion that ISIS were on the verge of overrunning the entire country? Do you actually have any evidence that ISIS posed any realistic threat to any of Iraq outside sunni centres of insurgency and resentment against the Baghdad regime? Do you agree that its a hell of a lot easier to bunker down and hold these sunni centres, even for years on end, than it is to go out in the open and conquer major urban centres that consists of a population that are overwhelmingly hostile towards you?

When did I ever say they were on the verge of over-running the country? I expect they would have if Iraq did not have foreign support, but that is not the same thing.

Then you are being willfully ignorant.

Iraq is basically 3 separate nations - kurdistan, sunni arab, and shiite arab. The sunni arab region have been occupied by insurgents/jihadis hostile to both the US occupation and shiite rule from almost the very beginning of the US occupation. The cities that ISIS took over were exactly the same cities that were the sunni bases of the insurgency against the US. Of course these areas are going to be easier pickings for ISIS than the shiite areas - or even the kurdish areas. So its just plain bonkers to draw the conclusion that because ISIS overran the sunni arab areas, they must have been on course to conquer the rest of the country.

And its even more bonkers to use the analogy of Saddam - which I trust you have quietly dropped - to try and prove that sunni ISIS could have conquered and ruled the entire country. I hope you understand now the two are incomparable given the reasons I have already outlined.

Whichever area they over-ran, the Iraqi military were still their main opposition in Iraq. If they defeated the Iraqi military in some lonely outpost on the border with Syria, the Iraqi military would still have been defeated, leaving the country wide open.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #167 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23pm

The question you are not asking FD is why the Iraqi military was defeated in those outposts. Its personnel reflect the Iraqi demographic - mostly shiite and some sunnis. As mentioned in my previous post, you need to understand the sunni arab regions as effectively a separate nation. What kind of motivation do you think the shiite soldiers have in defending a sunni city that had been hostile to shiites and shiite rule for years? And what about the sunni soldiers - are they going to put their lives on the line against fellow sunnis, and risk charges of treason if and when they find themselves stuck behind enemy lines? In both cases it makes sense for the soldiers to tuck tale and run.

The situation is obviously vastly different in shiite and non-insurgent centres of the country.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49798
At my desk.

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #168 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 8:21pm

Quote:

The question you are not asking FD is why the Iraqi military was defeated in those outposts.

They lost a few battles. They ran away sometimes. But the Iraqi army as a whole was not defeated. But you insist nothing would have changed if they had been defeated. You think ISIS would not have taken advantage and the conflict would have simple raged on in a slightly different format.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #169 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 8:56pm

FD you're just ignoring all my points. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Can you at least construct a coherent argument that at least attempts to address my points regarding why the army "lost a few battles" in those instances, and why it is a vastly different kettle of fish to overrunning the main shiite centres, far from their sunni strongholds?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49319
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #170 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 9:29pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23pm:

The question you are not asking FD is why the Iraqi military was defeated in those outposts. Its personnel reflect the Iraqi demographic - mostly shiite and some sunnis. As mentioned in my previous post, you need to understand the sunni arab regions as effectively a separate nation. What kind of motivation do you think the shiite soldiers have in defending a sunni city that had been hostile to shiites and shiite rule for years? And what about the sunni soldiers - are they going to put their lives on the line against fellow sunnis, and risk charges of treason if and when they find themselves stuck behind enemy lines? In both cases it makes sense for the soldiers to tuck tale and run.

The situation is obviously vastly different in shiite and non-insurgent centres of the country.

Why not be just Iraqis? Why not put stupid and irrelevant sectarian BS aside and BE a nation, pulling together for the common good?
Why not break the idiotic Arab mould of endless fractiousness over nothing?

How about that?

Working together for the Common Good. Or is that an idea fit only for the the despised Jews and kuffar dogs?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49319
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #171 - Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 9:46pm

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 11:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 9:55am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 6:18am:

And besides, both shiite militias as well as the Iranian military itself have been leading the retaking of ISIS held territory in Iraq.

Yes, but something tells me FD is going to notch this one up as one for Uncle. You know, Iraq is the next South Korea and everything.

The US spent 8 years failing to end the insurgency against their occupation (which included ISIS forbears) - but according to FD, the US could have finished ISIS in "3 hours". He hasn't quite got round to revealing how that could have been done - short of turning the country into a uninhabited nuclear wasteland.

If the West fought like the Islamists, there would not be any Islam left, there would not be Muslim lands, there would be nothing. You would be completely obliterated.
Your luck, mujahaddins and jihadists, is that the West is not like you. That is the only reason you still exist.

Didn't work back when "the West" was like the Mujahadeens, Soren. "The West" was once as vicious, unscrupulous as just as greedy as the Jihadists are and they tried to wipe them out. Guess what? They made more babies, they made more converts. Tsk, tsk, tripped up by history again... Roll Eyes

The West is so superior in military term now that if they re-staged the Crusades now, there would be immediate obedience from the Muslims and they would be bowing and scraping or dead.

There is simply no contest militarily or economically now, as there was 800 years ago, Mr Spineless Know Nuffin'.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49798
At my desk.

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #172 - Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 8:37am

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 8:56pm:

FD you're just ignoring all my points. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Can you at least construct a coherent argument that at least attempts to address my points regarding why the army "lost a few battles" in those instances, and why it is a vastly different kettle of fish to overrunning the main shiite centres, far from their sunni strongholds?

Because a civil war is a battle between two armies, not an election. If one army loses, the other takes over, even if they have to cross a few bridges and slaughter a few civilians along the way.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 8:55am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43191

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #173 - Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 12:52pm

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 9:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 7:23pm:

The question you are not asking FD is why the Iraqi military was defeated in those outposts. Its personnel reflect the Iraqi demographic - mostly shiite and some sunnis. As mentioned in my previous post, you need to understand the sunni arab regions as effectively a separate nation. What kind of motivation do you think the shiite soldiers have in defending a sunni city that had been hostile to shiites and shiite rule for years? And what about the sunni soldiers - are they going to put their lives on the line against fellow sunnis, and risk charges of treason if and when they find themselves stuck behind enemy lines? In both cases it makes sense for the soldiers to tuck tale and run.

The situation is obviously vastly different in shiite and non-insurgent centres of the country.

Why not be just Iraqis? Why not put stupid and irrelevant sectarian BS aside and BE a nation, pulling together for the common good?
Why not break the idiotic Arab mould of endless fractiousness over nothing?

How about that?

Working together for the Common Good. Or is that an idea fit only for the the despised Jews and kuffar dogs?

Makes me wonder why "the Troubles" broke out in Northern Ireland, Soren. I mean, the Catholics, who had been discriminated agaist, oppressed and kept in the backstreets of Londonderry should have just accepted their lot, right and allowed the Protestants (your people) to lord it over them. Tsk, tsk, imagine them believing in the universality of Human Rights, that it applied to them. Them, Papists, hey? They should have moved South to Ireland, where they could have lived like kings, themselves. Doesn't matter that their ancestors were in Ireland for millennia before the arrival of the Protestants from Scotland... BTW, whatever happened to the Catholic Danes? Didn't they get killed in the 30 Years War or converted to Protestantism forcibly? Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43191

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #174 - Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 12:57pm

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 9:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 11:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 9:55am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 6:18am:

And besides, both shiite militias as well as the Iranian military itself have been leading the retaking of ISIS held territory in Iraq.

Yes, but something tells me FD is going to notch this one up as one for Uncle. You know, Iraq is the next South Korea and everything.

The US spent 8 years failing to end the insurgency against their occupation (which included ISIS forbears) - but according to FD, the US could have finished ISIS in "3 hours". He hasn't quite got round to revealing how that could have been done - short of turning the country into a uninhabited nuclear wasteland.

If the West fought like the Islamists, there would not be any Islam left, there would not be Muslim lands, there would be nothing. You would be completely obliterated.
Your luck, mujahaddins and jihadists, is that the West is not like you. That is the only reason you still exist.

Didn't work back when "the West" was like the Mujahadeens, Soren. "The West" was once as vicious, unscrupulous as just as greedy as the Jihadists are and they tried to wipe them out. Guess what? They made more babies, they made more converts. Tsk, tsk, tripped up by history again... Roll Eyes

The West is so superior in military term now that if they re-staged the Crusades now, there would be immediate obedience from the Muslims and they would be bowing and scraping or dead.

There is simply no contest militarily or economically now, as there was 800 years ago, Mr Spineless Know Nuffin'.

I wonder why they slaughtered the Jews in Jerusalem if their objective was to kill the Muslims, Soren?

Once you open the box of religious intolerance it has unfortunate results for everybody. You should remember that. You are a member of a minority, now aren't you? Tsk, tsk. We wouldn't want you being deported out of Australia, now would we? Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 97432	Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism Reply #175 - Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 1:05pm freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 6:31pm: You could always try sucking on both ends at once. Miam miam.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97432

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #176 - Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 1:10pm

Frank wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2017 at 9:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 11:52pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 10:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 9:55am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 8:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 21^st, 2017 at 6:18am:

And besides, both shiite militias as well as the Iranian military itself have been leading the retaking of ISIS held territory in Iraq.

Yes, but something tells me FD is going to notch this one up as one for Uncle. You know, Iraq is the next South Korea and everything.

The US spent 8 years failing to end the insurgency against their occupation (which included ISIS forbears) - but according to FD, the US could have finished ISIS in "3 hours". He hasn't quite got round to revealing how that could have been done - short of turning the country into a uninhabited nuclear wasteland.

If the West fought like the Islamists, there would not be any Islam left, there would not be Muslim lands, there would be nothing. You would be completely obliterated.
Your luck, mujahaddins and jihadists, is that the West is not like you. That is the only reason you still exist.

Didn't work back when "the West" was like the Mujahadeens, Soren. "The West" was once as vicious, unscrupulous as just as greedy as the Jihadists are and they tried to wipe them out. Guess what? They made more babies, they made more converts. Tsk, tsk, tripped up by history again... Roll Eyes

The West is so superior in military term now that if they re-staged the Crusades now, there would be immediate obedience from the Muslims and they would be bowing and scraping or dead.

There is simply no contest militarily or economically now, as there was 800 years ago, Mr Spineless Know Nuffin'.

Krap. The West fails at defeating insurgencies. It loses.

Empires are always at risk of ambush, or what Mao called "the weak overcoming the strong" - essentially what happened in Vietnam.

The West's superior firepower has been tested. It failed. Modern military theory holds that to defeat insurgencies, you have to win the hearts and minds of the local population. This was tested in WWII. Soviet and allied troop numbers pushed the Germans back, but the only way the Soviets and Americans could truly liberate their respective countries was to win their hearts and minds.

Your old boy military strategy of blitzkrieg and nastiness is essentially why the Germans failed. Partisans would have won WWII if the US and Soviets hadn't entered the war. The US and USSR held Europe for the entire Cold War. The US prevailed because the Soviets lost the hearts and minds of Eastern Europe.

Always absolutely never ever.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 23^rd, 2017 at 1:22pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49319
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #177 - Dec 24^th, 2017 at 9:19am

How did Rome survive?
And when did the Soviet' have the hearts and minds of their satellites?

In any case, the West is not seeking an empire. Obliterate the jihadist AND THEN DO NOT LET THEM IN AS REFUGEES IN DISGUISE. not difficult. Oh, and that would win the hearts and minds of the people whose hearts and minds actually matter - Western populations.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97432

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #178 - Dec 24^th, 2017 at 10:50am

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2017 at 9:19am:

How did Rome survive?
And when did the Soviet' have the hearts and minds of their satellites?
In any case, the West is not seeking an empire. Obliterate the jihadist AND THEN DO NOT LET THEM IN AS REFUGEES IN DISGUISE. not difficult. Oh, and that would win the hearts and minds of the people whose hearts and minds actually matter - Western populations.

But, old boy, you want to obliterate the entire Middle East. You want to ban all Muselman, beards, skullcaps, and any old swarthy from a country with Muslims. Refugees, migrants, tourists.

Come come, old boy, we know you better than that.

Rome had the Pax Romana and trade. The Soviets had jobs, doctors and jolly songs. When the jobs dried up, no more hearts and minds.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 24^th, 2017 at 10:57am by Karnal »

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49319
Gender: male

Re: Muslims suffer the most from 'Islamic' terrorism
Reply #179 - Dec 24^th, 2017 at 12:19pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 24^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

Frank wrote on Dec 24^th, 2017 at 9:19am:

How did Rome survive?
And when did the Soviet' have the hearts and minds of their satellites?
In any case, the West is not seeking an empire. Obliterate the jihadist AND THEN DO NOT LET THEM IN AS REFUGEES IN DISGUISE. not difficult. Oh, and that would win the hearts and minds of the people whose hearts and minds actually matter - Western populations.

But, old boy, you want to obliterate the entire Middle East. You want to ban all Muselman, beards, skullcaps, and any old swarthy from a country with Muslims. Refugees, migrants, tourists.

Come come, old boy, we know you better than that.

Rome had the Pax Romana and trade. The Soviets had jobs, doctors and jolly songs. When the jobs dried up, no more hearts and minds.

No Muslim and third world migration to the West. Not too much to ask. They didn't want colonisation, nor do we.
Do not want demographic or cultural (same thing, really) transformation of Western countries. Keep third world doctors, engineers, nurses there. Keep jihadist there.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged