Is America at war with radical Islam?

[Loptr]

It's easy to fault a person for what they didn't say or didn't do. Did Churchill ever say the British would "eradicate the Nazi death camps"? No. But both Churchill did, and Obama is doing what they think is best, in the circumstances.

Judge a man by his deeds, not by his words. Is Obama perfect? No. No man is. But given his position as the most powerful leader of the world, he's doing a rather good job, in my view.

Nice straw man argument, but full of holes as Churchhill and the allies did not know about the Nazi death camps until very late in the war...

Excuse me while I wipe the vomit from my chin after reading your assessment of Obama's performance...

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time...

[sdanielmcev]

I don't think the US is at war with radical Islam, but itshould be, because islam's certainly at war with us.

[phrodan]

The US is father, mother, nurse, teacher etc of radical islam

Silly statement.

No it's not - and for some reason American's can't see that it's their actions that have let this genie out of the bottle. A complete blind spot.

[Morch]

Get Obama out and the west will go into the middle east and wipe them out like the Nazi's.

Then build camps like we did in Germany and Poland after ww2 to stop them starting again.

The US and UK are pulling out of Europe as Germany are not a threat and getting ready for the middle east.

The "West" been conducting wars and camping out in the Middle East and further afield (Afghanistan) for years. It is actually very doubtful that there is much interest in long term permanent troop presence in these parts. Also, in case you missed it, there's a bit of a situation in Ukraine right now - not very likely that this will be left unattended.

[Morch]

Get Obama out and the west will go into the middle east and wipe them out like the Nazi's.

Then build camps like we did in Germany and Poland after ww2 to stop them starting again.

The US and UK are pulling out of Europe as Germany are not a threat and getting ready for the middle east.

Also the press in Israel say IS are heading north to invade.

The Israeli army are stock piled and ready for an attack.

Not aware of any such reports (unless referring to the usual loon websites). As a matter of geographical orientation, IS power base is situated to the North and North East of Israel, so if IS were heading north in order to invade Israel, they're doing it wrong.

[BKKBobby]

The US is father, mother, nurse, teacher etc of radical Islam

Poppycock! The ruling House of Saud has been aligned with the ultra-orthodox teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab since the 18th century.

Yes, youre right but choosing the wahhabis as allies is hypocritical considering US statements, stances, policies and actions in the middle east.

Islam is a tree. Sunni and shia are the two main branches. The wahhabis are a extremist and radical sub-branch of sunni islam. The saudis fund and export their version to other countries.

Edited February 7, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Mudcrab]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Mudcrab

[Johpa]

It's easy to fault a person for what they didn't say or didn't do. Did Churchill ever say the British would "eradicate the Nazi death camps"? No. But both Churchill did, and Obama is doing what they think is best, in the circumstances.

Judge a man by his deeds, not by his words. Is Obama perfect? No. No man is. But given his position as the most powerful leader of the world, he's doing a rather good job, in my view.

Nice straw man argument, but full of holes as Churchhill and the allies did not know about the Nazi death camps until very late in the war...

Excuse me while I wipe the vomit from my chin after reading your assessment of Obama's performance...

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time...

The Allies knew about the "final solution" probably around 1941 and certainly by 1942 and were fully aware of the rabid anti-Semitic undertones of Nazis dating at the latest from the mid-1930s, from the Nuremberg laws implemented in 1935 to Kristallnacht in 1938. But yes, we are all aware how seeing a Black man occupying the White House causes the stomachs of so many to churn and to believe in fictional rewrites of history.

[arjunadawn]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

[boomerangutang]

The US is father, mother, nurse, teacher etc of radical islam

Silly statement.

No it's not - and for some reason American's can't see that it's their actions that have let this genie out of the bottle. A complete blind spot.

The 'genie' has been out of the bottle since before the Crusades. Even a pack of randy dogs doesn't blame America for its actions. Islamist radicals are men who have no jobs, no sexual outlets (other than girls they rape) and testosterone (and who knows what sorts of drugs) running in their veins. They're bored and easily influenced by whatever screwball comes along and shouts 'Allah Akbar!' loudest. American policy has made some mistakes in the ever-troubled region (like arming the Afghans against the Russkies), but past the age of 8, males have to take responsibility for their lives and how they interact with others. Islamist radicals are acting like 7 yr old naughty kids burning ants with a magnifying glass - except now they're bigger and their weapons are bigger.

[canuckamuck]

Is America at war with radical Islam? Probably not, but they need to be.

[boomerangutang]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

You started out on track, but I can't see much similarity between street gangs in western countries, with ISIS. Street gangs are young testosterone-riven guys who create some problems - usually with rival gangs. They do bad things, but are limited to a gaggle (3 to 20) of tough-guy-wannabes with knives and perhaps a few guns.

ISIS has millions of $$'s of revenue and confiscated weapons, to add to weapons they buy with petro-dollars. They're a rag-tag army bent on taking over as many cities and commandeering as many young girls as possible, by any means.

If ISIS get a hold of N munitions (dirty bombs or real, from Pakistan or Iran?) or any number of other weapons more formidable than already-daunting surface-to-air missiles - then the threat ratchets up. Remember Saddam Insane's big gun in the sandpit - which could fire for hundreds of miles? ....or scuds...

[BKKBobby]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

You started out on track, but I can't see much similarity between street gangs in western countries, with ISIS. Street gangs are young testosterone-riven guys who create some problems - usually with rival gangs. They do bad things, but are limited to a gaggle (3 to 20) of tough-guy-wannabes with knives and perhaps a few guns.

ISIS has millions of $$'s of revenue and confiscated weapons, to add to weapons they buy with petro-dollars. They're a rag-tag army bent on taking over as many cities and commandeering as many young girls as possible, by any means.

If ISIS get a hold of N munitions (dirty bombs or real, from Pakistan or Iran?) or any number of other weapons more formidable than already-daunting surface-to-air missiles - then the threat ratchets up. Remember Saddam Insane's big gun in the sandpit - which could fire for hundreds of miles? ....or scuds...

Get weapons from Iran? ISIS hates Iranians (shia muslims). Iran consider ISIS a threat.

[ABCer]

A few definitive statements would be useful here.

* The World is at war with Islam.

* USA is a part of the Western World.

* The use of term Radical Islam is a concession to Political Correctness.

* Islam turns Radical where and when it suits its Leaders otherwise it is what it is - Islam! - the most Radical of all known Religions.

* USA Administration is an expert of being at war, acting as at war but not telling Americans they are at war just like Russian Administration is doing.

* The peculiarity of present situation is that the Western Leaders based on changes over 6 - 7 Centuries in Western Religions have virtually invited an Islamic Jihad.

* The modern Political Correctness through Western Leaders has invited the flare up of Islamic Jihad in the midst of the weak Liberalised Western World.

* The assumed understanding on the part of Islam of Western values is just an assumption and a very wrong one. Islam didn't change. Islam never promised us any changes. Actually Islam has been frank and earnest. It tells us all and demonstrates clearly what it means for the Western World. It is utterly wrong to bear any grudges to Islam - it simply acts as it is supposed to. If Obama, Merkel, Holland et al are misinterpreting Islam - it is not Islam's fault.

Now the three problems facing Western World must be solved urgently and in exactly this order:

1) Get rid of Political Correctness - especially of its agents - the current Leaders.

2) Get rid of the Muslim infiltration of the Western World in the most humane yet thorough way.

3) Return to strict Isolationism as it was the only policy not allowing Jihad to affect the Western World for centuries.

Edited February 8, 2015 by ABCer

[boomerangutang]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

You started out on track, but I can't see much similarity between street gangs in western countries, with ISIS. Street gangs are young testosterone-riven guys who create some problems - usually with rival gangs. They do bad things, but are limited to a gaggle (3 to 20) of tough-guy-wannabes with knives and perhaps a few guns.

ISIS has millions of $$'s of revenue and confiscated weapons, to add to weapons they buy with petro-dollars. They're a rag-tag army bent on taking over as many cities and commandeering as many young girls as possible, by any means.

If ISIS get a hold of N munitions (dirty bombs or real, from Pakistan or Iran?) or any number of other weapons more formidable than already-daunting surface-to-air missiles - then the threat ratchets up. Remember Saddam Insane's big gun in the sandpit - which could fire for hundreds of miles? ....or scuds...

Get weapons from Iran? ISIS hates Iranians (shia muslims). Iran consider ISIS a threat.

Those countries change alliances like Dunkin Donuts changes its Donut of the Month. They all have bunches of countries they hate, but it's all very subjective. Shi'ites hate Sunnis, but less than they both hate apostates (you and me and a few billion others). Remember; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' That's an Arab saying. If Iran decided to hate America again (it's a bit on the fence right now), then Iran would cozy up a bit with ISIS. ISIS isn't fighting Assad as vehemently as Syrian Rebels, so, perhaps ISIS is therefore chummy with Iran on some levels. Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about. There are so many potential diplomatic landmines in that region, and stretching from Morocco to Pakistan to extremists in Philippines. That's half the globe. Alliances are as fluid as the shape of sand dunes during a windy week.

[Publicus]

This is 100% politics. The GOP cannot provide a reasonable solution to the problem. Because there is no solution. The President wants to get a handle on the radical Muslims without antagonizing the other 1 billion moderate Muslims because frankly, we need them.

At least the Republicans are addressing the problem as it is today. Obama is trying to draw a moral equivalence to something that happened almost a thousand years ago and ignoring the fact that the crusades were sparked by Islam's own actions: Muslims were invading Christian lands to convert the inhabitants and assume control in the name of Islam. The president's ideology of appeasement is not helping the situation. His weakness is making things worse and worse.

And 8 Muslim Brotherhood supporters as advisors in the white house doesn't help a lot.

Political spam.

[Publicus]

At least the Republicans are addressing the problem as it is today. Obama is trying to draw a moral equivalence to something that happened almost a thousand years ago and ignoring the fact that the crusades were sparked by Islam's own actions: Muslims were invading Christian lands to convert the inhabitants and assume control in the name of Islam. The president's ideology of appeasement is not helping the situation. His weakness is making things worse and worse.

And 8 Muslim Brotherhood supporters as advisors in the white house doesn't help a lot.

Sorry it is 6 advisors not 8.M BROTHERHOOD.jpg

The post presents a wild claim by the Investigative Project on Terrorism headed by a one-man band named Steven Emerson.

Here's what Loonwatch.com says about the radical propagandist Mr. Emerson......

The views expressed by Emerson did not come out of the blue but fit a pattern. The New York Times review by Adrienne Edgar of a book he co-authored in 1991, “Terrorist” described his writing as ”marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.”

In reviewing Emerson’s 1994 propaganda movie “Jihad in America” journalist Robert Friedman castigated Emerson for “creating mass hysteria against American Arabs.”

Journalist John F. Sugg revealed in an 1999 article in the Tampa Bay Weekly Planet that Emerson’s priority is “not so much news as it is an unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims.”

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute was quoted in the Washington Post in 2001 regarding Emerson, “He’s made his life’s work discrediting Arab American and Muslim groups.”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/11/the-grand-deception-of-steven-emerson-and-the-investigative-project-on-terrorism/

http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/investigative-project-on-terrorism/

Inflammatory rhetoric needs to be confronted directly and exposed as such.

[Publicus]

A few definitive statements would be useful here.

* The World is at war with Islam.

* USA is a part of the Western World.

* The use of term Radical Islam is a concession to Political Correctness.

* Islam turns Radical where and when it suits its Leaders otherwise it is what it is - Islam! - the most Radical of all known Religions.

* USA Administration is an expert of being at war, acting as at war but not telling Americans they are at war just like Russian Administration is doing.

* The peculiarity of present situation is that the Western Leaders based on changes over 6 - 7 Centuries in Western Religions have virtually invited an Islamic Jihad.

* The modern Political Correctness through Western Leaders has invited the flare up of Islamic Jihad in the midst of the weak Liberalised Western World.

* The assumed understanding on the part of Islam of Western values is just an assumption and a very wrong one. Islam didn't change. Islam never promised us any changes. Actually Islam has been frank and earnest. It tells us all and demonstrates clearly what it means for the Western World. It is utterly wrong to bear any grudges to Islam - it simply acts as it is supposed to. If Obama, Merkel, Holland et al are misinterpreting Islam - it is not Islam's fault.

Now the three problems facing Western World must be solved urgently and in exactly this order:

1) Get rid of Political Correctness - especially of its agents - the current Leaders.

2) Get rid of the Muslim infiltration of the Western World in the most humane yet thorough way.

3) Return to strict Isolationism as it was the only policy not allowing Jihad to affect the Western World for centuries.

The people demanding political correctness are the people demanding a war against an entire religion, Islam, which had been attempted before many hundreds of years ago and which was a human disaster and slaughter on both sides to include others.

It was the pilgrim crusaders who began slaughters of Jews and the pogrom after saying their prayers and out of boredom and the desire of plunder attacked and slaughtered along their way to Jerusalem and the holy land.

Political correctness on the extreme right demands the president of the United States engage in anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric of warmongering against an entire religion.

Where does that lead...we know where it lead before and we know where it leads now. The warmongers against Islam do the United States and the world at large no good and a great harm.

The political correctness of the current times and circumstances comes from the extreme right of the political spectrum and no where else beyond that.

[canuckamuck]

A few definitive statements would be useful here.

* The World is at war with Islam.

* USA is a part of the Western World.

* The use of term Radical Islam is a concession to Political Correctness.

* Islam turns Radical where and when it suits its Leaders otherwise it is what it is - Islam! - the most Radical of all known Religions.

* USA Administration is an expert of being at war, acting as at war but not telling Americans they are at war just like Russian Administration is doing.

* The peculiarity of present situation is that the Western Leaders based on changes over 6 - 7 Centuries in Western Religions have virtually invited an Islamic Jihad.

* The modern Political Correctness through Western Leaders has invited the flare up of Islamic Jihad in the midst of the weak Liberalised Western World.

* The assumed understanding on the part of Islam of Western values is just an assumption and a very wrong one. Islam didn't change. Islam never promised us any changes. Actually Islam has been frank and earnest. It tells us all and demonstrates clearly what it means for the Western World. It is utterly wrong to bear any grudges to Islam - it simply acts as it is supposed to. If Obama, Merkel, Holland et al are misinterpreting Islam - it is not Islam's fault.

Now the three problems facing Western World must be solved urgently and in exactly this order:

1) Get rid of Political Correctness - especially of its agents - the current Leaders.

2) Get rid of the Muslim infiltration of the Western World in the most humane yet thorough way.

3) Return to strict Isolationism as it was the only policy not allowing Jihad to affect the Western World for centuries.

The people demanding political correctness are the people demanding a war against an entire religion, Islam, which had been attempted before many hundreds of years ago and which was a human disaster and slaughter on both sides to include others.

It was the pilgrim crusaders who began slaughters of Jews and the pogrom after saying their prayers and out of boredom and the desire of plunder attacked and slaughtered along their way to Jerusalem and the holy land.

Political correctness on the extreme right demands the president of the United States engage in anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric of warmongering against an entire religion.

Where does that lead...we know where it lead before and we know where it leads now. The warmongers against Islam do the United States and the world at large no good and a great harm.

The political correctness of the current times and circumstances comes from the extreme right of the political spectrum and no where else beyond that.

I disagree completely that the politically correct have been condoning anything anti-Islamic. Up until now it has been politically correct to say Islam is a religion of peace and to avoid including Islam in any discussion of terror activities. However, the tide has turned, and now there is a growing wave of anger against radical Islam from the self appointed politically correct.

It seems now that the media is being allowed to turn the spin against the radicals. Perhaps we are entering a different phase and new wars need to be justified.

Edited February 9, 2015 by canuckamuck

[CMNightRider]

The views expressed by Emerson did not come out of the blue but fit a pattern. The New York Times review by Adrienne Edgar of a book he co-authored in 1991, “Terrorist” described his writing as ”marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.”

In reviewing Emerson’s 1994 propaganda movie “Jihad in America” journalist Robert Friedman castigated Emerson for “creating mass hysteria against American Arabs.”

Journalist John F. Sugg revealed in an 1999 article in the Tampa Bay Weekly Planet that Emerson’s priority is “not so much news as it is an unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims.”

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute was quoted in the Washington Post in 2001 regarding Emerson, “He’s made his life’s work discrediting Arab American and Muslim groups.”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/11/the-grand-deception-of-steven-emerson-and-the-investigative-project-on-terrorism/

http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/investigative-project-on-terrorism/

Inflammatory rhetoric needs to be confronted directly and exposed as such.

What??? Loonwatch.com??? Why on earth would anyone care what "loonwatch" has to say about anything? Loony watch does nothing more that protect Jihadists and Islamic terrorists with their loony pro Islamic smoke and mirror rhetoric. These people want you to believe the estimated 1.67 billion Muslims are peace loving people but the truth is, most of these people quietly support Islamic terrorist.

[Jay Sata]

What America needs to do is extradite some of the rabble rousers such as Choudhury from the UK.

Returning IS fighters to the UK should also be put on the next plane to the US for being associated with

an organisation that beheads Americans.

They certainly did a good job with hook handed Hamza.

[slipperylobster]

What are the choices....

Terrorist of this ilk have created both game board and rules to play by. In their eyes, we either play by their rules or refuse to play. Those are the options we are given. Neither is acceptable. Therefore, all betting is off the game table.

I suppose Israel could just give up their status, as a free Nation, and that might...temporarily... end the game. However, I do not see that happening...ever.

All bets are off, both sides do what they have to do. There will be no Moral victory, either way....just endgame.

Edited February 9, 2015 by slipperylobster

[Morch]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

You started out on track, but I can't see much similarity between street gangs in western countries, with ISIS. Street gangs are young testosterone-riven guys who create some problems - usually with rival gangs. They do bad things, but are limited to a gaggle (3 to 20) of tough-guy-wannabes with knives and perhaps a few guns.

ISIS has millions of $$'s of revenue and confiscated weapons, to add to weapons they buy with petro-dollars. They're a rag-tag army bent on taking over as many cities and commandeering as many young girls as possible, by any means.

If ISIS get a hold of N munitions (dirty bombs or real, from Pakistan or Iran?) or any number of other weapons more formidable than already-daunting surface-to-air missiles - then the threat ratchets up. Remember Saddam Insane's big gun in the sandpit - which could fire for hundreds of miles? ....or scuds...

Get weapons from Iran? ISIS hates Iranians (shia muslims). Iran consider ISIS a threat.

Those countries change alliances like Dunkin Donuts changes its Donut of the Month. They all have bunches of countries they hate, but it's all very subjective. Shi'ites hate Sunnis, but less than they both hate apostates (you and me and a few billion others). Remember; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' That's an Arab saying. If Iran decided to hate America again (it's a bit on the fence right now), then Iran would cozy up a bit with ISIS. ISIS isn't fighting Assad as vehemently as Syrian Rebels, so, perhaps ISIS is therefore chummy with Iran on some levels. Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about. There are so many potential diplomatic landmines in that region, and stretching from Morocco to Pakistan to extremists in Philippines. That's half the globe. Alliances are as fluid as the shape of sand dunes during a windy week.

Iran is not an Arab country.

There is no general rule of thumb that Muslims are more against apostates than they are against each other (as in Sunni-Shia).

There is no realistic scenario in which Iran is getting friendly with IS, or the other way around. Such things are possible, at times, with smaller scale happenings and less religious zealotry involved, not in this case.

ISIS is not fighting Assad as vehemently as Syrian Rebels? Anything to support this notion?

Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about? Like what?

[BKKBobby]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

You started out on track, but I can't see much similarity between street gangs in western countries, with ISIS. Street gangs are young testosterone-riven guys who create some problems - usually with rival gangs. They do bad things, but are limited to a gaggle (3 to 20) of tough-guy-wannabes with knives and perhaps a few guns.
ISIS has millions of $$'s of revenue and confiscated weapons, to add to weapons they buy with petro-dollars. They're a rag-tag army bent on taking over as many cities and commandeering as many young girls as possible, by any means.
If ISIS get a hold of N munitions (dirty bombs or real, from Pakistan or Iran?) or any number of other weapons more formidable than already-daunting surface-to-air missiles - then the threat ratchets up. Remember Saddam Insane's big gun in the sandpit - which could fire for hundreds of miles? ....or scuds...

Get weapons from Iran? ISIS hates Iranians (shia muslims). Iran consider ISIS a threat.

Those countries change alliances like Dunkin Donuts changes its Donut of the Month. They all have bunches of countries they hate, but it's all very subjective. Shi'ites hate Sunnis, but less than they both hate apostates (you and me and a few billion others). Remember; 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' That's an Arab saying. If Iran decided to hate America again (it's a bit on the fence right now), then Iran would cozy up a bit with ISIS. ISIS isn't fighting Assad as vehemently as Syrian Rebels, so, perhaps ISIS is therefore chummy with Iran on some levels. Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about. There are so many potential diplomatic landmines in that region, and stretching from Morocco to Pakistan to extremists in Philippines. That's half the globe. Alliances are as fluid as the shape of sand dunes during a windy week.

Iran is not an Arab country.

There is no general rule of thumb that Muslims are more against apostates than they are against each other (as in Sunni-Shia).

There is no realistic scenario in which Iran is getting friendly with IS, or the other way around. Such things are possible, at times,
with smaller scale happenings and less religious zealotry involved, not in this case.

ISIS is not fighting Assad as vehemently as Syrian Rebels? Anything to support this notion?

Iran and ISIS have a lot more in common than they have to clash about? Like what?

Shia muslims dont recognize any caliphates as legitimate. ISIS announced themselves as a new caliphate which not even arabs see a legitimate. ISIS is more opposed to shias than they are opposed to christians. Iran wants and sees itself as the the regional player #1

The arab countries were afraid/worried about Iran all the time even before the world knew about Iran were developing nuclear this-or-that.

Iran would rather jump in bed with Saudi Arabia before joining/helping ISIS.

Iran has two natural allies in the arab world. Lebanon as long as hezbollah continues to have a grip of the country. Hezbollah were made by Iran. And Syria as long as Assads minority sub-sect that now is recognized as a part of shia islam holds power of the majority, the sunni population.

Youre post were good.

A lot of the people posting have no knowledge about the regional workings of the middle east and zero knowledge about islam and the history of islam. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott

[jmccarty]

More to the point is the World at war with radical Islam?

In AD 630, the Muslims began to raid into the Byzantine lands near Jerusalem, which created outrage among the local officials, who called for a government reaction. The government reacted by conducting raiding parties of their own into Muslim land. This angered the Muslims, who's raids became more frequent, and more deadly. Eventually after a Muslim raid destroyed an entire Byzantine town, the army reacted in full force with an invasion of the Muslim lands. The Muslims united under one crown as the Rashidun Caliphate, and declared war on the Byzantine Empire, beginning the historical First Muslim War. After a chain of 6 year battles, the war ended with a "permanent" peace agreement between the Caliph of Arabia and the Byzantine Emperor. But Muslim power and their violent nature grew, and set the pace for the next 1,379 years with a few quiet breaks to re-group.

A for or against, or a who against who is not the issue after this amount of time. It still is!

[BKKBobby]

More to the point is the World at war with radical Islam?

In AD 630, the Muslims began to raid into the Byzantine lands near Jerusalem, which created outrage among the local officials, who called for a government reaction. The government reacted by conducting raiding parties of their own into Muslim land. This angered the Muslims, who's raids became more frequent, and more deadly. Eventually after a Muslim raid destroyed an entire Byzantine town, the army reacted in full force with an invasion of the Muslim lands. The Muslims united under one crown as the Rashidun Caliphate, and declared war on the Byzantine Empire, beginning the historical First Muslim War. After a chain of 6 year battles, the war ended with a "permanent" peace agreement between the Caliph of Arabia and the Byzantine Emperor. But Muslim power and their violent nature grew, and set the pace for the next 1,379 years with a few quiet breaks to re-group.

A for or against, or a who against who is not the issue after this amount of time. It still is!

Im lost. Whats your point?

Please clarify and explain in a easy manner.

Make your point easier to understand. Thanks for sharing history which I didnt have any previous knowledge about.

But anyway, the purpose of your post went over my head.

Thanks in advance.

[jmccarty]

Nothing has changed Bkkbobby. Still tribes in the middle east fighting others. They don't care who. If one enemy goes away, any other enemy will do.

[Berkshire]

Now the three problems facing Western World must be solved urgently and in exactly this order:

1) Get rid of Political Correctness - especially of its agents - the current Leaders.

2) Get rid of the Muslim infiltration of the Western World in the most humane yet thorough way.

3) Return to strict Isolationism as it was the only policy not allowing Jihad to affect the Western World for centuries.

So someone actually has a solution to the problem. But isn't there a basic requirement that ideas have to be remotely realistic? I mean even a little bit? And actually seeks to solve a problem rather than make it worse? Let's see:

1. Not likely. Politicians may be lying, thieving, self-serving pondscum, but they are not complete morons.

2. Impossible. Even if it could happen, it would turn moderate Muslims into radical Muslims, ultimately resulting in more needless deaths of westerners.

3. Impossible. The world is too globalized, no one wants this thus will never happen.

Interesting how any solution that the extreme right comes up with will only make the situation worse. How about you guys come up with something that is possible AND will actually result in a better world? Not just some lamebrain idea that only a some old, out-of-touch TV warrior could love.

[Publicus]

Did it occur to any of the posters that the vast majority of people being slaughtered by ISIS are other Muslims?

Mostly for not being Muslim enough...or of belonging to the wrong particular branch of Islam.

From what I can see ISIS is simply a manifestation (albeit a bloodthirsty one) of what we have seen develop in the west over the past forty or fifty years post WW2

Street gangs becoming more violent, young people being held less responsible for their actions etc etc....and the result is??

Throw in a good dose of religion and there you have it. Northern Ireland or the Middle East or take on the whole world of unbelievers.

I challenge any of the long term expats to go back to their stomping grounds as they were when teenagers and see what has become of it..

Most of the ground troops in ISIS are relatively young people.

The twin perspective that IS are relatively young people and "what we have seen develop" over recent years suggest an extremely limited view point from which to view this issue. This leads one to think that events are a current phenomena, unique, and an expression of a particular angst of this age. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, just the opposite is true.

The small lapse in islamic [military] conquest only took place from the 17-19th century, and during that time simmering whahabbism grew (and other)- so, the conquest never changed. What changed following the failure of the siege of Vienna in the late 17th century was that while Ottoman overlords stopped the required muslim advance (because they got soundly thumped in Europe), imams closer to the people, and the ummah, continued birthing in doctrine the very militant conquest that existed for 1200 years prior, that the Ottomans now seemed reluctant to push. So, a person can wake in the 20th century and wonder where islamic jihad came from, it must be the result of these young folks, and that it developed only recently. No! The entire premise of islam is war. If you removed the requirement to war upon others from islam you would totally eviscerate the Shar'ia. These are the two eternal states of islam on earth, the house of war and the house if submission. Everyplace not enforcing sharia is the house of war.

Islamic conquest begun during their prophet's life; in fact it is his murder, slaughter, beheading, burning, raping, and mutilating of others that set the standard- just read the scriptures- they are everywhere (numerous examples). al-Insan al-Kamil - The Doctrine of The Perfect Man is an inherent component of every muslim's religious teaching and admonishment on how to lead their lives.

Not just jews, arabs, pagans, christians, but everyone on earth is subject to the islamic conquest because they are the perfect among all peoples. The goal in islam is jihad. You cannot assign contemporary modern values to an ideology that is predicated on murder and mayhem. Islam has pretty much either militarily or in jurisprudence or sub-sects preserved a nonstop tradition of warring upon everyone on earth. During these 1,400 years or so, some estimates place the number slaughtered from islam at over 250,000,000. Some say the largest holocaust in history, the 800 year murder rampage of Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, etc., are easily over 100,000,000 dead alone! Perhaps those in the West should review an unvarnished history that is not rewritten, lately!

So, it makes little difference any longer if the US is at war with radical islam. Islam is at war with everyone. Unable to control his mouth while seething at a national prayer breakfast in the US recently, Obama argued the fallacious reasoning that the crusaders committed some horrible acts in their time as well. What? Did we really hear that? This was being said by the US in response to a Jordanian pilot being burning alive in a cage and the president advises us "not to get on our high horse" while the world is aghast in a flood of horrible images coming out of the mideast. Of course the crusaders, regardless of the accounts of excess, were a response to 400 years or islamic rape, plunder, slavery, and murder of Europeans. Besides the fallacy of hypocrisy argument the president increasingly reveals that the US is indeed at war, but the US is at war with America, not radical islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/asra_nomani_terrorist_in_jordanian_pilot_video_cited_similar_grievances_obama_aired_at_prayer_breakfast.html

http://eaglerising.com/14819/obama-defends-islam-scapegoating-christians-prayer-breakfast/

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-freaking-out-after-obama-compared-isis-to-the-crusades-2015-2

I think this is designed to inflame and incite conflict and only conflict. I believe it wants violent clashes of civilizations, cultures, peoples. It seeks to portray the whole of Islam and Muslims inclusively as inevitably and by nature invariably aggressive, violent, a direct threat to each and every one of us always and forever.

The truth as I see it from the Muslims I know and lived among in the Thai South is that they are the same as most Christians, which is to say they read their holy book, attend worship services, then go about their everyday lives in the real and modern secular world absent the deep background of hostilities or aggression described in the post. Their actual god is materialism, not a fanatical ideology or any ideology.

Certainly, if Muslim-Americans can be peaceful and integrated into the larger society in their local communities, the post above is all the more unrealistic, excessive, deliberately provocative and incendiary.

OTT.

Prez Obama and other responsible leaders of primarily Christian civilizations consciously take a low tone, low key, calm and restrained approach that is both wise and beneficial to all sides and each and every one of us. We needn't identify all or most Muslims as an enemy unless we want to have most or all Muslims as an enemy and unless we do in fact want a clash, violence, destruction.

The post attempts with a great determination to have a literal war.