Activists: IS fighters kill 200 civilians in Syrian town

[Lite Beer]

Activists: IS fighters kill 200 civilians in Syrian town
HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press

BEIRUT (AP) — Islamic State fighters who launched a surprise attack on a Syrian border town massacred more than 200 civilians, including women and children, before they were killed or driven out by Kurdish forces, activists said on Saturday.

Kurdish activist Mustafa Bali, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Kurdish official Idris Naasan put at 40-50 the number of elite IS fighters killed in the two days of fighting since the militants sneaked into the town of Kobani before dawn on Thursday.

Clashes, however, continued to the south and west of the predominantly Kurdish town on the Turkish border on Saturday, they said, although the fighting in the south quietened down by nightfall.

Naasan said 23 of the city's Kurdish defenders were killed in the fighting, but the Observatory put the number at 16. The discrepancy could not immediately be reconciled, but conflicting casualty figures are common in the aftermath of major fighting.

"Kobani has been completely cleared of Daesh, and Kurdish forces are now combing the town looking for fighters who may have gone into hiding," Bali, using the Arabic acronym for the IS, told The Associated Press by telephone from Kobani. The official Syrian news agency, SANA, also reported that Kobani has been cleared of IS fighters.

The more than 200 civilians killed in the last two days include some who perished in IS suicide bombings, including one at the border crossing with Turkey, but they were mostly shot dead in cold blood, some in their own homes, the activists said.

"They were revenge killings," Rami Abdurrahman, the observatory's director, told the AP.

Others were caught in the cross-fire as gun battles raged in the town's streets or were randomly targeted by IS snipers on rooftops.

Bali, Abdurrahman and Naasan all said the number of Kobani civilians and IS fighters killed was likely to rise as rescue teams continue to search neighborhoods where the fighting took place.

Massacring civilians is not an uncommon practice by the Islamic State group, whose men have slaughtered thousands in Syria and neighboring Iraq over the last year, when its fighters blitzed through large swathes of territory and declared a caliphate that spans both nations.

The Islamic State group often posts on social media networks gruesome images of its fighters executing captives as part of psychological warfare tactics designed to intimidate and inspire desertions among their enemies. Last week, it posted one of its most gruesome video clips, showing the execution of 16 men it claimed to have been spies. Five of the men were drowned in a cage, four were burned inside a car and seven were blown up by explosives.

The killing of so many civilians in Kobani, according to Abdurrahman, was premeditated and meant by the Islamic State to avenge their recent defeats at the hands of Kurdish forces.

The Western-backed Kurdish forces have emerged as a formidable foe of the extremist group, rolling them back in the north and northeast parts of Syria, where the Kurds are the dominant community, as well as in northern Iraq, where they have also made significant gains against the IS.

Kobani has become a symbol of Kurdish resistance after it endured a months-long siege by the Islamic State group before Kurdish forces, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes, broke through and drove the militants out in January.

Thursday's surprise attack on the town and a simultaneous one targeting the remote northeastern town of Hassakeh came two days after the Islamic State group called for a wave of violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, a time of fasting and piety that is now in its second week.

"You Muslims, take the initiative and rush to jihad, rise up you mujahideen everywhere, push forward and make Ramadan a month of calamities for the nonbelievers," IS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani said in an audio message released Tuesday.

In what also appears to be a response to that call, terror attacks took place Friday across three continents: shootings in a Tunisian beach resort that left 39 people dead, an explosion and a beheading in a U.S.-owned chemical warehouse in southeast France and a suicide bombing by an Islamic State affiliate at a Shiite mosque in Kuwait that killed at least 27 worshippers.

The attacks also came after the group suffered a series of setbacks over the past two weeks, including the loss earlier this week of the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad — one of the group's main points for bringing in foreign fighters and supplies.

Fighting is continuing in Hassakeh for the third successive day, with government and Kurdish forces separately fighting IS militants who have seized several neighborhoods in the mostly Kurdish town, according to the Observatory. Forces loyal to embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad have brought in reinforcements from the town of Deir el-Zour to the south while the Syrian air force pounded IS positions inside the town.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-28

[MaxYakov]

Activists: IS fighters assassins kill 200 civilians in Syrian town

Edited June 28, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Travelman868]

When will the West and peaceful Muslim majority accept the fact that treating IS as part of the Human Race will not work.

We need to obliterate their strongholds. This may sound as though I advocate using the same tactics as they use and that is exactly what is required.

We in Europe only see part of the atrocities committed all over the world.

Stop being nice

[EnglishJohn]

When will the West and peaceful Muslim majority accept the fact that treating IS as part of the Human Race will not work.

We need to obliterate their strongholds. This may sound as though I advocate using the same tactics as they use and that is exactly what is required.

We in Europe only see part of the atrocities committed all over the world.

Stop being nice

In the UK, every time ISIS do something like this we get 10 other stories telling us how they are not really Muslim's (who are all peace-loving). Even those who go to Syria to fight with ISIS are entirely innocent and were 'groomed' online by some unspecified evil person.

At the same time, we get a deafening silence from those Muslim's. Yet if one of their own gets killed in any way which might be suspicious, they make more noise than a hen house with a fox in it.

Every week or so I check the internet about ISIS and there is always a new story about some atrocity they have committed. Yet we hardly hear about any of them on the news in the UK. They will be buried deep in their news website somewhere, but that's all.

The West considers a harmonious 'politically correct' society far more important than the lives of those murdered by ISIS. However it is a castle built on sand : they have to keep doing more and more things to hold it up.

Let's see what our government will do now after 30 odd Brits got killed in Tunisia. I predict a couple of 'Cobra' meetings then make a few statements about how we will fight terrorism tooth and nail. Anything more risks a backlash from indigenous Muslims.

[wabothai]

the west didn't seem to have a problem with ousting Sadam with a huge army, causing the today's problems any way.

Well what stops them this time? Is it Bush's friend SA and its oil?

try explain this to all of the famiies of the 1000s of butchered victims.

[EnglishJohn]

the west didn't seem to have a problem with ousting Sadam with a huge army, causing the today's problems any way.

Well what stops them this time? Is it Bush's friend SA and its oil?

try explain this to all of the famiies of the 1000s of butchered victims.

The Twin Towers caused the problems of today. It made it clear that you must take terrorists out at the root. The rest is just politics and mistakes.

The reason the USA doesn't go in is because they don't have public support. You can put the continuing butchery of ISIS at the door of the media for ensuring this.

Which is worse, the USA waterboarding a known terrorist to find what they are going to do next or hundreds of men, women and children being lines up in a street and butchered with a knife one by one in cold blood ?.

Neither is right but it is all a question of proportion. The first makes headline news in all the papers, the second doesn't get a mention.

It will take another major event in a Western city before the brain-dead public will wake up and realise what the word 'war' actually means.

Mind you, the good thing about ISIS is that all these extremists are gathering together in areas out of reach of the lawyers and human-rights campaigners so they can be eventually be wiped out. They can never win : it's just a question of how bad things get before they get better.

[Docno]

if 50 of the bastards were killed, they're hardly 'elite' are they !

Just a rag tag bunch of brainwashed chancers with a gun!

Yeah - they used to say the same thing about the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces...

(The problem is, commitment to ideology and a willingness to give one's life for that ideology, is often a match for superior numbers and firepower).

[Docno]

if 50 of the bastards were killed, they're hardly 'elite' are they !

Just a rag tag bunch of brainwashed chancers with a gun!

Yeah - they used to say the same thing about the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces...

(The problem is, commitment to ideology and a willingness to give one's life for that ideology, is often a match for superior numbers and firepower).

The two forces you mentioned weren't exposed to the extreme aerial power available today

'Ideology and willingness' is not a match for a fleet of F22-Raptor fighter jets ? I think you're bigging them up a tad!

Well, they were exposed to carpet bombing as well as chemical weapons that the US probably would not be willing to use today. Still, they overcame. [Don't forget, the US dropped more than 2 millions tonnes of ordinance on Laos in a war that did not exist -- and it's still a communist country today].

Look, even back in the 70s, the Americans could have 'bombed North Vietnam back into the stone age', but they knew that wasn't option. ISIS are well-embedded in civilian areas in both Syria and Iraq, and so IMHO you'll never be able to take them out solely with jets, bombers, and drones. Not unless you're willing to accept huge numbers of civilian casualties. Remember, we're talking about a civilian population that is already seen as being the victims of ISIS brutality, and you think they US going to happily kill them off a 'necessary loss' in removing ISIS? I don't think so.

I'm assuming you'll be voting for Trump in 2016?

[ggt]

massacred more than 200 civilians, including women and children

Why is this in the news...killing innocent people wherever they go is what these people love to do...taking selfies and video recording so they can recruit more nut jobs...

This is the JV team of which Obama is not interested...

And, Oh Yes, we can not call them Islamic Terrorists...!?

That would be too controversial and inflammatory...but Obama can use the "N" word when bashing While people in America...

"It's a Mad House!"

Edited June 28, 2015 by ggt

[geriatrickid]

The UN should initiate an urgent human rights investigation. These horrible people must be given a stern talking to.

[arjunadawn]

the west didn't seem to have a problem with ousting Sadam with a huge army, causing the today's problems any way.

Well what stops them this time? Is it Bush's friend SA and its oil?

try explain this to all of the famiies of the 1000s of butchered victims.

The Twin Towers caused the problems of today. It made it clear that you must take terrorists out at the root. The rest is just politics and mistakes.

The reason the USA doesn't go in is because they don't have public support. You can put the continuing butchery of ISIS at the door of the media for ensuring this.

Which is worse, the USA waterboarding a known terrorist to find what they are going to do next or hundreds of men, women and children being lines up in a street and butchered with a knife one by one in cold blood ?.

Neither is right but it is all a question of proportion. The first makes headline news in all the papers, the second doesn't get a mention.

It will take another major event in a Western city before the brain-dead public will wake up and realise what the word 'war' actually means.

Mind you, the good thing about ISIS is that all these extremists are gathering together in areas out of reach of the lawyers and human-rights campaigners so they can be eventually be wiped out. They can never win : it's just a question of how bad things get before they get better.

We mostly agree, but a few thoughts, please. When right or wrong are matters of proportion they are not right and wrong, they are something else. When there are matters of proportion that mitigate our labeling then we have ethical relativity, the very hallmark of modern western liberalism. So, lets concede both are wrong irrespective of numbers. What we have then is a clear and blatant acceptance by the West of one type of wrong. No matter how one slices it the West enables or allows or is neutral with regard to islam, islamic jihad, and the various relationships there. While one could argue that the West is responding the greater argument is it is not. The west, the US in particular, has actually and overwhelmingly facilitated, outfitted, and funds AQ/IS, I suppose for them its a question of proportion.

A thing is right or wrong in all times and all places. While I agree this gets murky at points, it is not opaque here. By chronicity, continuity, time, neutrality, or indifference, DAESH gains legitimacy and becomes further entrenched. Such a thing can only be possible if that is the aim. We dont really believe we can go to mars, the moon, map the genome, create nuclear bombs, AI, defeat axis powers, map under the sea, make paper money appear as intrinsically valuable, cure diseases, shock and awe, listen to every phone call on earth, save them, crawl through them, associate by degrees of separation, but not wipe IS off the map? No, of course not. Therefore a less palatable explanation must be considered.

[geriatrickid]

massacred more than 200 civilians, including women and children

Why is this in the news...killing innocent people wherever they go is what these people love to do...taking selfies and video recording so they can recruit more nut jobs...

This is the JV team of which Obama is not interested...

And, Oh Yes, we can not call them Islamic Terrorists...!?

That would be too controversial and inflammatory...but Obama can use the "N" word when bashing While people in America...

"It's a Mad House!"

Why blame Obama? If you want to go and fight ISIS please go. The USA lost too many of its best and brightest in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US population wanted its people out of the war zone. Perhaps you would have a different view if a close family member had been killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The US cannot afford to keep spending billions on what is essentially a Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian war. This is a struggle that the arabs will have to sort out for themselves. This is shiite Iran/Pakistan with its enclaves in some Arab countries vs. the Sunni Arabs. Let them go at it. Asia depends on keeping the Gulf state oil shipping lanes open. Why does the USA have to spend money protecting the interests of India and China ?

Let those two moochers keep the lanes open themselves.

As for your claim that President Obama bashed white people, you are using exaggerated hyperbole. He spoke the truth and gave a statement of fact. Go back and read the comment. Keep reading it and thinking about it until you get the point. President Obama moved the US forward and the ACA will be considered as important as Social Security and the rural electrification project in the decades to come.

[chuckd]

I would dispute your last statement about the ACA but this is not the thread for that.

Where I fault Obama in all this is his failure to arm the Kurds with sufficient weaponry to do the job against IS.

The Kurds are capable fighters and more than willing to tackle IS. They need the armor and artillery that it will take to do the job properly.

If he arms them, they can take the fight to IS and get some results.

Edited June 28, 2015 by chuckd

[ggt]

massacred more than 200 civilians, including women and children

Why is this in the news...killing innocent people wherever they go is what these people love to do...taking selfies and video recording so they can recruit more nut jobs...

This is the JV team of which Obama is not interested...

And, Oh Yes, we can not call them Islamic Terrorists...!?

That would be too controversial and inflammatory...but Obama can use the "N" word when bashing While people in America...

"It's a Mad House!"

Why blame Obama? If you want to go and fight ISIS please go. The USA lost too many of its best and brightest in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US population wanted its people out of the war zone. Perhaps you would have a different view if a close family member had been killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The US cannot afford to keep spending billions on what is essentially a Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian war. This is a struggle that the arabs will have to sort out for themselves. This is shiite Iran/Pakistan with its enclaves in some Arab countries vs. the Sunni Arabs. Let them go at it. Asia depends on keeping the Gulf state oil shipping lanes open. Why does the USA have to spend money protecting the interests of India and China ?

Let those two moochers keep the lanes open themselves.

As for your claim that President Obama bashed white people, you are using exaggerated hyperbole. He spoke the truth and gave a statement of fact. Go back and read the comment. Keep reading it and thinking about it until you get the point. President Obama moved the US forward and the ACA will be considered as important as Social Security and the rural electrification project in the decades to come.

The US upset the status quo in the ME with its meddling and involvement in prior years...then walked away...now you suggest we look the other way as innocent civilians are slaughtered by the power vacuum we the US created...there is something morally wrong with that picture...

[NeverSure]

The US upset the status quo in the ME with its meddling and involvement in prior years...then walked away...now you suggest we look the other way as innocent civilians are slaughtered by the power vacuum we the US created...there is something morally wrong with that picture...

9/11. Never forget. It was before any US and allies wars. You don't kill 3,000 Americans and walk. BTW more than 30 countries contributed troops and equipment to the Iraq invasion so let's be careful who blames who - Tony Blair.

The US failed to do any good in the ME because it wouldn't hit hard, fast and continuously until those Arabs were on their knees. There were places it wouldn't go such as Saudi. If any civilians were killed people were threatened by war crimes.

The US failed in the ME for the same reasons it failed in Korea and Vietnam. The politicians and world opinion tied the hands of the generals.

Today many Americans are war weary. People I know are resolved to being the Last Man Standing^R. The Americans I know are resigned to having the Muslims conquer Europe and the ME and then pick the bastards off on US soil. My neighbors are.

There's this big debate in some places about civilian guns in America right now. <deleted> that, and see ya on the other side.

Cheers

[simple1]

The US upset the status quo in the ME with its meddling and involvement in prior years...then walked away...now you suggest we look the other way as innocent civilians are slaughtered by the power vacuum we the US created...there is something morally wrong with that picture...

9/11. Never forget. It was before any US and allies wars. You don't kill 3,000 Americans and walk. BTW more than 30 countries contributed troops and equipment to the Iraq invasion so let's be careful who blames who - Tony Blair.

The US failed to do any good in the ME because it wouldn't hit hard, fast and continuously until those Arabs were on their knees. There were places it wouldn't go such as Saudi. If any civilians were killed people were threatened by war crimes.

The US failed in the ME for the same reasons it failed in Korea and Vietnam. The politicians and world opinion tied the hands of the generals.

Today many Americans are war weary. People I know are resolved to being the Last Man Standing^R. The Americans I know are resigned to having the Muslims conquer Europe and the ME and then pick the bastards off on US soil. My neighbors are.

There's this big debate in some places about civilian guns in America right now. <deleted> that, and see ya on the other side.

Cheers

The US and Allies did hit hard and fast the 'Arabs' in the M.E., but mainly the incorrect groups, compounded by a failure in follow up by US led pacification / unification policy. I suggest the current challenge for the Coalition, aside from domestic politics, to commit ground troops, is there is not a single viable political entity agreeable to the West and regional powers to govern and pacify reconquered territory.

The US invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban & were on the brink of victory, but due to the neocons in the Administration switching focus to Iraq led to the consequent failure of strategic objectives with the fallout's we see to this day. Rumsfeld, even stopped US & UK forces blocking the escape of Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to cross the border into Pakistan. The issues I refer to in Afghanistan have been covered in depth by authors such as Sandy Gall who documented conversations with both the politicians and senior military of the time and to a degree reflect what's going on in the M.E.

The Americans you know are, IMO, totally wrong in their belief that 'Muslims' will conquer Europe, as well as an unbelievably defeatist attitude.

Edited June 28, 2015 by simple1

[Scott]

I would dispute your last statement about the ACA but this is not the thread for that.

Where I fault Obama in all this is his failure to arm the Kurds with sufficient weaponry to do the job against IS.

The Kurds are capable fighters and more than willing to tackle IS. They need the armor and artillery that it will take to do the job properly.

If he arms them, they can take the fight to IS and get some results.

The Kurds are intensely loyal to the US, but arming them is nearly impossible without losing our bases and support in Turkey. It will also seriously jeopardize our relationship, such as it is with the Arab Iraqis. The Iranians would be upset as well.

The Kurds can do a lot with little, Unfortunately, what we can't promise them is what they want most and that is their own homeland. They can win the battles, throw out ISIS and then their territory returns to Syria and Iraq, not the Kurdistan they dream of.

[Steely Dan]

I would dispute your last statement about the ACA but this is not the thread for that.

Where I fault Obama in all this is his failure to arm the Kurds with sufficient weaponry to do the job against IS.

The Kurds are capable fighters and more than willing to tackle IS. They need the armor and artillery that it will take to do the job properly.

If he arms them, they can take the fight to IS and get some results.

The Kurds are intensely loyal to the US, but arming them is nearly impossible without losing our bases and support in Turkey. It will also seriously jeopardize our relationship, such as it is with the Arab Iraqis. The Iranians would be upset as well.

The Kurds can do a lot with little, Unfortunately, what we can't promise them is what they want most and that is their own homeland. They can win the battles, throw out ISIS and then their territory returns to Syria and Iraq, not the Kurdistan they dream of.

Turkey under Erdogan are batting for the other side. Their borders are porous to fighters and supplies reaching ISIS, they are a liability not an asset and should be turfed out of NATO as possible. Then arm the Kurds.

[simple1]

I would dispute your last statement about the ACA but this is not the thread for that.

Where I fault Obama in all this is his failure to arm the Kurds with sufficient weaponry to do the job against IS.

The Kurds are capable fighters and more than willing to tackle IS. They need the armor and artillery that it will take to do the job properly.

If he arms them, they can take the fight to IS and get some results.

The Kurds are intensely loyal to the US, but arming them is nearly impossible without losing our bases and support in Turkey. It will also seriously jeopardize our relationship, such as it is with the Arab Iraqis. The Iranians would be upset as well.

The Kurds can do a lot with little, Unfortunately, what we can't promise them is what they want most and that is their own homeland. They can win the battles, throw out ISIS and then their territory returns to Syria and Iraq, not the Kurdistan they dream of.

Turkey under Erdogan are batting for the other side. Their borders are porous to fighters and supplies reaching ISIS, they are a liability not an asset and should be turfed out of NATO as possible. Then arm the Kurds.

IMO even if it were politically possible to 'kick out' Turkey from NATO it would likely push the Turkish government closer to Iran / Russia & add more complexity to the security issues facing NATO and the region. Again IMO, after being removed from NATO, it is likely the Kurds in or bordering Turkey will also have their issues compounded.

[chuckd]

Interestingly, this article appeared today on Drudge.

It seems Obama and his hand picked General staff are now keeping some Middle East countries from providing the Kurds the necessary weapons to fight ISIS. The US should quit worrying about Erdogan and the military bases.

Turkey refused permission to use their soil for the Iraq war and they have not granted permission for combat sorties to fly off the US base now. They are no ally and should not even be a part of NATO.

Turkey is worried more about the Kurds than ISIS and they may, or may not, live to rue that decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

Middle East allies accuse Barack Obama and David Cameron of failing to show strategic leadership in fight against Isil, as MPs could be given vote on whether to bomb Syria

By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor6:33AM BST 02 Jul 2015

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. <snip>

Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712237/US-blocks-attempts-by-Arab-allies-to-fly-heavy-weapons-directly-to-Kurds-to-fight-Islamic-State.html

[ABCer]

The UN should initiate an urgent human rights investigation. These horrible people must be given a stern talking to.

UN cannot do such a thing.

All their staff and resources are used to maximum investigating the 'bloody' Jews!

They are really 'stretched to the limit' pulling a condom over their heads.

[spidermike007]

Interestingly, this article appeared today on Drudge.

It seems Obama and his hand picked General staff are now keeping some Middle East countries from providing the Kurds the necessary weapons to fight ISIS. The US should quit worrying about Erdogan and the military bases.

Turkey refused permission to use their soil for the Iraq war and they have not granted permission for combat sorties to fly off the US base now. They are no ally and should not even be a part of NATO.

Turkey is worried more about the Kurds than ISIS and they may, or may not, live to rue that decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

Middle East allies accuse Barack Obama and David Cameron of failing to show strategic leadership in fight against Isil, as MPs could be given vote on whether to bomb Syria

By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor6:33AM BST 02 Jul 2015

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. <snip>

Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11712237/US-blocks-attempts-by-Arab-allies-to-fly-heavy-weapons-directly-to-Kurds-to-fight-Islamic-State.html

When was the last time Blundering Barry has shown any kind of leadership? It blows my mind to think I voted for him. But, only the first time.

[spidermike007]

massacred more than 200 civilians, including women and children

Why is this in the news...killing innocent people wherever they go is what these people love to do...taking selfies and video recording so they can recruit more nut jobs...

This is the JV team of which Obama is not interested...

And, Oh Yes, we can not call them Islamic Terrorists...!?

That would be too controversial and inflammatory...but Obama can use the "N" word when bashing While people in America...

"It's a Mad House!"

I give you permission to call them what they are, Islamic terrorists. Screw all that weak politically correct nonsense. Tell it as you see it.

[Merzik]

From " This is Christian Syria" Facebook page:

Edited July 2, 2015 by Merzik

[Seastallion]

the west didn't seem to have a problem with ousting Sadam with a huge army, causing the today's problems any way.

Well what stops them this time? Is it Bush's friend SA and its oil?

try explain this to all of the famiies of the 1000s of butchered victims.

The Twin Towers caused the problems of today. It made it clear that you must take terrorists out at the root. The rest is just politics and mistakes.

The reason the USA doesn't go in is because they don't have public support. You can put the continuing butchery of ISIS at the door of the media for ensuring this.

Which is worse, the USA waterboarding a known terrorist to find what they are going to do next or hundreds of men, women and children being lines up in a street and butchered with a knife one by one in cold blood ?.

Neither is right but it is all a question of proportion. The first makes headline news in all the papers, the second doesn't get a mention.

It will take another major event in a Western city before the brain-dead public will wake up and realise what the word 'war' actually means.

Mind you, the good thing about ISIS is that all these extremists are gathering together in areas out of reach of the lawyers and human-rights campaigners so they can be eventually be wiped out. They can never win : it's just a question of how bad things get before they get better.

We mostly agree, but a few thoughts, please. When right or wrong are matters of proportion they are not right and wrong, they are something else. When there are matters of proportion that mitigate our labeling then we have ethical relativity, the very hallmark of modern western liberalism. So, lets concede both are wrong irrespective of numbers. What we have then is a clear and blatant acceptance by the West of one type of wrong. No matter how one slices it the West enables or allows or is neutral with regard to islam, islamic jihad, and the various relationships there. While one could argue that the West is responding the greater argument is it is not. The west, the US in particular, has actually and overwhelmingly facilitated, outfitted, and funds AQ/IS, I suppose for them its a question of proportion.

A thing is right or wrong in all times and all places. While I agree this gets murky at points, it is not opaque here. By chronicity, continuity, time, neutrality, or indifference, DAESH gains legitimacy and becomes further entrenched. Such a thing can only be possible if that is the aim. We dont really believe we can go to mars, the moon, map the genome, create nuclear bombs, AI, defeat axis powers, map under the sea, make paper money appear as intrinsically valuable, cure diseases, shock and awe, listen to every phone call on earth, save them, crawl through them, associate by degrees of separation, but not wipe IS off the map? No, of course not. Therefore a less palatable explanation must be considered.

I hope you don't mind if I borrow (I'll credit) your words, although I will replace your proper nouns with alternate proper nouns, when the next opportunity to post regarding a different Middle East problem arises.

[Seastallion]

From " This is Christian Syria" Facebook page:

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched which showed in-fighting between Papua New Guinea Highland villages.

Primitive people destroying symbols because they're scared of them. Primitive people destroying crops of their enemies to spite them, even though they could have used those crops themselves, the symbolic destruction was more important.

There is no doubt that daesh is composed of many primitive savages.

[Merzik]

From " This is Christian Syria" Facebook page:

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched which showed in-fighting between Papua New Guinea Highland villages.

Primitive people destroying symbols because they're scared of them. Primitive people destroying crops of their enemies to spite them, even though they could have used those crops themselves, the symbolic destruction was more important.

There is no doubt that daesh is composed of many primitive savages.

The KLA Albanian terroists have destroyed more than 150 Orthodox churches in Kosovo since 1999 as well:

[wabothai]

the west didn't seem to have a problem with ousting Sadam with a huge army, causing the today's problems any way.

Well what stops them this time? Is it Bush's friend SA and its oil?

try explain this to all of the famiies of the 1000s of butchered victims.

The Twin Towers caused the problems of today. It made it clear that you must take terrorists out at the root. The rest is just politics and mistakes.

The reason the USA doesn't go in is because they don't have public support. You can put the continuing butchery of ISIS at the door of the media for ensuring this.

Which is worse, the USA waterboarding a known terrorist to find what they are going to do next or hundreds of men, women and children being lines up in a street and butchered with a knife one by one in cold blood ?.

Neither is right but it is all a question of proportion. The first makes headline news in all the papers, the second doesn't get a mention.

It will take another major event in a Western city before the brain-dead public will wake up and realise what the word 'war' actually means.

Mind you, the good thing about ISIS is that all these extremists are gathering together in areas out of reach of the lawyers and human-rights campaigners so they can be eventually be wiped out. They can never win : it's just a question of how bad things get before they get better.

The opinions about the twin Towers, bldg 7, the crash of the 3rd plane and the pentagon crash happenings are quite divided.

never mind, the Bush family and their cronies , incl. Blair started all the do do.

Europe is guilty too of doing little but some bombing about the genocide. I doubt about the negative support of the US being as religious as it is.

[arjunadawn]

From " This is Christian Syria" Facebook page:

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched which showed in-fighting between Papua New Guinea Highland villages.

Primitive people destroying symbols because they're scared of them. Primitive people destroying crops of their enemies to spite them, even though they could have used those crops themselves, the symbolic destruction was more important.

There is no doubt that daesh is composed of many primitive savages.

In various yoga/theosophy it is taught that humans are basically all on a spiral staircase inexorably going higher over time. Humans also evolve in three stages, Instinctive, Intellectual, and Spiritual planes. This is a gross simplification but points can be easily drawn. Most humans are variously in multiple stages at the same time. However, if one considers those primarily on the instinctive plane (and no, I dont mean akin to apes or animals- this is metaphor) they make choices because those choices are married with their worldview. their knowledge, and the injunctions imparted to them through nurture; they are in many ways incapable of other choices. (This concept has otherwise insidiously crept into western justice as a mitigating factor for defense).

Yet it remains true, if humans at a particular place in time had the faculties to make better choices, they would. As evidence of the absence, witness their choices. A weak example might be the stunned look on a child's face after doing some dumbass behavior. We reprimand them and even as we do so we often realize they just did not know better; how could they- they are children. This seems a bit profound, or maybe topical to some, yet any effort to grasp the nature of such barbarity requires more than social or political or religious circumspection. There is most certainly a deficient character of human who is drawn to such an ideology and if the ideology inherently does not authorize their primitive actions, the deficient character warps the justification (This has not just been evident in islam exclusively but is apparent in islam today. I do not believe personally their ideology is being significantly warped I only apply my point that depraved minds would themselves authorize their own savagery by rationalization of ideology if necessary).

This does not exonerate humans as being unaccountable. All are. But from a philosophical perspective one could begin to grasp how humans can slip so easily into such depravity of mind and spirit.

[ABCer]

I would dispute your last statement about the ACA but this is not the thread for that.

Where I fault Obama in all this is his failure to arm the Kurds with sufficient weaponry to do the job against IS.

The Kurds are capable fighters and more than willing to tackle IS. They need the armor and artillery that it will take to do the job properly.

If he arms them, they can take the fight to IS and get some results.

The Kurds are intensely loyal to the US, but arming them is nearly impossible without losing our bases and support in Turkey. It will also seriously jeopardize our relationship, such as it is with the Arab Iraqis. The Iranians would be upset as well.

The Kurds can do a lot with little, Unfortunately, what we can't promise them is what they want most and that is their own homeland. They can win the battles, throw out ISIS and then their territory returns to Syria and Iraq, not the Kurdistan they dream of.

Sounds like an excuse to me. Why should Kurds be asked to do a lot with little?

On the other hand nobody can promise or give them their own homeland. They should take it and make it.