SCGNews: The Covert Origins Of ISIS

[juleswin]

I can't take you seriously when you say "socialist goodies"



I learned to focus on terminology, because the nuances are important. To say it's the "official position of ISIS to be blood-thirsty tyrants" would in my mind mean they release statements saying they will indiscriminately kill people, or had no intentions of acting in a civilized way. We can point out things they did, sure, but that's not an "official position".



Taqiyyah is a Shia idea in the way you're referring to it, but you seem to like Shia, and not Sunnis. The Sunni interpretation of Taqiyyah comes from when Muslims were tortured so they were allowed to give a fake apostasy to defend themselves from torture.



I have no problem saying that's pretty grizzly, but I also see a big difference between executing combatants who are responsible for the deaths of people on your side of the conflict versus indiscriminate killings.

And I'm certainly not a fan of the journalists execution. But again look at what I'm saying, I didn't say they didn't commit violent acts, many could be seen as unjustified, but the claims that come out (raping women, beheading children, etc.) I've really found most of these to all be false, so I'm not allowed to make these distortions known?

I understand, killing Syria soldiers involved in war is totally fair game. But how about the mass killing of Iraqi men? they are not accused not even by the UN of killing women and children. Why in the world did ISIS terrorists kill them?

Link of pics of the massacre below

Photo Report: 1700 Iraqi Soldiers (Prisoners) Executed By ISIS
The total number is a bit off but you get the point

I am going through by archives of the atrocities committed by the Syrian rebels and I am yet to locate children beheadings by ISIS but I have a few by FSA if that counts. Anyway, I am going to bed now, but be rest assured I will keep looking cos I am sure those cave cunts have a few videos out there showing themselves decapitating innocent children

 

[Muwahid]

Nobody said Libyans lacked the capacity for violence. The Burma Twins waged a short violent revolution. But they never got outside help and their revolution died on the vine. There are people being violent in Fergason Missouri too. Using your twisted logic it wouldn't matter if the Chinese communists started sending those people money and weapons and started bombing the U.S. on their behalf.

I don't see your point, truly. Obviously Libyan rebels made use of NATO support, the no-fly zone being a huge example, that does not logically imply, the revolution was provoked. The more rational position is the uprising happened, perhaps Gaddafi was never a personal favorite of the west anyway, and the US and her allies decided to throw support in the hope of a more pro-western Libya.

A) Sarcasm in this context is rude.
B) You were, and still are, being dishonest. Nobody claimed socialism was wonderful or that life in Libya was wonderful. It was a lot better than in a lot of other countries in the region. It's an absolute hellhole now that Al Qaeda has taken over.

A) I'm sorry
B) I'm not being dishonest. Are you trying to say life in Libya was good? Lets not even use superlatives, do you think Libyans did not feel the need to rebel against Gaddafi? Is that your honest opinion?

I didn't say you did deny it. I said that to make the point that our support for regime change hand nothing to do with human rights. We threw money behind agitators and "presto chango" instant Syrian Arab Spring. Assad has been an SOB for a long time. Yet for some reason the people didn't rise up until there as some behind the scenes prompting for Washington.

I'm not naive I don't think US involvement ever has anything to do with human rights. It doesn't change the fact that Assad was a brutal dictator, and Syrians voluntarily rose up. US threw them support, but the US did not go into a nice happy country, contact some extremists, give them millions of dollars, and overnight that sweet stable country is now an al qaeda hotbed.

Note to future Hitlers. Next time you attempt to kill or eject every man, woman and child of a particular ethnic group, don't make any official statements so that people who wish to can have an excuse to support you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16051349

Oh, and rape and sexual torture is okay as long as you were a member of "x group" that dared fight against the ultimate victors. It's all "spoils of war" right?

Genocide and ethnic cleansing usually stem from radical ideologies, otherwise they couldn't be justified and likewise people would not support it. Part of Nazism was exposing the Jews imperialism, and their hand in undermining Germany, if the German people believe this, they can begin mass execution or expulsion of Jews. Right? Likewise if ISIS would have a similar ideology regarding ethnic minorities and it would be very clear, but that's yet to be seen.

And as for the link, it says outright that city support Gaddafi, so I guess Libyans took revenge, not saying I support that but it has much less to do with ethnicity more to do with who is supporting who.

By the same token, when the Libyans found Gaddafi and beat him to death I found that to be quite disturbing and inhumane. And I did not like Gaddafi, but does that mean I don't support the revolution as a whole? I think Libya is much better off without Gaddafi, even if the country is still suffering, eventually I believe they will attain peace and stability without the need of a dictator. I bet North Korea is stable, wouldn't want to live there though.

And why do you keep calling the Libyan revolutionaries al qaeda? Al Qaeda may have been active within Libya, but Al Qaeda did not constitute the majority of that revolution, like Syria its quite a mish-mash of ideologies.

 

[Muwahid]

I understand, killing Syria soldiers involved in war is totally fair game. But how about the mass killing of Iraqi men? they are not accused not even by the UN of killing women and children. Why in the world did ISIS terrorists kill them?

Link of pics of the massacre below

Photo Report: 1700 Iraqi Soldiers (Prisoners) Executed By ISIS
The total number is a bit off but you get the point

I am going through by archives of the atrocities committed by the Syrian rebels and I am yet to locate children beheading by ISIS but I have a few by FSA if that counts. Anyway, i am going to bed now, but be rest assured I will keep looking cos I am sure those cave cunts have a few videos out there where the decapitated an innocent child.

I believe those images from after IS took Mousul... a huge amount of Iraqi soldiers were captured, thousands. So it's a similar case to what IS did to soldiers captured in Raqqa province.

I've still yet to see evidence of them taking civilians en masse and killing them. The conservative blogs were going wild though with their claims, posting images from totally different conflicts blaming IS.

One popular one I saw, was an image going around with a bearded IS man hugging a little girl, captioned "ISIS soldier announces marriage to a 9 year old", and in the picture the girl look terrified. But once you do investigation... not so much


And I'm seeing this stuff all the time, and it makes me think if these guys ARE committing atrocities, if they ARE beheading kids, no need to lie, the evidence will be there. These lies obfuscate reality, and people just simply looking for the truth are facing obstacles because we need to create a boogyman.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't see your point, truly. Obviously Libyan rebels made use of NATO support, the no-fly zone being a huge example, that does not logically imply, the revolution was provoked. The more rational position is the uprising happened, perhaps Gaddafi was never a personal favorite of the west anyway, and the US and her allies decided to throw support in the hope of a more pro-western Libya.

No. But the Wikileaked cables showing Hillary Clinton funneling money to the Syrian opposition before the protests show that the revolution in Syria was provoked. I already gave you that information. Here it is again.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...-strategy-to-push-for-regime-change-in-syria/

A) I'm sorry
B) I'm not being dishonest. Are you trying to say life in Libya was good? Lets not even use superlatives, do you think Libyans did not feel the need to rebel against Gaddafi? Is that your honest opinion?

Never said it was good. I said it was better than some places in the region. That's why Africans were emigrating to Libya. They were ethnically cleansed out by Al Qaeda. And sure, you always have some people in every country ready to rebel. Some would start a violent revolution in the U.S. if they thought they could get away with it. But the fact remains that the U.S. engaged in a covert plan to fund revolution in the region, and presto chango revolution happened. Do you think the Saudi dictators are universally loved in their country?

I'm not naive I don't think US involvement ever has anything to do with human rights. It doesn't change the fact that Assad was a brutal dictator, and Syrians voluntarily rose up. US threw them support, but the US did not go into a nice happy country, contact some extremists, give them millions of dollars, and overnight that sweet stable country is now an al qaeda hotbed.

They "rose up" after getting funding from Hillary Clinton. That is an undeniable fact.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing usually stem from radical ideologies, otherwise they couldn't be justified and likewise people would not support it. Part of Nazism was exposing the Jews imperialism, and their hand in undermining Germany, if the German people believe this, they can begin mass execution or expulsion of Jews. Right? Likewise if ISIS would have a similar ideology regarding ethnic minorities and it would be very clear, but that's yet to be seen.

And your point is.......? Yes every time someone commits genocide the demonize the people they are about to slaughter. That has happened from the beginning of time. But what does that factoid have to do with the discussion at all?

And as for the link, it says outright that city support Gaddafi, so I guess Libyans took revenge, not saying I support that but it has much less to do with ethnicity more to do with who is supporting who.

Right. Those people supported Gaddafi because their lives improved after moving to Libya. Oh but you think anyone who acknowledges that someone's life improved under Gaddafi is somehow supporting socialism. Wiping out and/or expelling an entire group of people just because of alliances is called collective punishment and it is a crime against humanity.

By the same token, when the Libyans found Gaddafi and beat him to death I found that to be quite disturbing and inhumane. And I did not like Gaddafi, but does that mean I don't support the revolution as a whole? I think Libya is much better off without Gaddafi, even if the country is still suffering, eventually I believe they will attain peace and stability without the need of a dictator. I bet North Korea is stable, wouldn't want to live there though.

Except the children that were ethnically cleansed by Al Qaeda didn't do anything to anyone. If you are drawing an equivalence...well that's just disturbing. If the Libyans who were beating Gaddafi then turned around and killed his two year old granddaughter then I would condemn that as barbaric without putting in a "well Gaddafi did some bad things so it's understandable" qualifiers.

And why do you keep calling the Libyan revolutionaries al qaeda? Al Qaeda may have been active within Libya, but Al Qaeda did not constitute the majority of that revolution, like Syria its quite a mish-mash of ideologies.

The best fighters in the Libyan revolution were Al Qaeda. That's documented. They were the ones with the combat experience. Once the revolution was over they proudly flew their Al Qaeda flag over Libyan government buildings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rthplace-Libyas-revolution-flag-Al-Qaeda.html

They are an integral part of the group running things. I know you'd rather ignore that, but it's the truth.

 

[Muwahid]

The best fighters in the Libyan revolution were Al Qaeda. That's documented.

I like how you just say "That's documented." like it's a simple objective fact.

Al Qaeda as an organization is a strict definition. I doubt you could find actual links between genocide and Al Qaeda as an organization, this is why I call it "sensationalism". Al Qaeda is the big bad boogie man, and conspiracists use it as much as globalists just for different reasons.

They "rose up" after getting funding from Hillary Clinton. That is an undeniable fact.

"They" had to already exist before "rising up", meaning a movement of some kind existed aiming to overthrow the regime and the US piggy-backed it. Because it was a more nationalistic movement it was also seen as more moderate because hardline Islamists reject nationalism and borders. But it ended up being a mish-mash of ideologies.

Also ISI (soon to be ISIS) did not receive funding/money/training, and this is the crux to all this argumentation. If you want to say US money really aided FSA and maybe some other groups, I have no problem with that.

That's much different than saying the US gave millions directly to "their creation" Al Qaeda/ISI to "stir up trouble" to further some globalist agenda. Not only is that illogical, it's also unsubstantiated. It merely bases erroneous assumption on erroneous assumption.

 

[jmdrake]

I like how you just say "That's documented." like it's a simple objective fact.

It is document. I've given the link proving this multiple times. But it's also common sense. That's something you seem to lack. The best fighters in any war are those with experience. And what better experience is there than experience fighting the best trained and equipped army in the world?

Al Qaeda as an organization is a strict definition. I doubt you could find actual links between genocide and Al Qaeda as an organization, this is why I call it "sensationalism". Al Qaeda is the big bad boogie man, and conspiracists use it as much as globalists just for different reasons.

Al Qaeda isn't that bad. It just "rogue elements" carrying out genocide. Got it.

"They" had to already exist before "rising up", meaning a movement of some kind existed aiming to overthrow the regime and the US piggy-backed it. Because it was a more nationalistic movement it was also seen as more moderate because hardline Islamists reject nationalism and borders. But it ended up being a mish-mash of ideologies.

I didn't say they didn't exist. Silly straw man argument. Once against the point that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. RIGHT NOW WHO HATE OBAMA AND PEOPLE BEFORE THAT WHO HATED GEORGE W. BUSH! THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF CHINA BEGAN FUNDING PROTESTS AND FUNDING AND ARMING MILITANTS THAT SUCH SUPPORT WOULD BE OKAY OR INSIGNIFICANT!

 

[Muwahid]

It is document. I've given the link proving this multiple times. But it's also common sense. That's something you seem to lack. The best fighters in any war are those with experience. And what better experience is there than experience fighting the best trained and equipped army in the world?



Al Qaeda isn't that bad. It just "rogue elements" carrying out genocide. Got it.

Are you saying expulsion of minorities who helped Gaddafi by Libyan revolutionaries is genocide committed by al qaeda? Logic not your strong point I see.

I didn't say they didn't exist. Silly straw man argument. Once against the point that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. RIGHT NOW WHO HATE OBAMA AND PEOPLE BEFORE THAT WHO HATED GEORGE W. BUSH! THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF CHINA BEGAN FUNDING PROTESTS AND FUNDING AND ARMING MILITANTS THAT SUCH SUPPORT WOULD BE OKAY OR INSIGNIFICANT!

Well you're wrong in assuming there wouldn't be a civil war without US intervention. The US intervened because a civil war was very likely to happen.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you saying expulsion of minorities who helped Gaddafi by Libyan revolutionaries is genocide committed by al qaeda? Logic not your strong point I see.

It's stronger than yours. I take it you don't consider Hitler killing of jews to be genocide? After all they were given a chance to leave first.

Well you're wrong in assuming there wouldn't be a civil war without US intervention. The US intervened because a civil war was very likely to happen.

You have absolutely no proof of your claim that my assumption is wrong or even that I made that assumption. You're just talking out of your butt again.

 

[Muwahid]

It's stronger than yours. I take it you don't consider Hitler killing of jews to be genocide? After all they were given a chance to leave first.



You have absolutely no proof of your claim that my assumption is wrong or even that I made that assumption. You're just talking out of your butt again.

Libyan revolutionaries expel people from a town which aided their enemy gaddafi

that above fact goes into your brain and comes out as

Al qaeda committed genocide in libya

You magically turned libyan revolutionary into "al qaeda" and expulsion into genocide.

Amazing

 

[jmdrake]

Libyan revolutionaries expel people from a town which aided their enemy gaddafi

that above fact goes into your brain and comes out as

Al qaeda committed genocide in libya

You magically turned libyan revolutionary into "al qaeda" and expulsion into genocide.

Amazing

A) The ones who didn't leave were raped and killed.

B) So now you're claiming that Al Qaeda isn't so bad and it's just random evil "revolutionaries".

C) If these revolutionaries are worse than Al Qaeda than that undermines your claim that they are moderates. That is unless you are now claiming Al Qaeda are the moderates. Are you?

 

[Muwahid]

A) The ones who didn't leave were raped and killed.

B) So now you're claiming that Al Qaeda isn't so bad and it's just random evil "revolutionaries".

C) If these revolutionaries are worse than Al Qaeda than that undermines your claim that they are moderates. That is unless you are now claiming Al Qaeda are the moderates. Are you?

I don't use terms like moderate or extreme for a reason. They don't have any bearing on reality to be honest.

And even if ones who didn't leave were raped and killed, is that genocide? You're using big boy terms, so back it up don't just throw words around.

 

[Miss Annie]

I don't use terms like moderate or extreme for a reason. They don't have any bearing on reality to be honest.

And even if ones who didn't leave were raped and killed, is that genocide? You're using big boy terms, so back it up don't just throw words around.

That is because there is no such thing as a "moderate" muslim.

 

[Muwahid]

That is because there is no such thing as a "moderate" muslim.

Chill with the Islamophobia, damn.

 

[Miss Annie]

Chill with the Islamophobia, damn.

Islamophobia....... that is an interesting word. Don't use it on me. I am NOT afraid of any one. Much less a muslim, even one that wants my head.

 

[Muwahid]

Islamophobia....... that is an interesting word. Don't use it on me. I am NOT afraid of any one. Much less a muslim, even one that wants my head.

Chill with the Islam hate, damn.

 

[jmdrake]

Chill with the Islamophobia, damn.

You're creating Islamophobia.

 

[Miss Annie]

Chill with the Islam hate, damn.

Sorry, but its hard to feel warm and fuzzy about people who condone violence and beheadings. Btw, I don't hate any human person. I do however, hate some ideologies. Just to clarify

 

[Miss Annie]

You're creating Islamophobia.

Nah, just the mask hiding the truth of what Islam really stands for is slipping.

 

[Muwahid]

You're creating Islamophobia.

I didn't mean to scare you

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't mean to scare you

You haven't scared me. Enlightened me. Disappointed me. But not scared.