Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why are you named Jihadin anyway?Sounds very...islamic terroristey.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed the commandment that says "Thou shalt enslave, rape, and pillage"

O'right, thats because it doesn't exist.

"God" did give orders to that effect when the Jews invaded the promised land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:


[b]So what's the solution,[/b] just keep killing children? Don't kill your kids, let us kill them and your women & livestock as well. Genocide FTW.

And given the way ISIS is taking and selling people as slaves, how can you not agree they're following the god of your bible?

So what is worth saving in your society?

Wash our hands of it. This is not our problem. Let the Islamic world deal with their own problems and their own extremists from now on. But crack down HARD on Islamic extremism in western nations - stem the flow of foreign fighters, intercept arms and funding. Share intel on Western citizens who slip through the net with the governments of Syria, Iraq etc to help them identify and catch them.

Western interventionism helped spark all this gak and created the conditions (power vacuums etc) for this wave of extremism to incubate and grow. Further Western interventionism will just be more fuel on the fire. For too long the Islamic world has been using Western Militaries to do their dirty work, in what is effectively a sectarian Cold War / Proxy war between Sunnis and Shias. (i.e. Saudi Arabia vs Iran).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed the commandment that says "Thou shalt enslave, rape, and pillage"

O'right, thats because it doesn't exist.

"God" did give orders to that effect when the Jews invaded the promised land.

One or two individual instances hardly amount to a blanket "enslave unbelievers and do whatever your twisted hearts desire with them".

God used slavery as a method of punishment throughout the Old Testament, including to the Israelites themselves, but that didn't give people the right to do evil things to their slaves.

So slavery is ok, as long as you're nice to your slave? Gotcha.

Its certainly not as good as not having slavery, but its not forbidden. Being bad to your slaves is a no-no however.

*I do not condone slavery, but thats a strict personal thing.

Not saying you do. I'm saying God does.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Not saying you do. I'm saying God does.

Why would that be humorous?

He doesn't support slavery, its pretty clear he's ambivalent on the subject.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Wash our hands of it. This is not our problem. Let the Islamic world deal with their own problems and their own extremists from now on. But crack down HARD on Islamic extremism in western nations - stem the flow of foreign fighters, intercept arms and funding. Share intel on Western citizens who slip through the net with the governments of Syria, Iraq etc to help them identify and catch them.

I hate to point this out, but that requires cooperative middle eastern governments.

Also, your approach was tried, and was most of the US' pre-9/11 strategy regarding terrorism. How'd that work out for ya?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Violence doesn't deal with the problem though.

Surely the first step is to sit down and have a round of peace talks with them. During all past wars pre bush dynasty, peace talks went hand in hand with wars. You sit down with the other side and see if we can find a peaceful end to the conflict that both sides can agree to.

After 20 years of bombing with things only getting worse, isn't it time to realize that more bombings and endless wars are not the answer.

Let's try something new, let's sit down with ISIS and talk to them.

So what do you think a peace accord with a fundamentalist group intent on creating a theocracy out of existing nations, and killing unbelievers would contain?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Wash our hands of it. This is not our problem. Let the Islamic world deal with their own problems and their own extremists from now on. But crack down HARD on Islamic extremism in western nations - stem the flow of foreign fighters, intercept arms and funding. Share intel on Western citizens who slip through the net with the governments of Syria, Iraq etc to help them identify and catch them.

I hate to point this out, but that requires cooperative middle eastern governments.

Also, your approach was tried, and was most of the US' pre-9/11 strategy regarding terrorism. How'd that work out for ya?

How'd Iraq, Afhganistan and Libya work out for ya?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Let's try something new, let's sit down with ISIS and talk to them.

If they were mostly political terrorists, like the IRA, or FARC, you'd have a point.

ISIS is not either of these. They're, at their core, ideological. To beat this type of extremist, you have to find a way to break their will, or you have to more ruthless than they are. And in this case, that's pretty ruthless.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

How'd Iraq, Afhganistan and Libya work out for ya?

I dunno, you'd have to ask them. As far as I can see, militarily they were successful, but they forgot to plan for what happens after. Which can screw things up almost as much as trusting England not to stab it's allies in the back when negotiating the peace.

As get's pointed out, the little flag is incorrect.

If they were mostly political terrorists, like the IRA, or FARC, you'd have a point.

ISIS is not either of these. They're, at their core, ideological. To beat this type of extremist, you have to find a way to break their will, or you have to more ruthless than they are. And in this case, that's pretty ruthless.

Im inclined to agree here.

Devils advocate: Are there any elements within ISIS that could/would sit down and negotiate whatever Calipahte they see as reasonable?

Not a loaded question. Open.

 Ratius wrote:

Devils advocate: Are there any elements within ISIS that could/would sit down and negotiate whatever Calipahte they see as reasonable?

Not a loaded question. Open.

Not that *I'VE* heard of, but I'm not an expert on ISIS inner workings. Most of the more moderate Syrians joined other groups. What went to ISIS was, for lack for a better term, the hardest of the hard core. I suppose the men they're recruiting at gunpoint would be happy to listen, but first you have to get them out from under somehow.

The only way I see things stabilizing is to replace Assad with a vicious sociopath of the West's choosing, basically creating Saddam Hussein 2: The Sequel. Religious and Sectarian lines have become too deeply entrenched after years of 'hands off' policy by the west to stay a single nation. Partitioning Syria would actually end up worse, devolving into a group of bushfire wars.

Sorry. Delete please.

Yes, that's it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:



ISIS would just take the negotiators hostage, behead them and post tastefully edited clips online.

Not if the "ambassador's" security detail was comprised entirely of Delta Force, SEAL Team 6 members and other Green Beret or SAS teams

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Why are you named Jihadin anyway?Sounds very...islamic terroristey.

Considering Jihadin is one of the members of this forum that has personally put hadjis in the dirt in the sandbox, I would retract that statement if I were you.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Why are you named Jihadin anyway?Sounds very...islamic terroristey.

Considering Jihadin is one of the members of this forum that has personally put hadjis in the dirt in the sandbox, I would retract that statement if I were you.

I know Im just curious as to WHY he is called that. Im not saying he's a terrorist. Just seeems odd.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:



ISIS would just take the negotiators hostage, behead them and post tastefully edited clips online.

Not if the "ambassador's" security detail was comprised entirely of Delta Force, SEAL Team 6 members and other Green Beret or SAS teams

You forgot JTF-2.
I know it's hard to miss them, out there fighting in the desert all decked in their sweet forest greens because we can't afford to give them proper desert gear before deploying them...

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-31156153#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa


I love this.

How DARE that Kenyan Muslim liberal commie stooge point out that people have done bad things in the name of Christ, too, and that extremism is a threat that all faiths must deal with at some point.

He should recognize the difference between Righteous Genocide and the glory of slavery in the name of the Prince of Peace and that terrible inhuman crime of genocide and the horror that is slavery to that false prophet Mohammed!


If anyone wants to know exactly why I find the fact that your forum software labels me 'American' when I'm not, here's a good example.

Would have ben nice if he noted the time line too. The Crusades were quite a while back (and in response to Muslim expansion). He could also have noted how Christianity was in large part responsible for the abolitionist that brought an end to slavery.

Of course, that would not have fit the narrative.

And of course, one groups bad actions/atrocities, especially a couple hundred years or further back do NOT work as good excuses for another groups current atrocities. But hat again seems to be contrary to the narrative.

I like the part where he excused the atrocities.

Could you post the transcript showing that? Or just the quote where he excused what ISIS is doing.

People use religion as an excuse to do evil things for there own benefit. It happens time and time again. It is not the religions fault, and we should not blame those who practice religion for it. If Islam did not exist, these sort of people would still exist. They would use different things, economics (such as communism), or racism (like nazism).

This is not Islam's fault, and the crusades were not Christanity's fault.

Well the Crusades themselves were in response to aggressive Islamic expansion.

And while there were certainly brutal acts committed during the crusades, they were not particularly brutal for the time period when you consider everything as a whole. Both sides during the crusades did terrible things, and christians did terrible things to each other in europe. It really had nothing to do with religion.

The same can't be said for Jihadists.

Are you just ignoring everything I say, or do you really just not understand? People are using religion, but religion is not the cause.

Religion overall, no. But the Koran does encourage the use of violence to spread itself. People of course still choose to act upon that.

And it would be nice if people actually realized that, instead of blaming all muslims.

DLETED OOPS wrong thread lol

Ehhh whut?

wrong thread lol.

Thought this was the multiplayer gaming fails thread. A 12 hour shift and 24 hours without sleep will do that to you. Too many tabs open.