• 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!

'We will cut off your head in the White House': ISIS threatens to behead Obama...

Because they want the west to be hostile toward Muslims who leave so they return to the borg collective. It is all psychological warfare and they are winning.


Does Russia look like its from the West? Note how they said they would dethrone Putin too.




Islamic State militants have issued a threat to President Vladimir Putin, vowing to oust him and "liberate" the volatile North Caucasus over his support of the Syrian regime. "This is a message to you, oh Vladimir Putin, these are the jets that you have sent to Bashar, we will send them to you, God willing, remember that," said one fighter in Arabic, according to Russian-language captions provided in the video.

"And we will liberate Chechnya and the entire Caucasus, God willing," said the militant. "The Islamic State is and will be and it is expanding God willing." "Your throne has already teetered, it is under threat and will fall when we come to you because Allah is truly on our side," said the fighter. "We are already on our way God willing." In the same video, several fighters, some dressed in traditional Muslim robes, threaten Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad from atop the fighter jet. This is Russian equipment," says a voice, speaking in accented Russian, as the camera cuts to a close-up of the plane's cabin.....snip~

Yahoo!
 
To an extent, but its still low intensity and asymmetrical. They will still hide behind civilians and use the same tactics they have elsewhere up to this point. They aren't bound by borders either.

Hiding behind civilians only endangers those civilians. Harsh of me to say, but at this point, if those civilians don't want to be targets due to terrorists using them as shields, they should DO SOMETHING about those terrorists...being as they are their neighbors, family members, etc.
 
They only have 1 goal--to drive the US out of the middle east and the protection of Israel. Doesn't matter to them how many years it takes or how many heads get lopped off. It is that the US has a position that is the issue, not what the position is.

That is not their only goal. For the most fanatical among them, their goal is to force the entire planet to adopt their particular brand of Islam and wipe secularism and all other religions off the map.
 
Hiding behind civilians only endangers those civilians. Harsh of me to say, but at this point, if those civilians don't want to be targets due to terrorists using them as shields, they should DO SOMETHING about those terrorists...being as they are their neighbors, family members, etc.

Excellent point. Someone posted a while back that 20% of Muslims are radicalized. I have no idea if that's a valid statistic, but assuming for the moment that it's true, if 80% of Muslims are non-radicalized, what the hell is wrong with those 80% that they allow the minority to make their religion look bad?
 
Excellent point. Someone posted a while back that 20% of Muslims are radicalized. I have no idea if that's a valid statistic, but assuming for the moment that it's true, if 80% of Muslims are non-radicalized, what the hell is wrong with those 80% that they allow the minority to make their religion look bad?

The number I have seen is usually closer to 10-15%, but even within that number, most are not particularly anti-US except to the extent that we defend Israel. However, you have a problem you cannot control---moderate Muslims like the idea of a caliphate. It is not what people seem to think it is. The first caliphate was like the period of enlightenment for Muslims--peace, prosperity, invention, etc.--the Good Old Days if you will. Jihadists would fall quickly by the wayside as the first rule of revolution is to kill the revolutionaries.
 
The number I have seen is usually closer to 10-15%, but even within that number, most are not particularly anti-US except to the extent that we defend Israel. However, you have a problem you cannot control---moderate Muslims like the idea of a caliphate. It is not what people seem to think it is. The first caliphate was like the period of enlightenment for Muslims--peace, prosperity, invention, etc.--the Good Old Days if you will. Jihadists would fall quickly by the wayside as the first rule of revolution is to kill the revolutionaries.

Let me get this straight-you think that an established "caliphate" would be like a muslim golden age, and that they would kill off the radicals once this was achieved? Is that what you are saying?
 
The number I have seen is usually closer to 10-15%, but even within that number, most are not particularly anti-US except to the extent that we defend Israel. However, you have a problem you cannot control---moderate Muslims like the idea of a caliphate. It is not what people seem to think it is. The first caliphate was like the period of enlightenment for Muslims--peace, prosperity, invention, etc.--the Good Old Days if you will. Jihadists would fall quickly by the wayside as the first rule of revolution is to kill the revolutionaries.

Yet they seem disinterested in killing the revolutionaries, even when the revolutionaries are at their gates, shooting at them, chopping their heads off and raping their women. Most revolutionaries don't get killed by the people, that's the problem. The people just learn how to live under the revolutionaries and eventually, be it Stockholm Syndrome or something else, sympathize with their cause.
 
Ah so you as an American "progressive" know what ISIS REALLY wants. Even despite what they say?

Yes. Or more importantly, I pay attention to what those who yammer for a living analyzing based on research and intelligence and other such nonsense say about ISIL. In fact, if you believed what you say, you would call it ISIL instead of ISIS.
 
Obama at times has very much supported islamic terrorists. And they have hated him the entire time. So your inference is off.

Actually, I think your misplaced hatred for Obama and the Democrats is what is off.
 
Yet they seem disinterested in killing the revolutionaries, even when the revolutionaries are at their gates, shooting at them, chopping their heads off and raping their women. Most revolutionaries don't get killed by the people, that's the problem. The people just learn how to live under the revolutionaries and eventually, be it Stockholm Syndrome or something else, sympathize with their cause.

It is about 6 months. If an area is liberated within 6 months of falling to extremists, people hold out in place. After about 6 months, they very rapidly abandon hope and do what they have to do to survive. And of course they do not rise up--they are waiting for the US to do it for them. Seems to be working for them as well.
 
It is about 6 months. If an area is liberated within 6 months of falling to extremists, people hold out in place. After about 6 months, they very rapidly abandon hope and do what they have to do to survive. And of course they do not rise up--they are waiting for the US to do it for them. Seems to be working for them as well.

That's the problem, they aren't willing to take the risk and do it themselves, they want someone else to ride to their rescue. If that's how the world works today, we're doomed. If that's how people thought in WWII, we' be a Nazi planet.
 
Yes. Or more importantly, I pay attention to what those who yammer for a living analyzing based on research and intelligence and other such nonsense say about ISIL. In fact, if you believed what you say, you would call it ISIL instead of ISIS.

:lamo
 
Let me get this straight-you think that an established "caliphate" would be like a muslim golden age, and that they would kill off the radicals once this was achieved? Is that what you are saying?

I am telling you that based on interviews with middle eastern analysts, they seem in agreement that moderate muslims do like the idea of a caliphate. They may differ as to the Sunni-populist leadership model or the Shia ordained by Allah as a descendant of Mohammad model, but beyond that, what they are wanting is to return to a pre-Ottoman Empire state of affairs in their societies.
 
I am telling you that based on interviews with middle eastern analysts, they seem in agreement that moderate muslims do like the idea of a caliphate. They may differ as to the Sunni-populist leadership model or the Shia ordained by Allah as a descendant of Mohammad model, but beyond that, what they are wanting is to return to a pre-Ottoman Empire state of affairs in their societies.

Look at what ISIS is, nevermind what the talking heads say.

We know them by what they do.
 
Look at what ISIS is, nevermind what the talking heads say.

We know them by what they do.

What are they? I have never heard you say anything other than White, heterosexual Christian American Conservatives are good and never wrong and everybody else is evil
 
Yes. Or more importantly, I pay attention to what those who yammer for a living analyzing based on research and intelligence and other such nonsense say about ISIL. In fact, if you believed what you say, you would call it ISIL instead of ISIS.

Even BO's own people are calling them ISIS now. To keep calling them ISIL is to acknowledge they are AQIL. Which really doesn't fall in with BO's Narrative that AQ is former shadow of themselves.
 
Even BO's own people are calling them ISIS now. To keep calling them ISIL is to acknowledge they are AQIL.

I don't care what they call them. Just pick a name already.
 
Sure they do. They say lots of things. It is part of the "terror"

Have you read Osama bin Laden's 2002 "Open Letter to the United States"? He makes crystal that ultimately, it's convert or die.
 
The Nazis were at least civilized and had class for the most part, but that's why it was a world war and not a terrorism+skirmish war.

I think you might need to read a little history.

While I have respect for Rommel and some other German army officers, the Nazis leadership were mostly psychotic, sadistic a-holes. When ISIS can engineer the deaths of millions we can start to talk about them being worse than the Nazis. Until then they are strictly bush league.
 
What are they? I have never heard you say anything other than White, heterosexual Christian American Conservatives are good and never wrong and everybody else is evil

Maybe you haven't--I wouldn't know. What I do know is that you're trying to disrupt this thread by taking a legit comment--to consider what the ISIS is and what they do (decapitate little kids, for example)--and making it personal.
 
Hiding behind civilians only endangers those civilians. Harsh of me to say, but at this point, if those civilians don't want to be targets due to terrorists using them as shields, they should DO SOMETHING about those terrorists...being as they are their neighbors, family members, etc.

Americans, as a civilized people, do not want to see innocent civilians killed in the course of fighting the enemy, any more than Americans or British during World War II, being civilized people, wanted to see Germans and Japanese civilians killed then. At the same time, though, no nation is obliged to let its sworn enemies hide among civilians, and plan attacks from its safe haven at its leisure.

You make a good point. In the cities in Syria and Iraq where the jihadists are sheltering, the inhabitants, so far at least, have no strong motive to turn against them. I am convinced many of them sympathize with these bastards to some extent, and that some are helping them. I don't hold out much hope this President will do anything that is likely to change that situation.

But the next one might, and I think one effective way to motivate these people would be to warn them publicly that the U.S. expects them to kill or turn out the jihadists living amongst them--and that if they do not, the U.S. is prepared to use heavy bombers to destroy every target it has good reason to believe serves the jihadists--offices, communications centers, heavy weapons, vehicles, storehouses, training camps, etc.--located anywhere in or near any city under their control. Just convincing the people in these cities that this country will not hesitate, if necessary, to take action that would surely cause many of them to be killed might provide the threat needed to make that action unnecessary.

Once these people were deprived of the cover of cities, it's hard to see how they could hope to hold onto the roads leading to those cities, which are another important feature that has come under their control. When so few people are spread out so far, their hold on the areas they have infested cannot be very strong. They are all together only ten or twenty thousand irregular infantry with second-rate training and a smattering of captured heavy weapons they don't know how to use very well.

That means they almost certainly could not survive sustained bombing--but they can hold out pretty well against the half-hearted kind of force Mr. Obama has applied so far. And just by letting them hold out, the U.S. is foolishly--and dangerously--handing them a psychological victory that enhances their prestige.
 
Back
Top Bottom