yes thats why in all my statements I said there is almost as many british muslims in ISIS than in the British army. If you look at it they go thru tortous logic just to get that number down from 1500 but whatever I will take it at face value. If you think almost equal is ok then wow. Heck twice as many british muslims serving in the royal army as opposed to ISis is a problem. It shouldnt even be a decent fraction :/
The Muslim Problem
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
yes thats why in all my statements I said there is almost as many british muslims in ISIS than in the British army. If you look at it they go thru tortous logic just to get that number down from 1500 but whatever I will take it at face value. If you think almost equal is ok then wow. Heck twice as many british muslims serving in the royal army as opposed to ISis is a problem. It shouldnt even be a decent fraction :/
my main point is though is we have tried the tactic of giving islam a pass for everything the extremists do and it has failed.
Really Obama Clinton and the rest of the people in that stable want status quo. were already 15 years into status quo and there is no indication at all it wont become 50 years.
I mean seriously we go thru 5-10 terror attacks a year. 5-10. If you just want "status quo" and to stay the course when it clearly is not working then im sorry you are as much to blame as the bombers.
Moron Christian terrorist are just as bad!
Not only that, the last towelhead was born here
How much are your klan dues, crusader
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
KKK GED POOR
your argument is that christianity treats its gays as bad as muslims do? Yet I guarantee you all the gays would rather live in western societies.
If western society did not give Islam a pass for every damn thing our situation today would be very different.
Your a moron, so we only treat them like shit. So that's ok
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Well, except when you stated the number was 1500 in ISIS from the UK, that was a bit of an exaggeration considering that original figure was an estimate without much to back it up. The real figure was closer to 750 who joined, and of those 750, 260 returned. The actual estimate at this point was closer to 430-460 ISIS fighters from the UK. Not saying that's good, but not quite the level advertised. Considering such low numbers of Muslims joining the UK military, even 10 ISIS fighters would make it a 'decent' fraction. Regardless, it is a problem, but why did these fighters join ISIS? That's the problem that needs solved.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I know what your point was, I just don't see why we need to lay blame on Muslims when we are all fighting ISIS together. They ARE fighting them, and Muslims do not want them to be associated with them! So I guess it worked, but ignorance is allowing people to think it hasn't.
I won't pretend to know what Obama and Clinton want. Honestly, to me, they don't represent me and I prefer to think for myself. I won't defend them on their handling of Syria either, and I think their policies were just as stupid as Bush's. We did arm the rebel fighters after-all. I don't forget that. To me, it's just more evidence that we haven't executed the correct plan, and we haven't done a good enough job here explaining the differences between those in the Muslim world. Lip service is all the correct plan has been given.
Now, as far as wanting 'status quo', you're definitely reaching there.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
On the Issue of gay rights, I can not disagree! The Muslim world is no where near as friendly.
It has been going on long, long before that... Like that guy that shot Lincoln, he had was rumored to be a Muslim, & that guy that shot Garfield to, Ferdinand was assinated by a Serb but ppl were saying he was really a Bosnian Muslim~~~~ just sayin :tantrum:
Ayman al Zawahiri swears allegiance to the Taliban’s new leader
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...ars-allegiance-to-the-talibans-new-leader.php
The al Qaeda leader’s oath to the head of the Taliban has become especially important for jihadists since the rise of the Islamic State. The Islamic State’s followers hold up Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (“Caliph Ibrahim”) as the “Emir of the Believers,” who rules over a “caliphate.” But al Qaeda and its members say that the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate is “illegitimate,” and the Taliban’s chieftain is the true “Emir of the Believers” — a title usually reserved for the caliph.....
On May 29, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and Al Nusrah Front released a statement of condolences for Mansour (Taliban), praising his jihad against the “Crusaders.” The statement by the three al Qaeda branches did not say that they had pledged their own allegiance to Mullah Haibatullah, but this is not surprising.
In al Qaeda’s hierarchy, the regional branches — Al Nusrah, AQAP, AQIM, Shabaab in Somalia and al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) — swear allegiance to Zawahiri. These groups are then responsible for waging jihad in their designated regions on behalf of al Qaeda. This means that they must follow al Qaeda’s preferred manhaj (methodology), which includes a set of guidelines for launching attacks.
Al Qaeda’s regional branches are loyal to the Taliban’s emir by virtue of their bay’ah (allegiance) to Zawahiri.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...ars-allegiance-to-the-talibans-new-leader.php
The al Qaeda leader’s oath to the head of the Taliban has become especially important for jihadists since the rise of the Islamic State. The Islamic State’s followers hold up Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (“Caliph Ibrahim”) as the “Emir of the Believers,” who rules over a “caliphate.” But al Qaeda and its members say that the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate is “illegitimate,” and the Taliban’s chieftain is the true “Emir of the Believers” — a title usually reserved for the caliph.....
On May 29, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and Al Nusrah Front released a statement of condolences for Mansour (Taliban), praising his jihad against the “Crusaders.” The statement by the three al Qaeda branches did not say that they had pledged their own allegiance to Mullah Haibatullah, but this is not surprising.
In al Qaeda’s hierarchy, the regional branches — Al Nusrah, AQAP, AQIM, Shabaab in Somalia and al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) — swear allegiance to Zawahiri. These groups are then responsible for waging jihad in their designated regions on behalf of al Qaeda. This means that they must follow al Qaeda’s preferred manhaj (methodology), which includes a set of guidelines for launching attacks.
Al Qaeda’s regional branches are loyal to the Taliban’s emir by virtue of their bay’ah (allegiance) to Zawahiri.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
The thing that strikes me here, is AQ and Taliban deems ISIS as 'illegitimate'. For one, had they maybe used stronger wording, our government may have even offered them weapons to fight ISIS. Sorry, just had to...
But in all seriousness, our involvement in the ME has been going on for much too long. We've supported Taliban fighters to fight off Russia, we supported Iraq to fight Iran, we supported 'rebels' to fight Syria. All three of these decisions have been costly mistakes, and bit us in the ass. When will our leaders learn?
no i said that is the article. i mentioned in my statements almost the same. but we are arguing over semantics here. It should be nowhere near the same. Ill go by your numbers 450 british muslims in ISIS 650 in the army. That is not a good number. The article even specifies that they are not sure that those who returned gave up the fight.
maybe when they have a populace not hell bent on suporting the status quo?
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
It should be zero! Why anyone would want to join that violent crusade is beyond me still. But regardless, either UK's got a bit of a recruitment problem on its hands or they need to figure out why their people are joining a militant group of dumb-fucks. Their figures do no represent the worlds. We do not need to chastise Muslims, they are fighting the same fight we are.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
That's too big of a blanket statement to support. Oftentimes, the status quo is correct. Unfortunately, its the more complex issues that need to be hashed out, and the status quo needs to follow.
it's a power rivalry, and not to make too much of it there are personalities involved too, as well as tactics
here is something I saw that is helpful
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218387-five-ways-isis-is-different-than-al-qaeda
ISIS is fighting more like a conventional army than al Qaeda ever did.
It has seized territory and declared a caliphate in northern Syria and Iraq. ISIS is also employing more conventional military tactics, using assault rifles and grenades.
Al Qaeda has not sought to hold on to territory as much as it has been focused on carrying out spectacular attacks that would seize attention from international media. Since the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon it has continued to carry out high-profile, complex attacks, such as last year’s assault on the Westgate Mall in Kenya.
Al Qaeda also wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate, but it has taken a long-term approach, and has discouraged affiliates from going out and doing so.
This is also one of the major reasons why al Qaeda disowned ISIS — it wanted ISIS to wait on establishing a caliphate.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Ahh, so we should arm them both with guns and hope they kill each other off as they try and take over each others territory.
Again, kidding! We already armed them both!