Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) Discussion

[spooky lynx 73]

I wonder what Ukrainians and Georgians would say now.

I wonder if there were any Russian planes spotted while performing combat sorties against any Ukrainian troops after public vote in Duma. Also I wonder if Syria had ever attacked some British peacekeepers or other troops anywhere recently.

[oxmox 73]

I repeat: don't think that you defeat ISIS and your problems are solved. Your problems are not solved even if the Saudis disappears. Pretty much everyone in that region is used to violence, and Iranians are no exceptions; just look at the state they have. They make less problems because Shia are just fewer people. Sunni is the main Islam, sort of Catholics for Christianity. But they are not very different:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

The problem is not just salafism, it's extremism. Not to mention a culture of violence.

 

And by the way, you shouldn't even think that you solve the problems in Syria and you solve everything. There is still Libya, and that's the best case.

 

Exactly, I mentioned it with similar sentences in the post before.

 

It is questionable if you can quickly bomb away an ideology, but it is neccessary to weaken the IS i.e. their source of income.

The Islamic State has a much higher potential of threats than Al Qaeda in the years before, they are mostly independant financially and run their organisation and captured areas like a government.

 

Why should the Saudis disappaer ?

It is rather needed that their own religiuos leaders throw in some important and critical words to the faith community when it comes to terror organisations, like in the article mentioned there is a lack of a "Muslim Answer" to the Islamic State.

Just recently the german BND did release a security warning about Saudi Arabia as one of the destabilizing factors in these regions, which did not really surprise. The government did critisize it and was talking about an eclat which would not fit with their foreign politics.

 

Its true, extremism in general is a problem, doesnt matter if about religions, politics or economics.

But you have to look aswell to the roots and when it comes to Al Qaeda and the IS you wont get around the most extreme form of the Islam, which is whabism/salafism. It takes a special role in sunni Islam and is rather some kind of sect.

 

And - Not only islamic nations did or do sponsor questionable groups, dont forget this.

 

About Iran, well the Syrian conflict is also a part of the strategy to weaken the Iran itself.

The Iran with all its issues is still a more liberal country than certain arabic states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Yes, if you look at your posted wiki link it shows that the Iran has aswell as other Islamic/arab nations a history with sponsored terrorism, wheras

the main international terror attacks since 911 and the responsible terrorists are supportive members of the sunni/salafism movement.

[dontknowhow 33]

I wonder if there were any Russian planes spotted while performing combat sorties against any Ukrainian troops after public vote in Duma.

Ah, so your international laws apply only to planes, not to tanks or troops. Apologies, I don't know much of international law.

Anyway, I'm sure that Russian planes have been spotted in Crimea. And probably in Geor...ehm... South Ossetia. Maybe not for combat sorties though, considering that those regions were already invaded. Does that matter for international law?

 

Also I wonder if Syria had ever attacked some British peacekeepers or other troops anywhere recently.

No. On the other side, ISIS is shooting at us. They also like to put bombs on civilian airliners, as you might have noticed.

 

It is questionable if you can quickly bomb away an ideology, but it is neccessary to weaken the IS i.e. their source of income.

Could be, but we won't get out of this by weakening ISIS to death

 

Why should the Saudis disappaer ?

I didn't it mean it seriously. I meant it as a way to say that the Saudis are not the only problem

 

It is rather needed that their own religiuos leaders throw in some important and critical words to the faith community when it comes to terror organisations,

I'm sure you don't expect that to happen. Definitely not to the point that those Saudi billionaires will stop financing the terrorists

Yes, I read something about the BND. I think they only talk about proxy wars, I'm more concerned about (not so) hidden support to ISIS and al Qaeda

 

Its true, extremism in general is a problem, doesnt matter if about religions, politics or economics.

Absolutely right. Even extremism in football is dangerous. That's not what I meant in that context, by the way, but I absolutely agree :)

 

But you have to look aswell to the roots and when it comes to Al Qaeda and the IS you wont get around the most extreme form of the Islam, which is whabism/salafism. It takes a special role in sunni Islam and is rather some kind of sect.

First of all I would like to point out that you are again missing the Shia site. I don't disagree about salafism, but it's just not the only aspect. I know that al Qaeda and ISIS are Sunnis, but we can't look at just part of the problem. Look for example at what happens in Iraq. Do you think it's just Sunnis?

But more importantly I think that the real roots are social, cultural and economic, especially if we consider extremism in general, as you said above.

Poverty, ignorance, frustration, a culture of violence and repression. Those are to me more important roots, and at the end I believe if you remove those (for example you give the Saudi population some more freedom instead of that dictatorship they have) salafism suddenly starts to lose importance.

This is what makes the whole problem so incredibly difficult, because it's not just about going somewhere and shooting some people. Although that wouldn't hurt B)

This is also the reason why I say we should get rid of oil. Let these people understand what it means to work to make money, and suddenly they will be much less happy to give money away

 

The Iran with all its issues is still a more liberal country than certain arabic states, especially Saudi Arabia

Uhmmmm... I have to say I don't know how you can say that. I'm not sure the Saudis would do this:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29272732

 

In any case it's a tough competition, and that doesn't change the fact that Iran is still a big problem.

[oxmox 73]

I wonder that you think that Iran would be similar like Saudi Arabia.

In Saudi Arabia you cant even take a Bible into the country, no rights for woman, ...i dont continue the examples and you will find a lot with google search.

Saudi Arabia is not only the most intolerant country in the Arab World, it also has the most extreme type of Islam in form of a sect: Wahhabism or abroad called Salafism.

 

 

Some examples what you find in Iran but not in Saudi Arabia: ( I did post this already some months ago in the world politics thread)

 

* Iran has a christian Bishop and religious minorities have quiete their freedom

* they are integrated into the government and have seats in the parliament i.e. jews have a parliament seat aswell

 

Of course the Ajatollahs at the end have the decree, and you can describe parts of their political system more like with pseudo democratical structures, but it exist.

 

Iran has some freedom but only to a certain degree i.e. critical about politics and islam. The country has also harsh laws, but it is not a state which

lives in the middle ages and is quiete developed.

 

 

Check out these videos:

 

Jews in Theran, Iran - a western Journalist visits them. Vodka as a welcome drink. 25 Synagogues exist alone in Theran.

 

Here the Archbishop from Iran visits the Pope

 

Google about Nightlife in Iran, rights for woman or more examples...

 

 

These few examples alone are impossible in SA....

[dontknowhow 33]

 I wonder that you think that Iran would be similar like Saudi Arabia.

Yes, more or less. Just with Shiites instead of Sunnis.

I already posted an interesting link, maybe I might find more. But, to be honest, they are both way beyond my threshold, so I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned they both have to go, together with Bahrain and pretty much the whole region.

Stop using oil and gas would be step number one.

[oxmox 73]

Yes, more or less. Just with Shiites instead of Sunnis.

I already posted an interesting link, maybe I might find more. But, to be honest, they are both way beyond my threshold, so I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned they both have to go, together with Bahrain and pretty much the whole region.

Stop using oil and gas would be step number one.

 

 The state religion of Saudi Arabia is a sect, founded in the 18th century and its not just sunnis in general. It plays a special role in the sunni religion.

Definately watch at least the first posted video about the Iran..quiete interesting and shows that both countries are not really compareable like you would think.

[dontknowhow 33]

 The state religion of Saudi Arabia is a sect, founded in the 18th century and its not just sunnis in general. It plays a special role in the sunni religion.

From what I understand they are basically a more extreme form of Sunni Islam, but still Sunni. Like Wikipedia says:

 

The Salafi movement or Salafist movement is a movement within Sunni Islam that references the doctrine known as Salafism. The doctrine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih, the 'pious forefathers'...They reject religious innovation, or bida, and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)."

 

They tend to get along quite well with Sunnis anyway

 

Definately watch at least the first posted video about the Iran..quiete interesting and shows that both countries are not really compareable like you would think.

I knew about Jews in Iran. I didn't know about alcohol permission. I also didn't know that Saudi Arabia has less religious freedom than Iran.

I'm not sure that changes a lot anyway. They are still both a problem.

[oxmox 73]

From what I understand they are basically a more extreme form of Sunni Islam, but still Sunni. Like Wikipedia says:

 

 

They tend to get along quite well with Sunnis anyway

 

I knew about Jews in Iran. I didn't know about alcohol permission. I also didn't know that Saudi Arabia has less religious freedom than Iran.

I'm not sure that changes a lot anyway. They are still both a problem.

 

Look for Wahhabism for more background infos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

 

Most of the Jihadi Terrorism, suicide bombing and major International Terrorism derives from sunni/salafism since 911.

 

[oxmox 73]

U.S. rejects Russian charge that Turkey involved in Islamic State oil smuggling (Reuters, Dec 2nd)

 

 

The United States on Wednesday flatly rejected Russian allegations that the Turkish government

was in league with Islamic State militants to smuggle oil from Syria.

 

U.S. officials  dismissed Russian allegations Wednesday that Turkey's president profited from oil trading with the Islamic State.

"The Turks have been great partners" in fighting the Islamic State militants, said Col. Steve Warren, the coalition spokesman in Baghdad.

 

“There is no Turkish government complicity in some operation to buy illegal oil from the Islamic State," he said, according to the Associated Press. "We just don’t believe that to be true in any way, shape or form."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/mideast-crisis-russia-usa-idUSL1N13R27B20151202

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/02/russia-claims-turkeys-president-selling-oil-islamic-state/76654566/

[dontknowhow 33]

Look for Wahhabism for more background infos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Yes, I knew about that. There I found, right at the beginning:

 

 

Adherents often object to the term Wahhabi or Wahhabism as derogatory, and prefer to be called Salafi or muwahhid

 

So I started looking at Salafism. I missed the part that comes later, where it says that Wahhabism is a more extreme form of Salafism (which in turn is a more extreme form of Sunni).

So I'm a bit confused, although it seems confirmed that Wahhabists are Sunnis, even if the opposite is not true.

 

Anyway, at the end the most important part is at the top right corner, in the box with title "Part of a series on: Islamism". There is a list of movements there. They all have to go.

 

Most of the Jihadi Terrorism, suicide bombing and major International Terrorism derives from sunni/salafism since 911.

quite possibly, yes. But it's also true that Sunnis make about 90% of Islam. Everything is in proportion.

[oxmox 73]

 

quite possibly, yes. But it's also true that Sunnis make about 90% of Islam. Everything is in proportion.

 

It is rather not about normal muslims or sunnis/shias in general and their proportions, it is about terrorism organisations and ideology.

The heyday of "Shia terrorism" was way back in the 80´s, nowadays two main extremist organisations exist which are the Huthis in Yemen and the

Hizbollah in Lebanon.

 

The major terror threat or well known organisations since 2001 are salafist groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Taliban (Afghanista), Al Nusra (Syria), Boko Haram (Nigeria), Abbu Sayaf (Phillipines), Al Shaabab (Somalia), Jemaah Islamiyah (Indonesia), BRN-Koordinasi/RKK (Thailand),

 

Sunni Muslim 'Extremists' Committed 70% of Terrorist Murders in 2011

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

 

4 Sunni Muslim Groups Responsible for 66% of All 17,958 Terror Killings in 2013

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/4-sunni-muslim-groups-responsible-66-all-17958-terror-killings-2013

[dontknowhow 33]

It is rather not about normal muslims or sunnis/shias in general and their proportions, it is about terrorism organisations and ideology.

yes, and Iran is one, or actually a sponsoring one. Wikipedia correctly puts it in the Islamism list I mentioned, together with nice guys like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, the Taliban, and of course Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (and wahhabism and salafism). They actually call it "Iranian Revolution". Also look at groups like Hezbollah, also on the list.

 

Sunni Muslim 'Extremists' Committed 70% of Terrorist Murders in 2011

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sunni-muslim-extremists-committed-70-terrorist-murders-2011

assuming that it's true, ever wondered where the other 30% comes from? Or you think that the Shiites are nice guys?

[spooky lynx 73]

Ah, so your international laws apply only to planes, not to tanks or troops. Apologies, I don't know much of international law.

I don't want to upset you but even Ukrainian side gives different numbers of 'Russian' troops 'documentary' spotted in Donbass - from several thousands to 56 and back to thousands. It depends on how much Poroshenko is drunken at the moment. I wonder what detachment may contain 56 soldiers... Less than a platoon. And that's since the very beginning of 'Russian agression'.

Anyway, I'm sure that Russian planes have been spotted in Crimea. And probably in Geor...ehm... South Ossetia. Maybe not for combat sorties though, considering that those regions were already invaded. Does that matter for international law?

Moreover... They were stationed there for years already, including bombers and cargo planes. :o  BTW according to Russian-Ukrainian treaty. And yes, Russia used attack planes for strikes on Georgian positions after outbreak of the war.

No. On the other side, ISIS is shooting at us. They also like to put bombs on civilian airliners, as you might have noticed.

There are plenty of them in Libya too. Why not to bomb them there?

Oh and it did shoot at us too. Or, to be precise, claimed the responsibility for blowing our civil plane. So why would not some EU govts act like Russia, e.g. ask for permission for airstrikes, coordinate with legal Syrian govt and help them with weapons? Oh I forgot, those pesky laws are remembered only when it comes to Russian actions, and real big daddies act like they want.

[ProfTournesol 956]

There are plenty of them in Libya too. Why not to bomb them there?

 

 

Egyptian Army threatened to bomb IS in Libya. IMHO they are welcomed.

[ProfTournesol 956]

(Vice News) Gunwoman in San Bernardino Pledged Allegiance to ISIS Leader on Facebook During Shooting

 

Pledging allegiance on Facebook....what a world :annoy:

[spooky lynx 73]

Egyptian Army threatened to bomb IS in Libya. IMHO they are welcomed.

And what about almighty European terrorism fighters who try to intervene in Syria as much as possible? Their military capabilities are far more better than Egyptian ones. Moreover Libyan landscape is well known for them already.

[d_lukin 16]

A chilling case for war: ISIS CHILD soldiers in Syria play sickening 'Hide and seek' game

 

Stop the planet i want to get off..

 

===================

 

One more column with ISIS oil trucks destroyed.

 

[dontknowhow 33]

I don't want to upset you but even Ukrainian side gives different numbers of 'Russian' troops 'documentary' spotted in Donbass - from several thousands to 56 and back to thousands. It depends on how much Poroshenko is drunken at the moment. I wonder what detachment may contain 56 soldiers... Less than a platoon. And that's since the very beginning of 'Russian agression'.

not upset at all, even because there are videos showing the green men in Crimea (you know, those professionals on vacation getting into Ukrainian bases) and satellite pictures showing tanks and artillery in Ukraine.

Ach, but those are coming from a videogame, arent't they?

 

And there are now how many thousands in Crimea? But you just look at Donbass, because Crimea is Russian I guess

And let's not forget Georgia. How many troops and vehicles there? But no, that's South Ossetia, what the hell am I talking about?

 

Moreover... They were stationed there for years already, including bombers and cargo planes. :o  BTW according to Russian-Ukrainian treaty. And yes, Russia used attack planes for strikes on Georgian positions after outbreak of the war.

Sure. They were stationed. They aren't anymore. Happily flying over Crimea.

Ah yes, Crimea is now Russia. Those international laws? Nah, they are not so important now.

 

There are plenty of them in Libya too. Why not to bomb them there?

1) personally I would go beyond bombing. Bombing is useless.

2) great idea

3) you can't compare the situation in Libya and in Syria (and Iraq).

4) in Libya there is still a chance for a solution, in Syria there is only a chance for Assad to be the bastard he is. If he actually manages it, because so far things haven't been going very well, and for quite some time.

 

Oh and it did shoot at us too.

You might have noticed in my post that I was aware of it

 

Oh I forgot, those pesky laws are remembered only when it comes to Russian actions, and real big daddies act like they want.

Well, I might turn the argument around and say that those pesky laws are remembered only when there is a plan to help a dictator to kill his own population.

Real big daddies act like they want when people are shooting at them and there aren't many options. Don't forget that bombing in Syria started only a year ago, and that was out of desperation, because acting in Iraq wasn't enough. Assad is just a loser, and not a likable one

Real big arrogant (and possibly a bit dumb) machos, on the other side, act like they want, even when no one is shooting at them. Rings a bell?

[oxmox 73]

yes, and Iran is one, or actually a sponsoring one. Wikipedia correctly puts it in the Islamism list I mentioned, together with nice guys like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Al Shabab, the Taliban, and of course Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (and wahhabism and salafism). They actually call it "Iranian Revolution". Also look at groups like Hezbollah, also on the list.

 

assuming that it's true, ever wondered where the other 30% comes from? Or you think that the Shiites are nice guys?

 

Well, the linked news report describes the other 30% as the following:

 

According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide,

8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,â€

1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist†groups,

1,519 by “unknown†factions,

170 by a category described as “otherâ€, and

77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist†groups.

 

 

I think we agree  that extremism is a general problem and not general muslims i.e. Shias or Sunnis.

 

 

 

Wheras the "Shia Terrorism" had its heyday in the 80´s, the Iran is sponsoring Hezbollah and highly likely the Huthis in Yemen.

The Hezbollah in Lebanon is mainly in conflict with Israel, founded after the Israeli Invasion in the early 80s.

 

The whole international terrorism since 911 and most terror groups you hear regulary about around the world are salafists - thats just a fact.

[ProfTournesol 956]

And what about almighty European terrorism fighters who try to intervene in Syria as much as possible? Their military capabilities are far more better than Egyptian ones. Moreover Libyan landscape is well known for them already.

Because Egypt wants to counter Qatar which is supporting the Libyan Islamist governement. And because Europe is already very much involved fighting extremists in Africa for years, contrary to some country which aim is mainly to defend its military bases in Syria, and which discovered that IS was a threat after having its plane bombed.

[dontknowhow 33]

I think we agree  that extremism is a general problem and not general muslims i.e. Shias or Sunnis.

yes, we said it already.

Actually, more than extremism the real problem is the situation of violence, repression, frustration, ignorance, poverty that causes it. Without extremism those people would become criminals or start riots, like it happened in Paris in 2005

 

Wheras the "Shia Terrorism" had its heyday in the 80´s, the Iran is sponsoring Hezbollah and highly likely the Huthis in Yemen.

The Hezbollah in Lebanon is mainly in conflict with Israel, founded after the Israeli Invasion in the early 80s.

Well, yes and no, and this is actually interesting.

Hezbollah basically follows Iranian directives, so they target much more carefully than the Sunni wild dogs. There is a nice description here:

 

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2008/12/29-terrorism-lynch

 

While that does make Sunni insanity more dangerous, I wouldn't neglect the rest. Hezbollah and other Iranian supported groups can attack Israel or anything that Iran doesn't like. For example, staying with NCTC, their "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland" report says:

 

 

Beyond its role in Syria, Lebanese Hizballah remains committed to conducting terrorist activities

worldwide and we remain concerned the group’s activities could either endanger or target U.S. and other

Western interests. The group has engaged in an aggressive terrorist campaign in recent years and continues

attack planning abroad. In April 2014, two Hizballah operatives were arrested in Thailand and one admitted that

they were there to carry out a bomb attack against Israeli tourists, underscoring the threat to civilian centers.

 

http://www.nctc.gov/docs/2014_worldwide_threats_to_the_homeland.pdf

 

The whole international terrorism since 911 and most terror groups you hear regulary about around the world are salafists - thats just a fact.

yes. Actually, it's basically al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS; sometimes Boko Haram and al Shabaab. But again, I wouldn't call the rest boy scouts, especially considering that the ratio of Sunni to Shiites, in terms of population, is about 9:1.

 

Also, aside from this terrorist story, I still don't like those guys. They can have more religious freedom than the Saudis, but they are still a bunch of assholes. Publicly hanging homosexuals and whipping people for singing Pharrell Williams doesn't get me particularly excited. Not in the good way, at least.

[dontknowhow 33]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article4633105.ece

 

Paywalled, but the first lines are clear: it's Afghanistan's time.

[spooky lynx 73]

not upset at all, even because there are videos showing the green men in Crimea (you know, those professionals on vacation getting into Ukrainian bases) and satellite pictures showing tanks and artillery in Ukraine.

Ach, but those are coming from a videogame, arent't they?

810th Naval infantry brigade (stationed in Crimea), you mean?

Oh and I've seen those rather low-res satellite showing some tanks and arty (BTW pics from Syrian airbases were much more detailed), I didn't see any red star or tri-color flag at the roofs of tanks. Seriously speaking, those sat pics can't tell to what country belong that tanks or arty pieces, they only thing you can do is see that it is some tank or gun. When Russian troops really had landed in Syria, the sat pics clearly showed that it is Russian planes, ground vehicles were visible quite clearly too. In case of Ukraine the pics were of weird quality. But it's just coincidence, when Russia officially stated that it is moving troops to Syria, sat pics were quite good, when it denies the presence of troops in Donbass, sat pics are of weird quality.

 

And there are now how many thousands in Crimea? But you just look at Donbass, because Crimea is Russian I guess

And let's not forget Georgia. How many troops and vehicles there? But no, that's South Ossetia, what the hell am I talking about?

Donbass? 56, according to UNIAN Ukrainian agency. Not so much, the amount of US SF troops in Syria (officially stated, how many are there covertly - I don't know) is almost the same.

  

Sure. They were stationed. They aren't anymore. Happily flying over Crimea.

Ah yes, Crimea is now Russia. Those international laws? Nah, they are not so important now.

Indeed, according to international laws people voted for their fate. Like citizens of Mayotte and parliament of Kosovo before.

1) personally I would go beyond bombing. Bombing is useless.

2) great idea

3) you can't compare the situation in Libya and in Syria (and Iraq).

4) in Libya there is still a chance for a solution, in Syria there is only a chance for Assad to be the bastard he is. If he actually manages it, because so far things haven't been going very well, and for quite some time.

Sure Libya and Syria aren't comparable, after success of European operation Libya became trashyard and safe heaven for islamists, Syria is still resisting and it is still sane country, I wish it will throw all the rebels to hell and return to normal life.

 

 

Well, I might turn the argument around and say that those pesky laws are remembered only when there is a plan to help a dictator to kill his own population.

I'd remind you that any armed rebellion in Western countries would result the same way (or even harder) for those who try to make it. No matter of the reasons. Hell, just google for 'US cops kill suspect' and see how many people are killed just when the policemen suppose they can harm them (teenagers are included). Is US a dictatorship?

 

Because Egypt wants to counter Qatar which is supporting the Libyan Islamist governement. And because Europe is already very much involved fighting extremists in Africa for years, contrary to some country which aim is mainly to defend its military bases in Syria, and which discovered that IS was a threat after having its plane bombed.

Or because this will show the fact that Europe was among main reasons of current Libyan disaster and transformation of one of the richest and most stable African countries into territory terrified by civil war and poverty.

[vilas 473]

buahahaha i already have popcorn :D

i sit and watch when finally you on west will understand that main problem is islam (its ideology of supremacism , lie to defend and conquer)

if someone would take quoran, what immams say, grab it together 

and compared to one guy with mustache from 30s, maybe you would finally understand that islam is the same kind of ideology, 

70% acts of terror, crimes etc. - muslims, islam 

they are not like us, 

we believe anyone has right to live and has his beliefs, 

they believe anyone with other beliefs must die, 

more and more people in USA, some "far right" politicians say that islam can be compared to nazism, 

if you would watch video i posted few posts ago - hear WHAT IMMAMS say, 

not what "white christian far right" politician say, but hear WHAT IMMAMS say

https://youtu.be/8YpTR51zArc

 

you would hear "muslims are superior" "whole world belongs to muslims and muslims must conquer it" "muslims can lie and deny anything just to defend islam" "non muslims must die" "tollerance is only working when it is towards muslims by infidels, in opposite direction we cannot talk about any tollerance" "when on soil step foot of muslim than since that this land must obey sharia" etc. 

those guys speak the same what nazis were talking

islam is ideology that Himmler prescribed as ideal 

those who are not "radical" are people who treat islam like "tradition only" those "moderate muslims" who do not have will to murder anyone around are like "believers" in Catholic church - who do not obey what bible, priest say "they simply believe there is a god, because someone must created universe"

and those people simply believe in existence of god "that created world around" but they do not follow strict religion

the same with moderates , they believe that "there is god and people must be good" but they do not follow what book says, 

isis , nusra, radicals - they are real believers who follow strictly what book says 

but main source of problem is "book" cause if those people were shaped by other book, they would be other 

problem is islam, not guys who call themselves ISIS, 

cause caliphate wanted to conquer Europe since 1300 years, 

first islamic invasion on European ground taken place in 8th century, than 9th , than 10th, those "famous crusades" were reaction of christian world after 3 centuries of being invaded (study maps , study history, do not listen to anti-Chrisitan left wing propaganda)

left wing propaganda says that biggest threat are neonazis, buahahahahaha, they killed maybe 1 permile what muslims killed, 

but it will take few years when you will understand that main root of problem is islam, not few guys who suddenly murder people around, 

http://ndie.pl/muzulmanie-na-granicy-z-macedonia-groza-jesli-nie-otworzycie-granic-zginiecie/

look at them - they threat death to Makedonian borderguards - cause they want to get to EU, why ? to conquer it, to have 5 kids in future, than those kids will vote for sharia and turn EU into caliphate

 

this is new way of hybrid warfer, this is what Polish military analysts called D-bomb, 

we have A-bomb - atomic bomb

D-bomb is demographic bomb

new form of hybrid warfer

jihad by demography 

even immams say "in 2 generations we will conquer europe by demography" - yes, immams , immam from Norway said it , in 2 generations their kids will vote for sharia party , in 3 generations europe will change into caliphate - if we not gonna have civil war in europe in ca. 2030, and this will be war on islam, not any other war, but simply war on islam and a lot of people will die in 2030s because todays "tollerance" and todays left wing, you cannot be tollerant to someone who tells that you must be dead because you do not follow his crazy idea of so called god, 

we had inqusition here 5 centuries ago and we should know how bad it smells, but due to naivity west thinks that inquisition wont repeat - and they are mistaken, it will repeat, maybe in 1-2 max 3 generations, but it will be not christian inquisition , after so many struggles to live in secular and democratic states, we may end in theocracy first "to not offend someone" than "because Prophet said so, peace be upon him", we cannot be told to do things "because 1400 years ago someone wrote 1 book" 

why we hate nazis ? cause they murdered others due to their belief in their own supremacy... ooops reminds something we are told not to offend and we are told to tollerate in name of multiculti , do they hate nazis too ? ooops , their immams say Hitler made great things 

 

http://ndie.pl/francja-choinka-pod-katedra-notre-dame-jest-niebezpieczna/

what tha heck, Notre Damme cathedral without Christmass tree to not provoke muslims ?

why europeans are told to not provoke muslims in their own land by doing what is european tradition ? 

how could you allow to situation in which your tradition must be suspended to not offend or provoke those who came to your home ?

your home is yours, belongs to you, cause you were born, cause your fathers were born, cause their fathers were born here, 

if someone came here 2, 3 years ago or even 10 years ago - he cannot dictate to change anything

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/ottawa-public-library-book-tells-muslims-in-west-to-be-at-war-with-host-country

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/raymond-ibrahim-the-logic-of-islamic-intolerance

 

edit: i would like also to remind that in few EU countries, some immams were demading to outlaw and ban and penalize critics of islam !!!

[oxmox 73]

If only arab countries would follow this example....

 

 

World's Largest Islamic Organization Tells ISIS To Get Lost (Huffington, Dez 2nd)

A 50-million strong Sunni movement in Indonesia just launched a global anti-extremism campaign.

 

 

Each time the Islamic State, al Qaeda or another terrorist group commits violence in the name of Islam,

a familiar refrain arises: What's the Muslim world doing about it?

 

 

In fact, anti-extremism efforts abound in the global Muslim community: Muslim Leaders and scholars have denounced the Islamic State group, the U.K.'s Muslim Youth League has declared "ideological holy war" against extremism, and YouTube has even tried to recruit American Muslims to counter extremist content.

 

 

 

And in Indonesia, home of the world's largest Muslim population, a massive anti-extremism movement is underway.

 

 

Nahdlatul Ulama, or NU, is the largest independent Islamic organization in the world, with 50 million members. Part Sunni religious body, part political party and part charity, it was founded nearly 90 years ago, in 1926, as a response to another Sunni movement, Wahabbism.

 

Wahhabism is the ultra-conservative reform movement based in Saudi Arabia that advocates for puritanical laws from the time of Islam's origins. It rejects the modern notion of "religion as a purely private activity" and the separation of church and state. The Islamic State is highly committed to Wahhabi principles, using its religious textbooks and embracing its hardline tradition of killing unbelievers.

 

NU's stated goal is to "to spread messages about a tolerant Islam in their respective countries to curb radicalism, extremism and terrorism," which, it claims, "often spring from a misinterpretation of Islamic teachings." It launched its global anti-extremism initiative in 2014.

 

There are domestic concerns about NU's global ambitions, since there's still a need to counter extremism within Indonesia itself. The country has faced a number of deadly terrorist attacks in recent years, including on its beach resorts and luxury hotels. But NU says its campaign applies "equally to local radicals," according to the New York Times.

 

Indonesia is home to one of the most liberal Muslim populations in the world. On Nov. 14, the Indonesian Ulema Council, the country's top Muslim clerical body, which includes NU, announced a plan to mobilize 50,000 preachers to spread moderate, or "Wasathiyah," Islam within Indonesia.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indonesian-muslims-counter-isis_565c737ae4b072e9d1c26bda?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063