• 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
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know this is highly speculative, but I may have an explanation for the rise of ISIL

Matthew Dooley is said to have taught a course at the Joint Forces Staff College where he advocated the following

It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction.
Click to expand...

I have found it particularly puzzling as to why ISIL was able to rise, and why they seem to be hell bent on doing the type of things that will hasten their destruction. It may not necessarily be the U.S., but is someone facilitating ISIL so as to destroy or damage Islam? I know that is highly speculative, but it is a rather interesting thought, and would go a long way in explaining their rapid rise.
 
MildSteel said:
I know this is highly speculative, but I may have an explanation for the rise of ISIL

Matthew Dooley is said to have taught a course at the Joint Forces Staff College where he advocated the following



I have found it particularly puzzling as to why ISIL was able to rise, and why they seem to be hell bent on doing the type of things that will hasten their destruction. It may not necessarily be the U.S., but is someone facilitating ISIL so as to destroy or damage Islam? I know that is highly speculative, but it is a rather interesting thought, and would go a long way in explaining their rapid rise.
Click to expand...

I doubt ISIS' Qatari and Saudi backers mean to destroy Islam, but they are doing their part in ruining Islam's image.
 
MadLib said:
I doubt ISIS' Qatari and Saudi backers mean to destroy Islam, but they are doing their part in ruining Islam's image.
Click to expand...

So it has backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Do you think it is possible that it's backers in Saudi Arabia are connected to the monarchy there?
 
MildSteel said:
So it has backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Do you think it is possible that it's backers in Saudi Arabia are connected to the monarchy there?
Click to expand...

It is definitely possible that some of ISIS' benefactors are part of the royal families there. However, it's unlikely that they're doing it as part of a government policy.
 
MadLib said:
It is definitely possible that some of ISIS' benefactors are part of the royal families there. However, it's unlikely that they're doing it as part of a government policy.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting indeed and I will tell you why. When ISIL made it's initial big push in Iraq, the Iraqi Army in that whole area vanished mysteriously. Regular troops said they were ready to fight, but the officers were no where around to give orders. I thought at that time that Saudi Arabia had paid the officers off to abandon their posts. The Saudis were very angry at Obama for not overthrowing Assad. Very angry indeed. I don't know how true it is but they say "Bush" Bandhar was coordinating the whole effort to get rid of Assad. He was supposed to get the job done. However Assad somehow managed to survive and the U.S. would not step in to finish him off. They say Bandhar was relieved from the post that he held for a very long time. He is also said to suffer from depression or is bi-polar, I forget which one. One can only imagine he was very, very pissed. I was thinking it could be Saudi Arabia trying to force the U.S. to stay engaged in the region.

But it appears it could be another reason because that does not fit with the motive to destroy or damage Islam. The Saudis would not want to do that. Perhaps someone else. Maybe some U.S. military officers along with some members of the royal family who actually want to damage Islam or at least a portion of it. Perhaps these elements have colluded and come to the conclusion that it needed to be done. It would not be government policy then. Maybe. This stuff is very hard to say. For sure, this concept is interesting and needs to be given more thought.
 
MildSteel said:
That is very interesting indeed and I will tell you why. When ISIL made it's initial big push in Iraq, the Iraqi Army in that whole area vanished mysteriously. Regular troops said they were ready to fight, but the officers were no where around to give orders. I thought at that time that Saudi Arabia had paid the officers off to abandon their posts. The Saudis were very angry at Obama for not overthrowing Assad. Very angry indeed. I don't know how true it is but they say "Bush" Bandhar was coordinating the whole effort to get rid of Assad. He was supposed to get the job done. However Assad somehow managed to survive and the U.S. would not step in to finish him off. They say Bandhar was relieved from the post that he held for a very long time. He is also said to suffer from depression or is bi-polar, I forget which one. One can only imagine he was very, very pissed. I was thinking it could be Saudi Arabia trying to force the U.S. to stay engaged in the region. But it appears it could be another reason.
Click to expand...
That is actually something else entirely. Most of the Iraqi security forces are Shia, so they likely didn't give a **** about what happened to the Sunni held areas. Also consider the surprising strength and ability of ISIS: they made it within 50 miles of Erbil, despite the strength of the Peshmerga.

But that does not fit with the motive to destroy or damage Islam. The Saudis would not want to do that. Perhaps someone else. Maybe some U.S. military officers along with some members of the royal family who actually want to damage Islam or at least a portion of it. Perhaps these elements have colluded and come to the conclusion that it needed to be done. It would not be government policy then. Maybe. This stuff is very hard to say. For sure, this concept is interesting and needs to be given more thought.
Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence to indicate that significant factions in the West have given major support to ISIS. What most approaches an attempt to "destroy Islam" is Assad's strategic favoring of jihadist factions during the Syrian war - he released a bunch of jihadists at the start of the Syrian revolution, and the Syrian Arab Army currently has zero active offensives against ISIS. Deeper collusion between the regime and terrorists in order to discredit and defeat the Sunni opposition is not out of the question, but likewise, we cannot assume this sort of thing without a lot of proof.
 
Was someone using the KKK to destroy Christianity?
 
MildSteel said:
I know this is highly speculative, but I may have an explanation for the rise of ISIL

Matthew Dooley is said to have taught a course at the Joint Forces Staff College where he advocated the following



I have found it particularly puzzling as to why ISIL was able to rise, and why they seem to be hell bent on doing the type of things that will hasten their destruction. It may not necessarily be the U.S., but is someone facilitating ISIL so as to destroy or damage Islam? I know that is highly speculative, but it is a rather interesting thought, and would go a long way in explaining their rapid rise.
Click to expand...

No, ISIL is a U.S. creation aimed at destabilizing the Middle East and acting like a chess piece that can be moved into a reason and provide justification for U.S. military action. Proof? Obama allowed Isis to get a foothold in Iraq while they marched the highway of death, where a few drones could have ended the threat before it took hold... To start.

Much like the war on Afghanistan, the troops were there primarily to secure resources (ie heroin fields that the Taliban would have cut down and burned) and the conflicts were primarily those groups that would try to not pay their cut.
 
Doesn't Islam prohibit tattooing? I swear I remember a picture of an ISIS militant with a tattoo.
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, ISIL is a U.S. creation aimed at destabilizing the Middle East and acting like a chess piece that can be moved into a reason and provide justification for U.S. military action. Proof? Obama allowed Isis to get a foothold in Iraq while they marched the highway of death, where a few drones could have ended the threat before it took hold... To start.

Much like the war on Afghanistan, the troops were there primarily to secure resources (ie heroin fields that the Taliban would have cut down and burned) and the conflicts were primarily those groups that would try to not pay their cut.
Click to expand...

Interesting accusation.

EVIDENCE?

And, no, not bombing them is not EVIDENCE the US CREATED them.
 
MildSteel said:
I know this is highly speculative, but I may have an explanation for the rise of ISIL

Matthew Dooley is said to have taught a course at the Joint Forces Staff College where he advocated the following

I have found it particularly puzzling as to why ISIL was able to rise, and why they seem to be hell bent on doing the type of things that will hasten their destruction. It may not necessarily be the U.S., but is someone facilitating ISIL so as to destroy or damage Islam? I know that is highly speculative, but it is a rather interesting thought, and would go a long way in explaining their rapid rise.
Click to expand...

Ah, and another idiotic post. At least this one though could come from naivety, so idiotic might be to strong. Allow me to clear up any confusion for you. To start off, the US doesn't exactly have a great track record with taking radical terrorist outfits of this size without a demographic shift. So even if we truly wanted to destroy it, we couldn't do it on our own. And by doing so, we've forced the like of Iraq to ally with Iran, thus making an adversary in the region stronger. And if you're talking about the religion, Islam already had a bad name from 9/11 so I don't get it there...

Look, the real answer is if our government was smart enough to do something like this AND it work, then we'd be living in a socialist utopia right now.
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, ISIL is a U.S. creation aimed at destabilizing the Middle East and acting like a chess piece that can be moved into a reason and provide justification for U.S. military action. Proof? Obama allowed Isis to get a foothold in Iraq while they marched the highway of death, where a few drones could have ended the threat before it took hold... To start.

Much like the war on Afghanistan, the troops were there primarily to secure resources (ie heroin fields that the Taliban would have cut down and burned) and the conflicts were primarily those groups that would try to not pay their cut.
Click to expand...

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....

spud_meister said:
No, Islam exists outside the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Perhaps what he meant was discredit Islam?
 
ozeco41 said:
Remember self awareness is not a big feature of some.

They may not even comprehend what they say themselves. And we know they don't comprehend what we explain for them.
Click to expand...

I know, and you'll have to excuse my post. It's just fatigue from a day where the world around me seems to have gone mad.

Results at this point:

Yes: 0
No: 10
Other: 3
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
Another idiotic statement by you.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out and tell you why it was though. You see, the issue with your statement is that it wasn't clear what you meant by "destroy Islam". For instance, were you meaning destroy the Islamic led governments in the middle east, or merely discrediting the religion itself?
 
MildSteel said:
Let me help you out. I'm not interested in what you have to say.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried. Though, you do realize you aren't going to have much luck looking for a discussion or debate if you don't well... open up. Just friendly advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom