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.

Rule 1 edit, motyak

Rule 1 edit, motyak

Rule 1 edit, motyak

Aaaaaaaaaaand the cycle of revenge begins...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2950684/Revenge-Yazidis-Religious-group-targeted-ISIS-slaughtering-Arabs-say-helped-Islamist-group-persecute-them.html

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaand the cycle of revenge begins...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2950684/Revenge-Yazidis-Religious-group-targeted-ISIS-slaughtering-Arabs-say-helped-Islamist-group-persecute-them.html

Tribal society... Nothing new there.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Klan is dead.

If they are it's only because they finally touched off one of these bombings they keep getting caught trying to carry out in Texas. Maybe they'll have better luck in Oklahoma or Kansas.

FBI estimates put the KKK at 4-5 thousand active members for 2014 and as many again supporters.

sirlynchmob wrote:

I weep for humanity when calls to genocide are the rational response. If seeking peace is stark raving mad, at least it's the moral choice.

It might seem strange to say, but I know of one man who I am in agreement with, though the names may have changed down through the centuries. For what he said then is as true then as it is now, for the enemies of all free men do not sleep. They are not some distant dream, not some shadow, like a tyrannosaur, of days long gone. And whether they strike with the force of one man's rage and cunning, or the force of a thousand legions, they must be opposed.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry.

Next person to call another person a troll or otherwise breach rule 1 risks a holiday. If you disagree with another user then either take it (politely) to PMs, flag the post or, better yet, disagree like an adult and discuss it maturely in thread, as long as it remains on topic. But if people decide to follow this rule 1 breaking then action will be taken

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Aaaaaaaaaaand the cycle of revenge begins...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2950684/Revenge-Yazidis-Religious-group-targeted-ISIS-slaughtering-Arabs-say-helped-Islamist-group-persecute-them.html

Before they started getting killed off wholesale, nobody in the US had ever heard of Yazidis. We likely won't hear any more about them unless they start killing Sunnis wholesale.

It's sad but it's pretty much the international pastime in that part of the world.

Peace.... I hate the word, as I hate hell......and all ISIL.

I am waiting and dreaming of a SWORDFISH anti terrorist organization to fight them... Fire with fire.

You are some rich oil tycoon Saudi sending millions to ISIL, SWORDFISH will find you and murder you. We need vigilenty organization to kill terrorist and their backers.

 Da Boss wrote:
There are plenty of examples of crappy actions by christian groups. I mean, I think turning it into a pissing contest between the two religions is really dumb, but trying to say that any bad christians aren't real christians is exactly what annoys people when they say all muslims must answer for the bad ones.

The difference is that bad things are being done by muslims using a religious angle right now. People use historic examples in regards christians to try and say that muslims aren't a problem right now.
There is also a huge difference between a religion started by a man based on love, charity and forgiveness, where the founder healed the sick and fed the hungry, and a religion founded by a warlord who conquered those around him and imposed his religion on them, who believed in the taking of slaves and the raping of your enemies wives and daughters.

The average muslim today is fairly secular, people like those in ISIS though are not fake muslims, they're the real deal, they represent what islam was at its creation. They regard the regular muslims as apostates, as fake muslims, as they live a more secular life. ISIS is islam in its purest form. Christians in their purest form are the people you see collecting for the poor, the handicapped. Very different religions when you go back to their origins.

No? ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call them, are not "real deal" Muslims, any more than the Branch Davidians or the Westboro Baptist Church are "real deal" Christians.

More accurately, IS is a political movement wearing the trappings of a religious movement. They have no real interest in spreading the Islamic faith, since most of the people they're killing are Muslim people.

Christians in their purest form are the people you see collecting for the poor, the handicapped.

That would be an "ideal" form, which the Catholic Church, for example, has always done... even when also calling for Crusades and sending the Inquisition to burn blasphemers at the stake. But if you want to go to actual original Christianity, you wouldn't recognize it. In the first few centuries AD, it was a chain of Gnostic Cults.

It may be hard to quantify but I know that if given a choice between:

1. Being of Muslim heritage and living in Jeruselem during the 1st Crusade, and the Christian take over of the city

2. Being of Christian heritage and living in modern day Saudi Arabia

3. Being of Christian heritage and living in Raqqa, Syria during ISIS' take over of the city


I really wouldn't want 3.

At least with 1, it would have been a quick death at worst, or surrendering and leaving the city at best.

And from first hand experience, I know 2 is not preferable but extremely survivable.

The more the West looks at ISIS as a "religious threat", rather than a "political threat", the more legitimacy it gives them. Most of the Middle East does not agree with ISIS' socio-political goals... but there's an awful lot of hatred for the West (and a healthy amount of it fairly justified) in the Middle East, too. The era of Colonialism didn't end all that long ago in these countries, after all, and its legacy has left wounds that have yet to heal.

But, back to the point, the more the West paints an "Us vs Them" picture based on the religious angle, rather than the political angle, the more it shapes up as a "Neo-Crusade", and the more legitimacy it gives to IS. This means more money, more guns, more people, and more people willing to use them.

However, one need only look to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples of the region who are continuing to wage armed actions against IS to see that, on a local level, there is no widespread support for them.

Computron wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
There are plenty of examples of crappy actions by christian groups. I mean, I think turning it into a pissing contest between the two religions is really dumb, but trying to say that any bad christians aren't real christians is exactly what annoys people when they say all muslims must answer for the bad ones.

The difference is that bad things are being done by muslims using a religious angle right now. People use historic examples in regards christians to try and say that muslims aren't a problem right now.
There is also a huge difference between a religion started by a man based on love, charity and forgiveness, where the founder healed the sick and fed the hungry, and a religion founded by a warlord who conquered those around him and imposed his religion on them, who believed in the taking of slaves and the raping of your enemies wives and daughters.

The average muslim today is fairly secular, people like those in ISIS though are not fake muslims, they're the real deal, they represent what islam was at its creation. They regard the regular muslims as apostates, as fake muslims, as they live a more secular life. ISIS is islam in its purest form. Christians in their purest form are the people you see collecting for the poor, the handicapped. Very different religions when you go back to their origins.

No, this is no bad guys who use islam to do bad things. This is hard for many of you to believe or understand..... This are normal people who do bad things because of the hard line true islam. Most Muslim are not hardcoreand they are modern people who do not stones people to death if they cheated on their husban.

Just like Christian in modern times do not kill people if they work on Sunday....butIf there were hard liner Christian extremist....they will not work on the sabbath and kill people on sabbath if they are working.
The sad thing about worshing God is that, Jews, Christian, and Muslim all worship the same God and they can't get along.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
The more the West looks at ISIS as a "religious threat", rather than a "political threat", the more legitimacy it gives them. Most of the Middle East does not agree with ISIS' socio-political goals... but there's an awful lot of hatred for the West (and a healthy amount of it fairly justified) in the Middle East, too. The era of Colonialism didn't end all that long ago in these countries, after all, and its legacy has left wounds that have yet to heal.

But, back to the point, the more the West paints an "Us vs Them" picture based on the religious angle, rather than the political angle, the more it shapes up as a "Neo-Crusade", and the more legitimacy it gives to IS. This means more money, more guns, more people, and more people willing to use them.

However, one need only look to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples of the region who are continuing to wage armed actions against IS to see that, on a local level, there is no widespread support for them.

But they are a religious army. You think it is a political group, you are only half right. They are both with more on the religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
No? ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call them, are not "real deal" Muslims, any more than the Branch Davidians or the Westboro Baptist Church are "real deal" Christians.

More accurately, IS is a political movement wearing the trappings of a religious movement. They have no real interest in spreading the Islamic faith, since most of the people they're killing are Muslim people.

Christians in their purest form are the people you see collecting for the poor, the handicapped.

That would be an "ideal" form, which the Catholic Church, for example, has always done... even when also calling for Crusades and sending the Inquisition to burn blasphemers at the stake. But if you want to go to actual original Christianity, you wouldn't recognize it. In the first few centuries AD, it was a chain of Gnostic Cults.

You are wrong about this. ISIL are the real true Muslim. They take the Koran and old testament and take the literal interpretation of Islam.
It is what it is.

Your WBchurch is a good example. If WBC ever gain enough power and went militant.... they would be the same as ISIL. If they were willing to kill others who do not worship or obey God like their version. WBC are also following the Bible in the literal interpretation. When you follow any religions text from 2,000 years ago... it can be very very dangerous.

ISIL object is not a political ones, if you go by their mission statement. They are trying to conquer middle east as the first True Islam Nation with ZERO tolerance for the Infidel, which means all none Muslim will be put to the sword as a start. All Muslims who do not practice their hard line version will be put to the sword. The ultimate end game is One World under their version of Islam with their chosen Caliphate as the head of this Islam New World Order.

They are killing Muslim now because those Muslim are resisting their order. The dead Muslim do not consider Abu B. as the true Caliphate.

You see, this is not one of those over hype that Republican or conservative are BSing. I am consider a Libertarian toward liberal and I know this ISIL mother Fer are the real deal. They will come over to my home and kill me if they get the chance. They are looking and searching for ways to drop suit case nuke at New York city. ISIL do not give a gak if there are 1000s of Muslim in the city or even if some muslim there support them... the end is justified.

They're not looking to nuke NYC, unless they are supremely stupid. A nuclear attack on the US would mean the complete, total and utter end of the organization that staged it... as well as the country in which that organization was based.

Think the recent shindig in Iraq was overkill? We've not glassed a country yet. Attacking the US with a nuclear device would get a country glassed.

What IS wants to do is draw the US into another conventional war. The reason a group like IS gains the traction it does is because, over the last decade, we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians in fighting other terrorist organizations. This, understandably, pisses a lot of people off... and we've left those countries in utter ruin, with ineffectual leadership, shattered economies and, as it turns out, no actual cause to have attacked one of them in the first damned place.

If the US and its allies are drawn into yet another ground-war in the Middle East, this is nothing but fodder for the IS propaganda machine (which is one thing they're very good at). It's always, always, always positioned as some sort of neo-Crusade, with the West turning to destroy Islam (rather than the extremist groups that use faith as a shield and a cloak). For people left with no money, no food, and no real hope of ever improving their situation, that's a very powerful call to arms.

It, of course, only aids their cause when Americans take to social media to shape the discussion into an Us vs Them, Christians vs Muslims paradigm. You think they don't have Facebook? Twitter? Hell, even the Kurdish groups fighting IS have Facebook pages.

Islam IS political. Thats kinda the whole point of Islam. Its a political religious ideology, the core tenets of which involve its own expansion to all four corners of the world. Its been this way since the very beginning when Mohammad invented the religion to give his campaigns of military conquest an air of religious legitimacy.

I'm from Kentucky but I've lived overseas for a length of time and given that experience, I thought I'd post some points to clarify some things and perhaps better facilitate the discussion:


1. Islam prioritizes the institution of itself over an individual

Meaning Islam, as an institution is more important than an individual Muslim. The individual Muslim is supposed to sacrifice all in defense of Islam.

Christianity was this way too at one point but has since moved away from that concept.

But this is why Muslims take 'more' offense at Quran stomping, or portrayal of their Prophet (compared to say Christians and Bible burning, who may take offense but won't necessarily die to prevent it). For Muslims, it means a higher propensity to be martyrs.


2. Islam is supposed to govern all aspects of life from social, to judicial, to statehood, to warfare

Unlike 'separation of church and state' that we have in the US and elsewhere, Islam is not just a religion but rather an all encompassing tenet for life. Islam has principles and 'instructions for everything' from a woman's role, to how to govern, to how to treat one's enemies.

So if you go to a place like Saudi Arabia, Islam isn't the religion. Islam is everything. That said, there are some exceptions like Turkey or Malaysia that do try to maintain some separation of religion vs state, with varying degrees of success.

So it is absolutely true to say that Islam is political.


3. Islam is based not just on the Quran but also the Hadith, which means the interpretation of the Prophet's words

While Islam, Christianity and Judaism have common roots, Muslims also give equal weight to latter interpretations and translations of their Prophet's intents and word.

The problem is, these interpretations and translations could have been made by a whole bunch of different people, including self-proclaimed authorities on the subject. There is supposed to be a vetting process but it doesn't stop self-proclaimed individuals from spreading their personal interpretation of the belief and for some Muslims to think it legitimate.

Because of this, you can have a character like al-Baghdadi 'laying down the law' by picking and choosing, as well as interpreting select text of the Quran, per his twisted interpretation.


Now, (1), (2), (3) above, doesn't make Islam intrinsically an 'evil' religion so to speak. But in combination, it is an exceptionally great 'channel' for certain individuals to abuse for 'world domination' intents.

Instead of thinking about application of Islam in absolute 'good or bad' terms, we need to think about it as a scale. But, in my humble opinion, that doesn't change my opinion that ISIS is way far into the 'perverse' end of that scale.

Hope that helps. Feel free to correct me if you think differently.

 Psienesis wrote:
They're not looking to nuke NYC, unless they are supremely stupid. A nuclear attack on the US would mean the complete, total and utter end of the organization that staged it... as well as the country in which that organization was based.

Think the recent shindig in Iraq was overkill? We've not glassed a country yet. Attacking the US with a nuclear device would get a country glassed.

What IS wants to do is draw the US into another conventional war. The reason a group like IS gains the traction it does is because, over the last decade, we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians in fighting other terrorist organizations. This, understandably, pisses a lot of people off... and we've left those countries in utter ruin, with ineffectual leadership, shattered economies and, as it turns out, no actual cause to have attacked one of them in the first damned place.

If the US and its allies are drawn into yet another ground-war in the Middle East, this is nothing but fodder for the IS propaganda machine (which is one thing they're very good at). It's always, always, always positioned as some sort of neo-Crusade, with the West turning to destroy Islam (rather than the extremist groups that use faith as a shield and a cloak). For people left with no money, no food, and no real hope of ever improving their situation, that's a very powerful call to arms.

It, of course, only aids their cause when Americans take to social media to shape the discussion into an Us vs Them, Christians vs Muslims paradigm. You think they don't have Facebook? Twitter? Hell, even the Kurdish groups fighting IS have Facebook pages.

I hope you are right about not nuking NY, however.... one thing about AQ and ISIL is that they are very very smart and always one step ahead of us.

1 - if nuke NY. How would we know it was ISIL? It could be North Korea, ISIL, Iran, some Christian Extreamist, or Truther 911 , etc.... However, with a Nuke NY... USA will changed forever. Our economy will sink to the lowest because so much funds will have to be created for other further attacks prevention, like some kind of nuke suitcase detection. Travel among state line need to be more tight. Just more gridlock and slow down our progress.

2 - If we have proof that it was ISIL. How are we going to Nuke them back? They have no nation of their own. The territory in their position are from other nations. What if ISIL took part of Turkey or Israel? Are we nuking our allies?

3 - we bombed them back to stone age...lol. That is what we been doing... again, they have no nation. They are hiding among the territory of other nations that has been taken over.

Boots on the ground is the only way to drive them out. With Nuke ... it is a guarantee that we have to come for them... house by house and room by room. This is what they want. They want us to come NOW, but we are bombing them. They want us to come... a nuke is that invitation.

If a nuke goes off, there are various indicators as to where the materiel was refined that will give away where the bomb originated. It is true that does not necessarily correspond to who sets it off, but a Nork bomb will have a different signature than one where the materials come from a Russian or Iranian reactor.

Nah. We lost thousands and didn't nuke anyone, even when we had them trapped on a mountain.

I hope Ayn al-Assad doesn't turn into one of those "there's no threat to US forces" now, and then "we did everything we could" later.

The base is surrounded?

Reports #Iraq-i town of al-Baghdadi fallen to #ISIS, but Pentagon says no attack on US troops at Asad Air base pic.twitter.com/LXsRTHQQ67

— Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) February 12, 2015

Reminds me of this:

Those Marines on that base, they're instructors. Granted, they are Marines, but it's unlikely they have the full combat equipment of 2 infantry companies. I think if ISIS tries to attack them, their could be some issues, but you could bet every aircraft we have in the AOR will be on scene.

 djones520 wrote:
Those Marines on that base, they're instructors. Granted, they are Marines, but it's unlikely they have the full combat equipment of 2 infantry companies. I think if ISIS tries to attack them, their could be some issues, but you could bet every aircraft we have in the AOR will be on scene.

I think that there may be a few more issues than that... From what I've seen online, apparently their comms have also been cut. So, not only are they surrounded, but they have no real communications with any friendlies.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
From what I've seen online, apparently their comms have also been cut. So, not only are they surrounded, but they have no real communications with any friendlies.

Being cut off from communication, surrounded, out numbered, and facing overwhelming odds just encourages US Marines, and is, in fact, when they are at their most dangerous.

If any of you care to look it up, you'll see that their history sort of bares this statement out.

'Send More Japs'.

 Psienesis wrote:
The more the West looks at ISIS as a "religious threat", rather than a "political threat", the more legitimacy it gives them. Most of the Middle East does not agree with ISIS' socio-political goals... but there's an awful lot of hatred for the West (and a healthy amount of it fairly justified) in the Middle East, too. The era of Colonialism didn't end all that long ago in these countries, after all, and its legacy has left wounds that have yet to heal.

But, back to the point, the more the West paints an "Us vs Them" picture based on the religious angle, rather than the political angle, the more it shapes up as a "Neo-Crusade", and the more legitimacy it gives to IS. This means more money, more guns, more people, and more people willing to use them.

However, one need only look to the Kurds and other indigenous peoples of the region who are continuing to wage armed actions against IS to see that, on a local level, there is no widespread support for them.

Hate to say it, but there has been hate between the west and ME long before colonialism was a thing. Islamic armies conquering much of modern day Europe started it (Thanks for stopping them Charles martel), and it has continued since then.

Hell even America as a young nation had to deal with Islamic based aggression (barbary wars).

To paint the ME as a victim of Western aggression as the reason for them being donkey-caves isn't really spot on.

 KiloFiX wrote:
It may be hard to quantify but I know that if given a choice between:


2. Being of Christian heritage and living in modern day Saudi Arabia

3. Being of Christian heritage and living in Raqqa, Syria during ISIS' take over of the city


And from first hand experience, I know 2 is not preferable but extremely survivable.

Not survivable if you started off muslim and converted, that carries the death penalty there.

The reason that Saudi Arabia can afford to be so "tolerant" is that only visitors are allowed to be non-muslim but they're still forbidden from carrying out religious observances, non-muslim religious items like the bible are banned.
ISIS is still in a transition phase where it doesn't have total control over its territory. Once it gained control you would see non-muslim traders and the like allowed in and they'd be treated like non-muslims are in Saudi Arabia.
I'm being critical of Saudi Arabia here, not supportive of ISIS, I'm also critical at the way the western world ignores what Saudi Arabia is really like in favour of the money got from there.

Extreme Islam is daily life in Saudi Arabia, they're more lenient towards westerners who tend to have technical skills than they are against hindu and christian workers from places like India and the Phillipines. The only difference I see between them and ISIS is that the really nasty stuff happened centuries ago, ISIS is still in the process of beating the locals into servile submission to extreme islam - the locals in Saudi Arabia grow up with it and accept it as normal, it will take a generation or two for the same to happen in the Islamic State that ISIS is trying to create.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, I've seen some mention of 300 marines trapped in Ramadi City but can't find a decent source for this, was this some beat up of a minor event or what?

Computron wrote:

By the way, I've seen some mention of 300 marines trapped in Ramadi City but can't find a decent source for this, was this some beat up of a minor event or what?

It seems more ominous than what was initially reported...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-bombers-iraq-ain-al-assad-airbase-us-marines-near-isis/

Bombers make it onto Iraq base used by U.S. troops

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.

Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it "nowhere near" the American forces on the base before they were killed.

A U.S. defense official, speaking to CBS News on background, said the militants were believed to have been members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who hold positions just a few miles northeast of the base, in the al-Baghdadi area.

The official said coalition forces were at least a mile and a half away from the attack, and at no point were they under direct threat from the militants. Ain al-Asad is one of the largest bases the U.S. military has used in Iraq -- roughly the size of the city of Boulder, Colorado, according to a Pentagon spokesman speaking to the Defensenews.com website last year.

According to reports, ISIS has been regularly shelling Ain al-Assad for the past couple days, but there have been no reports of damage from the shelling or the attempted bombing on Friday.

It remained unclear how the militants managed to get past the approximately 12-mile-circumference security fence around the base, which includes watch towers, barbed wire, and a bridged entrance over a river.

As of the end of last year, there were more than 300 U.S. military personnel at Ain al-Asad, their primary role being to train tribal fighters to take on ISIS. According to the BBC, who sent a correspondent to visit the base late in 2014, the Americans are situated in a "private corner" of the camp.

The BBC quoted a fighter from the Al Bu Nimr tribe, hundreds of whom were massacred by ISIS in October, as saying: "We know that Ain al-Asad will never fall while the Americans are here. They won't let it happen."

 Psienesis wrote:
They're not looking to nuke NYC, unless they are supremely stupid. A nuclear attack on the US would mean the complete, total and utter end of the organization that staged it... as well as the country in which that organization was based.

Think the recent shindig in Iraq was overkill? We've not glassed a country yet. Attacking the US with a nuclear device would get a country glassed.

What IS wants to do is draw the US into another conventional war. The reason a group like IS gains the traction it does is because, over the last decade, we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians in fighting other terrorist organizations. This, understandably, pisses a lot of people off... and we've left those countries in utter ruin, with ineffectual leadership, shattered economies and, as it turns out, no actual cause to have attacked one of them in the first damned place.

If the US and its allies are drawn into yet another ground-war in the Middle East, this is nothing but fodder for the IS propaganda machine (which is one thing they're very good at). It's always, always, always positioned as some sort of neo-Crusade, with the West turning to destroy Islam (rather than the extremist groups that use faith as a shield and a cloak). For people left with no money, no food, and no real hope of ever improving their situation, that's a very powerful call to arms.

It, of course, only aids their cause when Americans take to social media to shape the discussion into an Us vs Them, Christians vs Muslims paradigm. You think they don't have Facebook? Twitter? Hell, even the Kurdish groups fighting IS have Facebook pages.

Once again, some misinformation.

1. Hundreds of thousands is a vast overstatement. The majority of civlian deaths in Iraq and Afganistan have been due to secular strife, and groups like AQI and the Taliban using terror based tactics on the non-combatants to force them into doing things that they want I.E. Don't cooperate with the west, or don't support the new Iraqi Government. Squabbling between sunni and shia in Iraq for example was responcible for far more deaths then actual direct military contact with Western forces. Also, a good portion of the fighters we killed in Iraq were actually foreigners to the region, they were actually shipped in by groups like AQI.

2. You said, "and we've left those countries in utter ruin, with ineffectual leadership, shattered economies". Thats not really true either. While the infastructure in Iraq wasn't perfect when we left, more people had power when we left then when Saddam had power, we helped rebuild many critical utilites inclusing water and sewage, power generation, schools, and hospitals. As far as ineffective leadership goes, we left Iraq with a functioning parlimentary style democracy, however I will concede the point that Al-Malaiki is a fool. Iraq's economy was on the rebound when we left, oil sales were up, new contracts were being formed with foreign investors, and there was a budget surplus.

Not to say things haven't gone to gak, but I think that has more to do with Al-malaki being a douche, and secular infighting.

Not to say things haven't gone to gak, but I think that has more to do with Al-malaki being a douche, and secular infighting

Who would not be there if it were not for our involvement. We should never have invaded the country in the first damned place. That was the catalyst for the gak-storm that Iraq became. Everything descends from that action. Whether it's our bombs killing civilians (and, make no mistake, we killed a fethload of them) or the foreign fighters who came to fight us, or the various extremist groups that Saddam had managed to keep stamped down (he was good at that), our invasion of Iraq and dismantling of the Hussein regime is the direct cause of all of that. The US is directly responsible for the conditions in the nation of Iraq today.