Islamic State Seizes Ramadi, Palmyra, and infiltrates Malaysian Military.

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It's been one hell of a week for ISIS:



"BEIRUT, May 20 (Reuters) - Islamic State insurgents stormed the historic Syrian city of Palmyra on Wednesday, fighting off pro-government forces who withdrew after evacuating most of the civilian population, state television said.

The capture of Palmyra is the first time the al Qaeda offshoot has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks.

...

Palmyra is also a strategic military gain, home to modern army installations and situated on a desert highway linking the capital Damascus with Syria's eastern provinces, mostly under insurgent control. "




"Amateur footage has been released which shows Iraqi forces fleeing the city of Ramadi after officials in the country confirmed the city had been captured by Islamic State militants.

In the video obtained by Reuters, numerous armoured vehicles, some sporting Iraq flags, can be seen driving away from the city.

Government forces admitted the city, located just 70 miles west of Baghdad, had fallen to Isis troops on 17 May."




Lest anyone say this is some kind of 'slim minority' - review video of the celebrations.



"The Islamic State terror group is expanding operations in Southeast Asia where in Malaysia more than 100 Islamists, including some linked to the military, have been arrested in recent weeks, according to a State Department security report.

“Malaysian authorities have now arrested more than 100 individuals linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), including over 30 suspects in March and April alone,” says a May 19 report by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), a government group that promotes partnership between the State Department and the private sector. The Islamic State terrorist organization is known by three acronyms: IS, ISIS, and ISIL.

The seven-page internal report produced for U.S. corporations abroad is the latest indication that the Obama administration’s strategy against Islamic State is failing. The president has limited U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq to airstrikes and training for local forces that appear to be struggling in efforts to counter IS forces."


The response from the U.S. State Department?



" She acknowledged that "the destruction and looting of these sites has been sort of something we've seen in other places" and it's "incredibly harmful," but as to the question of what the U.S. could do, Harf only had this to offer:

"We'll keep watching here, we'll keep seeing what's happening on the ground."

Harf added: "This is the reason we're trying to push back ISIL out of Iraq and to try and help the Syrian opposition push back ISIL in Syria."

"This is something we're following; we're concerned about this. Obviously, it has been caught in the crossfire for some time and we'll speak up about it," said Harf. "Beyond that, I'm not sure what more can be done." "


This is not from the Onion or a Saturday Night Live skit. That was the official State Department response.
 

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,124
Kin
1,244💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Ah, their expansion seems to go smooth. NATO's weapons and other goods helped ISIS well on it's conquest.

(please don't reply with half a bible of text)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Babadook

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
"NATO is a u.s.a. run foreign intervention force to control the world" - Noam Chomsky

Lets not blame Islam out of ignorance :)


" The list of books and other publications seized by US Navy Seals during the May 2011 raid in which the al–Qaida leader was killed reveal an eclectic range of reading material including works by Noam Chomsky, Yale history professor Paul Kennedy, and journalist Bob Woodward, as well as books suggesting that senior US officials deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed.

...

The presence of Democracy: A Religion, by extremist scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, is also unsurprising. Bin Laden’s own oft-repeated argument that voters in democracies are responsible for the acts of the governments and are thus legitimate targets for violence is close to that once made by the Jordanian Palestinian cleric.

There also appear to be a dozen or more books published by Hizb ut-Tahrir, the international Islamist organisation.

But much of the reading appears to be more secular, with a large numbers of works critical of US foreign policy, including Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, by Chomsky. There is also a handbook to international law. "


You'll find that those of us who live within "bibles of text" tend to not be very surprised by what happens in the world or what 'unprecedented' things occur next.

Of course, I've already explained how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our agencies responsible for foreign policy. Within that context, Osama's interest in the "9/11 truth movement" makes a lot of sense. It's an evaluation of the intended targets of such strategies.

You see - I predicted the response from the State Department.

You predicted the opposite - that they created a 'bad guy' in order to justify taking control.

You must be registered for see images


You must be registered for see images


Support is relatively strong for upping the game gainst ISIS. This poll was, also, taken back in October of 2014.



"In just four months, the percentage of U.S. citizens who approve of the military campaign against ISIS has increased substantially, from 57% in October to 63% now, with those who disapprove dropping from 33% to 30% in the same period. This means that now more than twice as many Americans are favorable to the campaign as in opposition."



Yet, the response from our State Department was:

"Sit and watch."

I used other sources and analyses by retired CIA analysts to make the case that the goal was to turn power over to Iran throughout much of the old Persian empire and to the Muslim Brotherhood (ISIS) within the southern part of the middle east and northern Egypt.

Thus, the prediction was that the administration would be very lenient toward Iran and to essentially back them as a leading power. Which they have.

I've also predicted that groups like the Nation of Islam would be involved in various protests and riots within the United States. They have.

I also predicted that the Obama Administration would fund these groups and seek to use them to be liaisons between the "community and police." This has occurred.

Your myopic view of the world is going to get you killed.
 

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,124
Kin
1,244💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Osama was a CIA agent and the muslim brotherhood must be just another good business partner association for u.s.a/uk/switzerland (wherever those master plotters reside) so idk about the brotherhood 'infiltrating' the us government.

I don't live in bibles of text and I don't get suprised by much concerning related events ._.

All these complicated issues can be simplified by seeing through agendas and developments.

Anywho, fact remains things wouldn't be nearly as chaotic in the middle-east if the self-proclaimed saviors of the west wouldn't police other nations and try get a powergrip on their land and resources. But then again; it should be clear who the real terrorist is. Just follow where ISIS' weapons and vehicles came from.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(not referring to you, Aim. But in the general sense)

Edit: I am property of the state of the Netherlands which has a royal house. Just like Switzerland; I doubt we'll be pulled into war and chaos as fast as other nations. Too many influential ppl living here. So I'll be safe here :p for now..
 
Last edited:

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,124
Kin
1,244💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
itt: a pseudointelligent bigoted islam hater who thinks he's the shit vs. a pseudointelligent conspiracy theorist who thinks he's the shit
Why form an opinion on things you know jackshit about? For one; It is a fact that Osama was an agent. You never bring any posts with content to the base so why are you even talking.
 

Funky Tiger

Active member
Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
4,169
Kin
41💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Why form an opinion on things you know jackshit about? For one; It is a fact that Osama was an agent. You never bring any posts with content to the base so why are you even talking.
and how do you know osama was a cia agent? did he call you or message the conspiracy theorist association? at least i admit that i dont know stuff rather than somehow twist it into an anti usa theory and force it on people in an anime forum.

don't get me wrong, i am not like that aim dude either. i mean it is a fact that IS is using nato weapons, and it is possible that nato intentionally supplies weapons to those fegs. what i don't agree with is you somehow bringing a 9/11 conspiracy theory into this whole debate.

aim is worse off than you though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Babadook

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You C+P a lot of shit and then fabricate an opinion that corresponds with what you've C+P. Anyways it won't be too long, hopefully, before the ISIS barbarians are defeated.
Because a bunch of Sunni Muslims are going to rise up against a Sunni Islamic State?

What you have to understand about what is going on over there is that ISIS is Islam as it is written in the Qu'ran. While there are other sections of Islam that do not teach these segments of the Qu'ran - that is precisely one of the motivators behind ISIS in the first place.

They any kind of non-Islamic influence as a legal perversion.

Elected governments? The Sunni -might- tolerate that in areas controlled by Shiites, but only within the context of those responsible for enforcing Qu'ranic law (Sharia).

The Saudi Royal Family has long been unpopular in the middle east simply by virtue that the Qu'ran forbids man-made law. The notion that someone should be allowed to rule over Islam's believers is heresy to begin with, and the notion that one can be empowered to do so based upon his/her own wisdom is tantamount to declaring him/her to be superior to god (allah).

The idea that people should be allowed to elect leaders and make their own laws? It's ridiculous within Qu'ranic teachings. There is law as revealed through muhammad and preserved within the Qur'an. That is the only valid law and nothing else can dethrone it.

Which is precisely why any royal families in the area have been forced to actively oppress the people, over there - because their religion says, in so many words, to destroy any institutions not established by the Qu'ran.

Which means western civilization as a whole, by the way. Which is why Islam is not compatible with the west.

You will find that it was only 400 years ago that Islam was running wild throughout the Balkans (where Bosnia came from - merchants, farmers, and other business owners who converted to Islam because being Christian was not good for business when the equivalent of the horde of mordor is rampaging through the countryside every couple decades). India also has some fun stories to tell about Islam killing millions of their people and destroying their culture.

There is absolutely nothing in the trend of current events to suggest that ISIS will be stopped.

At least, not before they reach the Balkans/Russia in the North and India/China in the East. Iran stands as a possible threat, but the number of Sunni in the region so vastly outnumber the Shiites that in the long run, Iran will have to form some manner of allegiance with the Islamic State or be consumed.

The only factor that can plausibly stop this is a military campaign. China has the manpower to do it. India has the manpower but not the mobility resources. If the two don't kill each other first, they could plausibly work together to solve that problem.

Russia has the manpower to do it, but has to go through Chechnya, first - an open supporter of the Islamic State (many of the Islamic State's top soldiers and commanders are Chechen). Consider that Europe will freak the **** out if Russia starts any major military operations, and Russia is left to bide its time.

The combined military forces of Europe could plausibly do it. The problem is that they have been castrated and have no testicular fortitude (the countries; many of their soldiers are legitimate badasses). Worse, they can't deploy in sufficient sizes to put down ISIS and keep themselves secure against Russia (like it or not, we are back into a Cold War with Russia, at least in terms of strategic movements and positioning).

That leaves the United States. We're on the verge of a civil war and have been doing everything we can to castrate our population for the past ten years, too. Not to mention, the Muslim Brotherhood (ISIS) is heavily influencing our mid-east foreign policy, so the advice anyone is going to be getting from 'trusted sources' is going to be to keep arming groups to fight against Assad in Syria despite the fact that those groups are independent militant cells that frequently 'contract' with the Islamic State (and some have since pledged loyalty to it).

Which means, no, it's not going to stop - and by the time that is apparent, no one will be in a position to do anything about it.

Osama was a CIA agent and the muslim brotherhood must be just another good business partner association for u.s.a/uk/switzerland (wherever those master plotters reside) so idk about the brotherhood 'infiltrating' the us government.
*sigh*

Here:



There is a lot of reading, there, but it pretty much lays it all out - where the Muslim Brotherhood came from, how it arose from Nazi operations against Russia, and was later capitalized upon by the U.S. War Department for the same.

Of course, like yourself, the U.S. never once considered the motivations for the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't live in bibles of text and I don't get suprised by much concerning related events ._.
Be honest with yourself.

All these complicated issues can be simplified by seeing through agendas and developments.
You don't see agendas. You simply assign them.

Anywho, fact remains things wouldn't be nearly as chaotic in the middle-east if the self-proclaimed saviors of the west wouldn't police other nations and try get a powergrip on their land and resources. But then again; it should be clear who the real terrorist is. Just follow where ISIS' weapons and vehicles came from.
You're arguing with yourself, here.

We gave South Korea weapons. We have given Japan weapons. We've sold weapons to various NATO nations and to South Africa.

Now, I will grant you that it is counter-productive to stopping ISIS to arm groups that have been known to flip to support ISIS. It's also not a good idea to arm the Iraqi army when we know that they will abandon their equipment, or, in some cases, even defect to support ISIS.

This is why it is important that you understand that the U.S. government has been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, who argue strongly in support of arming these groups. They argued for arming the Libyans, the Syrians, and for taking action in Yemen.

Why? Because the Muslim Brotherhood wants a caliphate. That is their goal.

The boundaries that establish these nations are largely things that were imposed by the rulers Britain put in charge over the lands following the economic default of the Ottoman Empire.

To restore the Caliphate, these products of western influence must go. Convincing the democracy-loving Americans to arm 'pro-democracy' rebels is a means to accomplishing that objective. The fact that Americans tend to project their own ideals upon every group that rebels against a dictator is even more beneficial, since we like to parallel it to our own story of revolution.

These groups would exist and would pursue their goals, regardless. If we hadn't armed the Saudis and some of the other royal houses in the region, then these groups would have had an easier time taking them down with or without our later support of their rebellion. If we hadn't supported rebellions against those institutions, they would have a much more difficult time taking them down.

The economic reality is that those nations became a large exporter of oil and, therefor, a large economic interest developed there. Even if governments never directly took action there, companies and mercenaries would have, eventually.

Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western civilization, as Europe is only a few years from discovering when London turns into a blood bath and the flag of ISIS rises over Vienna (it's a symbolic thing - they have invested heavily in settling muslims in Vienna - they remember September 11, 1683).

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(not referring to you, Aim. But in the general sense)
This begs the question of what "simple" is.

An entire book can be simple and easy to understand. Brevity is often reliant upon duality of meanings and references to knowledge and understanding that is assumed to be shared.

Simplicity and brevity are not necessarily intertwined concepts. "Brevity is the soul of wit" - which means 'don't waste my time.' To expect understanding without an investment of time is foolish.

Edit: I am property of the state of the Netherlands which has a royal house. Just like Switzerland; I doubt we'll be pulled into war and chaos as fast as other nations. Too many influential ppl living here. So I'll be safe here :p for now..
Prepare to be surprised.





Your nation is going to tear itself apart because you will start to kill each other over the issue of what to do about the muslims attacking your people.

Which pretty much defines what is going to happen to most of Europe in about 2-3 years. The social equivalent of a "Blue Screen of Death."

It may take a little longer - it really kind of depends upon when ISIS secures itself in the old Ottoman territories. The terrorist attacks in Europe will come as a prelude to a renewed invasion of the Balkans.

And by "terrorist attacks" - I mean several times the rate you all already endure.

Europe will largely be polarized between those who suggest that the attacks are a result of bigotry toward the immigrants who fled from the Islamic State.

And those who suggest that the attacks are an attempt to usurp the government and enslave the people.

This will actually go on for quite some time because few European nations have armed citizenry - but the muslims don't want the argument settled. If they can trigger riots against them that police and military forces are used to put down - all the better for them as they leverage for laws to protect them and make their religion legally privileged.

This is actually why I say it would be best for Europe to ally with Russia, now. Putin is brutal and a communist, but he's political. He will act to preserve authority structures within Europe and will execute every last muslim in Europe if need be.

It won't happen - but it is the strategically advantageous move - since Russia can be more easily divested from Europe in the future than Islam's cultural subversion can.

Realistically, Europe is simply paralyzed until ISIS comes flooding up from the Mediterranean - and by then it is largely too late as the muslims within Europe will have been cleaning their own houses and executing those who were not loyal to the Caliphate.

This is precisely how Islam conquered nations for centuries before our lifetimes, and how it will continue to conquer nations so long as it is allowed to exist.

The fact that Islam has used other nations to distract the focus away from its own religious doctrine is, also, nothing new.

Removing the U.S. from the picture will not make the problem go away. Removing the U.S. from the picture will not make them cease in their desire to convert and/or kill you. While I can agree that the short-sighted actions of our nation have enabled the rise of these groups within our lifetime, you will find no security in blaming the United States.

The question has always been "When" in regards to a return of the Caliphate. The actions of the U.S. have answered that question as: "Now." Blaming the one who opened the old trunk our grandmother warned us about in the attic like an idiot doesn't do much to put a stop to what was released.

But, you're one of those smart people. So you'll have to learn the hard way. My advice is to become friends with someone who owns enough firearms for you to borrow one when things get interesting. Remember - they believe they go to paradise for being martyred (it's actually the only guarantee of paradise provided within the Qu'ran). Just think of it like ripping the band-aid off really quick. Brief pain that will relieve that itch.

Or think of them like Husks from Mass Effect. Whatever enables you to sight in and pull the trigger.
 

Awkward Linguist

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
24,034
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Blah blah blah
The Qur'an doesn't permit the killing of innocent people.

If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Qur'an 5:32

The Qur'an is clearly against the killing of innocent people regardless of their religion, race etc. However if a person is spreading corruption in the land or has murdered someone, then they can be punished by being sentenced to death.

But that's exactly what ISIS is doing; they're slaughtering everyone that opposes them, weather Muslim or non Muslim, and spreading corruption across nations. ISIS are opposing the teaching of the Qur'an, so how can you call them Muslim and generalise their barbaric behaviour to other Muslims?

ISIS are there product of vulnerable Muslims brainwashed into thinking that the fastest way to heaven is by killing the non Muslims. And if you disagree with them? They'll kill you. They're monsters, not Muslims. The Qur'an condemns their actions.

Another misconception amongst people is that if a Muslim person leaves Islam, they can be punished by being put to death. Wrong. The Qur'an does not allow this. What it does say however, is that if a Muslim leaves Islam for whatever reason, respect their decision. It's their choice. Don't treat them any less, and live in peace with them. However if they leave Islam and oppose and fight against Islam, and they're allowed to be put to death. You right a lot and I can't be bothered to read all of it, so with your next reply try and make it short. I'll try my best to clear up any misconception you have about the Qur'an and Islam. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not.
 
Last edited:

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The Qur'an doesn't permit the killing of innocent people.
Those who reject Islam are guilty of causing Fitnah.

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

It is not seen as innocent within Islam to 'know' and to then deny. Leniency is permitted to those who have not been taught of or know of Muhammad. After that, Fitnah (or discord/confusion/dissent) is worse than killing - and it has been ordained to be fighting in the way of allah - to Jihad as Mujahedin - to kill those who cause Fitnah.

If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Qur'an 5:32
That's not the entire ayah.

5:32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.



This is supposed to be the angel who is speaking to Muhammad, telling the story of why the Jews lost favor with allah (supposedly).

The Qur'an is clearly against the killing of innocent people regardless of their religion, race etc. However if a person is spreading corruption in the land or has murdered someone, then they can be punished by being sentenced to death.
No, it isn't:

9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

But that's exactly what ISIS is doing; they're slaughtering everyone that opposes them, weather Muslim or non Muslim, and spreading corruption across nations. ISIS are opposing the teaching of the Qur'an, so how can you call them Muslim and generalise their barbaric behaviour to other Muslims?
The problem with being a Muslim is that you don't get to choose what you believe. If you believe otherwise, you're guilty of Shirk at the best, and would not be considered among the truly faithful.

Why?

The Qu'ran outlines, specifically, what belief in Islam entails and who is behaving as the proper Muslim.

4:139 Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely.

4:140 And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together -

4:141 Those who wait [and watch] you. Then if you gain a victory from Allah , they say, "Were we not with you?" But if the disbelievers have a success, they say [to them], "Did we not gain the advantage over you, but we protected you from the believers?" Allah will judge between [all of] you on the Day of Resurrection, and never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them].

4:142 Indeed, the hypocrites [think to] deceive Allah , but He is deceiving them. And when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing [themselves to] the people and not remembering Allah except a little,

4:143 Wavering between them, [belonging] neither to the believers nor to the disbelievers. And whoever Allah leaves astray - never will you find for him a way.

This is a condemnation of the muslims ISIS is currently killing.

Found within the Qu'ran.

ISIS are there product of vulnerable Muslims brainwashed into thinking that the fastest way to heaven is by killing the non Muslims. And if you disagree with them? They'll kill you. They're monsters, not Muslims. The Qur'an condemns their actions.
No, it doesn't.

It sanctions them.

Another misconception amongst people is that if a Muslim person leaves Islam, they can be punished by being put to death. Wrong. The Qur'an does not allow this. What it does say however, is that if a Muslim leaves Islam for whatever reason, respect their decision. It's their choice. Don't treat them any less, and live in peace with them. However if they leave Islam and oppose and fight against Islam, and they're allowed to be put to death. You right a lot and I can't be bothered to read all of it, so with your next reply try and make it short. I'll try my best to clear up any misconception you have about the Qur'an and Islam. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not.
No Surat and Ayah quote to support your claim?

4:137 Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief - never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way.

9:61 And among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, "He is an ear." Say, "[It is] an ear of goodness for you that believes in Allah and believes the believers and [is] a mercy to those who believe among you." And those who abuse the Messenger of Allah - for them is a painful punishment.

9:62 They swear by Allah to you [Muslims] to satisfy you. But Allah and His Messenger are more worthy for them to satisfy, if they should be believers.

9:63 Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - that for him is the fire of Hell, wherein he will abide eternally? That is the great disgrace.

9:64 They hypocrites are apprehensive lest a surah be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allah will expose that which you fear."

9:65 And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?"

9:66 Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals.

...

9:73 O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

9:74 They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.

Basically - if you turn from Islam, you are a disbeliever. Muslims are commanded to fight against the disbelievers until they have been subdued (there is the allowance for a Jizyah). If one will not pay the Jizyah, then one is to be put to death for refusing the only rightful law that Islam recognizes - which is the rule and authority of allah, who revealed the laws through Muhammad as preserved within the Qu'ran.

Frankly - according to the Qu'ran, you are a hypocrite and a disbeliever who, within the Caliphate, cannot be allowed to cause Fitnah by spreading dissent amongst the believers. Thus, the sentence is death.

Make no mistake - ISIS is practicing Islam exactly as Muhammad practiced it (well, perhaps not setting people on fire... there was mention within the Hadith that setting people on fire was a punishment reserved for allah... though I admit I'm not familiar with every debate surrounding the 'weight' and validity of different stories within the hadith, since there are a lot of conflicts within the hadith).

The question for Westernized Muslims is this:

Is your faith in the Qu'ran and Muhammad stronger than your belief in Western values of morality?

If you are like me and believe that western concepts of morality and the value of individual human life are important - then you have to drop Islam and go elsewhere for your spiritual needs (not that Islam actually offers much in terms of spirituality - though if it's all you've been raised in, I can understand why this might sound incorrect).

If you are completely unlike me and believe that Muhammad was, in fact, a prophet rightly guided by the supreme deity of the universe... then you had better ditch any pretense of being friends with westerners. Well... spare for the allowance of Taqiyya. You can pretend to be nice if you feel like the society you are in would cause harm to you if they knew the truth.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Ninja

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,533
Kin
577💸
Kumi
2,186💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I'm pretty sure 99% of Muslims think ISIS are scumbags.

Why are you so afraid of us attacking you?

Plus, it's the western media that was supporting them when they were referred to as FSA.

It was predicted that trying to overthrow Assad with rebels would lead to this. The exact same thing happened in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Babadook

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I'm pretty sure 99% of Muslims think ISIS are scumbags.
If this were the case, Muslims would not be flocking to the Caliphate and ISIS would not be able to hold territory.

The problem, as I have already explained, is that ISIS is Islam.

People claiming to be Muslims are free to disagree with that, but they are not free to claim to represent Islam.

Why are you so afraid of us attacking you?
You may not.

Islam will, and it will use your kind as cover for its assault and to muddy the water as to who the enemy is.

Plus, it's the western media that was supporting them when they were referred to as FSA.
This is an extension of what I mentioned, above.

The Free Syrian Army was not necessarily ISIS. It was composed of Sunni militants who wanted to depose the Assad government that they saw as being un-Islamic.

Of course, because Western media doesn't understand Islam, they believed these were simply pro-democracy freedom fighters (and that is exactly what Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. attempted to portray them as - they know that Americans love the idea of democratic revolutionaries and supporting such governments... and how much we despise dictators). The idea that these groups shared the same fundamental ideology as those like Al Qaeda just didn't compute to most in the western media.

However, this betrays the fallacy that ISIS is an isolated group or that it is not based upon Islamic principle.

Essentially all Sunni activist groups can be considered to be aligned with ISIS. Even if they are not -structured- under ISIS in any official capacity, they are aligned with many of the same interests and it is more or less only a matter of time before most Sunni militants and other such groups are officially aligned with the Islamic State.

This is why we see the Islamic State taking hold in Africa and Malaysia with numerous groups pledging allegiance to the Islamic State in those areas.

This is not a limited Islamic belief.

It was predicted that trying to overthrow Assad with rebels would lead to this. The exact same thing happened in Afghanistan.
Well, yes.

Institutions like the various royal families and authoritarian regimes were established back when much of the Ottoman Empire fell under the control of the British specifically to keep the various Islamic territories from uniting under a Caliphate. The duty of the royal families was to actively disrupt attempts to unify Islam once again.

Obviously, if those institutions failed, the Caliphate would return.

Unfortunately, that history lesson isn't taught - and I only learned it years after I was in full support of overthrowing Saddam.

Frankly, Islam is too dangerous of a toy to allow to remain on the planet. If there is one muslim left on the face of the planet when I die, it is ten too many.
 
Top