• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is someone using ISIL to destroy Islam?

Is someone using ISIL to destroy Islam?

  • Total voters
    14
Hamster Buddha said:
You know, I almost wish what you said was true. That would mean that Obama and the US Government wasn't the complete incompetent asshats they've been for six years....
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is true. The group is Alquaeda given a new name because of the meme that was created by military officers who were going to refuse to act as Alquaeda Air Force in Syria.

The issue is, what you view as obama incompetence is just the cover for what is a deliberate intention.
 
Fledermaus said:
So, do you believe it to destroy the Islam in the middle east or somehow destroy the religion itself worldwide?

Most of the adherents to Islam are not in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

It's to create a clash of civilizations, ultimately to create the next world war as being a war of Islam vs Catholicism vs Judaism in a way that will discredit them all.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What the ****?
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, they are that brazen in the big lie...
Remember,
we_didn_t_join_to_fight_for_alqaeda_3.jpg

??

Well, once the military realized that they were going to be fighting Assad on behalf of alquada, then 2 things happened.

1- George Soros funded the rebels in Ukraine. This served 2 purposes:
A) distract away from Syria
B) pulled Russian troops closer to home where they would need to protect their direct national interests and would not be able to help Assad as they promised to do.

2- ISIS / ISIL appeared out of nowhere, and took back a decade of "progress" in Iraq. Obama COULD have ended that threat with just a couple air strikes on the "highway of death".

now, some months later, "isis" was exactly where alq was a few months earlier and now there are air strikes to "help" Assad.

It's called "the big lie", as in make up a lie big enough and people will believe it.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, I know, they are that brazen in the big lie...
Remember,
we_didn_t_join_to_fight_for_alqaeda_3.jpg

??

Well, once the military realized that they were going to be fighting Assad on behalf of alquada, then 2 things happened.

1- George Soros funded the rebels in Ukraine. This served 2 purposes:
A) distract away from Syria
B) pulled Russian troops closer to home where they would need to protect their direct national interests and would not be able to help Assad as they promised to do.

2- ISIS / ISIL appeared out of nowhere, and took back a decade of "progress" in Iraq. Obama COULD have ended that threat with just a couple air strikes on the "highway of death".

now, some months later, "isis" was exactly where alq was a few months earlier and now there are air strikes to "help" Assad.

It's called "the big lie", as in make up a lie big enough and people will believe it.
Click to expand...

No, it is called a few factoids thrown together in seach of an intelligent theory.
 
Fledermaus said:
So, do you believe it to destroy the Islam in the middle east or somehow destroy the religion itself worldwide?

Most of the adherents to Islam are not in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

It is certainly doing significant damage to the reputation of Islam.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, I know, they are that brazen in the big lie...
Remember,
we_didn_t_join_to_fight_for_alqaeda_3.jpg

??

Well, once the military realized that they were going to be fighting Assad on behalf of alquada, then 2 things happened.

1- George Soros funded the rebels in Ukraine. This served 2 purposes:
A) distract away from Syria
B) pulled Russian troops closer to home where they would need to protect their direct national interests and would not be able to help Assad as they promised to do.

2- ISIS / ISIL appeared out of nowhere, and took back a decade of "progress" in Iraq. Obama COULD have ended that threat with just a couple air strikes on the "highway of death".

now, some months later, "isis" was exactly where alq was a few months earlier and now there are air strikes to "help" Assad.

It's called "the big lie", as in make up a lie big enough and people will believe it.
Click to expand...

Good job swallowing the Syrian regime's propaganda that all who oppose Assad are al-Qaeda.

Also, ISIS did not "appear out of nowhere." It was originally a Jordanian group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that went into Iraq as soon as Saddam was deposed, calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, the Coalition managed to effectively destroy it in Iraq (it then changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq) by 2008 or so. Syria's civil war gave ISI a new opportunity to gain recruits, and it fought there alongside Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria). It became ISIS when Baghdadi declared that al-Nusra was part of ISI against Zawarhiri's wishes, so ISIS is now an entirely separate and distinct organization from al-Qaeda.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Good job swallowing the Syrian regime's propaganda that all who oppose Assad are al-Qaeda.

Also, ISIS did not "appear out of nowhere." It was originally a Jordanian group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that went into Iraq as soon as Saddam was deposed, calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, the Coalition managed to effectively destroy it in Iraq (it then changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq) by 2008 or so. Syria's civil war gave ISI a new opportunity to gain recruits, and it fought there alongside Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria). It became ISIS when Baghdadi declared that al-Nusra was part of ISI against Zawarhiri's wishes, so ISIS is now an entirely separate and distinct organization from al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

It gets a lot more fuzzy then that... I was just giving a generic and simplified history. But overall, you strengthen my point here more than you are disputing it.

They are different groups in about the same way that the navy is completely separate from the Rangers. (Probably not the best analogy, since they ultimately function under the same chain of command, but to say that they are separate but working to the same (or indistinguishably similar) goals).
 
BmanMcfly said:
It gets a lot more fuzzy then that... I was just giving a generic and simplified history. But overall, you strengthen my point here more than you are disputing it.

They are different groups in about the same way that the navy is completely separate from the Rangers. (Probably not the best analogy, since they ultimately function under the same chain of command, but to say that they are separate but working to the same (or indistinguishably similar) goals).
Click to expand...

So, your evidence ISIS WAS CREATED BY THE US?
 
BmanMcfly said:
It gets a lot more fuzzy then that... I was just giving a generic and simplified history. But overall, you strengthen my point here more than you are disputing it.

They are different groups in about the same way that the navy is completely separate from the Rangers. (Probably not the best analogy, since they ultimately function under the same chain of command, but to say that they are separate but working to the same (or indistinguishably similar) goals).
Click to expand...

Is your point that the US allowed ISIS to rise as another excuse to support the non-ISIS Syrian rebels that you erroneously refer to as al-Qaeda? That kinda makes sense, but other than that there's no reason for evil conspirators to create an entirely separate group that's hostile to the original al-Qaeda and in fact has openly fought it.

Although al-Qaeda does have its presence in the revolution, it is not the sole opposition force. Moderate rebel groups such as the SRF and Hazzm movement have clashed with both al-Nusra and ISIS. The anti-ISIS coalition has also bombed al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham, which have had al-Qaeda terrorist operatives in them. I personally believe the US should support the rebels, against the regime as well as against ISIS, but I'd dispute your claim even if I didn't - the entire rebellion is not al-Qaeda and ISIS, and it is painfully obvious Assad propaganda to claim that they are.
 
MadLib said:
Is your point that the US allowed ISIS to rise as another excuse to support the non-ISIS Syrian rebels that you erroneously refer to as al-Qaeda? That kinda makes sense, but other than that there's no reason for evil conspirators to create an entirely separate group that's hostile to the original al-Qaeda and in fact has openly fought it.
Click to expand...

I'll just agree with you here, because to make the distinctions won't change enough for the effort involved. Mainly in that the groups are more interrelated than you are suggesting..

The purpose for creating / funding / radicalizing thee groups in the Middle East is all about destabilizing the region overthrowing the current leaders, who, while are not good people, are actually attempting to buildup their countries into more prosperous situations. Then replacing those leaders with groups that are more in lined with the wests agenda, which is to have more wars, more weapons sold, etc...

Although al-Qaeda does have its presence in the revolution, it is not the sole opposition force. Moderate rebel groups such as the SRF and Hazzm movement have clashed with both al-Nusra and ISIS. The anti-ISIS coalition has also bombed al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham, which have had al-Qaeda terrorist operatives in them. I personally believe the US should support the rebels, against the regime as well as against ISIS, but I'd dispute your claim even if I didn't - the entire rebellion is not al-Qaeda and ISIS, and it is painfully obvious Assad propaganda to claim that they are.
Click to expand...

true, the opposition is more varied than just the two groups (most accurate would be to say 1 1/2 groups)... Except that we are supporting the moderates is propaganda. Just like it was propaganda that the U.S. Troops were protecting the heroin fields in an attempt to get the farmers to choose different crops. When the reality was the 50billion dollar per year heroin trade getting siphoned into black budgets.

It's clear that, as far as Syria goes, the waters are so muddy that there are no "good guys" to support morally. We should not be involved there in any sense... Especially to support groups that are only as powerful as they are because of us actions (or inactions where actions could be taken).
 
Fledermaus said:
The sunni-shiia divide has been ruining the reputation of Islam for a long time now.

Suicide bombings, slaughter, blowing up each other's mosques and markets...
Click to expand...

That may be so, but what ISIL is doing is far greater.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It means instead of shooting at them, they would be shooting at their enemies.

Short answer. Treason.
Click to expand...

I still don't get it. ISIS And AQ are enemies so if we fight ISIS we are allied with AQ? Sorry, I am not playing I just have not heard this idea before...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I still don't get it. ISIS And AQ are enemies so if we fight ISIS we are allied with AQ? Sorry, I am not playing I just have not heard this idea before...
Click to expand...

They are enemies in the sense that ISIS is "too extreme" for alqueada, but they have very similar if not identical aims.

But no, we were going to go to war with Syria to support the Syrian Rebels (Alquaeda, and after that was exposed changed to ISIS). So, now we are Bombing in Syria to "help" Assad less than a year later after we were going for regime change. I don't have access to military attacks, but I would place money that like obama's "humanitarian bombs" in Libya, that most of our "helping bombs" in Syria are against Assad interests.

It's not that we are enemies with their enemies so now we are friends... It's that we are pretending to be enemies with both, while they are both friends.
 
BmanMcfly said:
They are enemies in the sense that ISIS is "too extreme" for alqueada, but they have very similar if not identical aims.

But no, we were going to go to war with Syria to support the Syrian Rebels (Alquaeda, and after that was exposed changed to ISIS). So, now we are Bombing in Syria to "help" Assad less than a year later after we were going for regime change. I don't have access to military attacks, but I would place money that like obama's "humanitarian bombs" in Libya, that most of our "helping bombs" in Syria are against Assad interests.

It's not that we are enemies with their enemies so now we are friends... It's that we are pretending to be enemies with both, while they are both friends.
Click to expand...

So, your evidence ISIS WAS CREATED BY THE US?
 
BmanMcfly said:
They are enemies in the sense that ISIS is "too extreme" for alqueada, but they have very similar if not identical aims.

But no, we were going to go to war with Syria to support the Syrian Rebels (Alquaeda, and after that was exposed changed to ISIS). So, now we are Bombing in Syria to "help" Assad less than a year later after we were going for regime change. I don't have access to military attacks, but I would place money that like obama's "humanitarian bombs" in Libya, that most of our "helping bombs" in Syria are against Assad interests.

It's not that we are enemies with their enemies so now we are friends... It's that we are pretending to be enemies with both, while they are both friends.
Click to expand...

In the end I would say that as long as the Government is not acting criminally, but in the best interest of the USA, those in the military signed up and should shut up.
 
Bodhisattva said:
In the end I would say that as long as the Government is not acting criminally, but in the best interest of the USA, those in the military signed up and should shut up.
Click to expand...

Ok, not acting criminally... When was the last time there was a formal declaration of war?

Regardless... I generally agree with you, if you going to sign up for military you have to follow orders... That said, signing up does not mean engaging in treason (in the sense of giving aid and support to enemies).

The thing is, you better know you are right to refuse an order since the penalty for disobeying orders is harsher than the penalty for committing war crimes.

What does that say that there were military (in significant enough numbers to instigate a change of tactics) that were willing to go through that harsher punishment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom