ISIS opent slavenmarkt

[Marnik]

De beesten van ISIS hebben een oude praktijk van hun zevende-eeuwse voorbeeld terug uit de nog niet zo oude doos gehaald: "Blijkbaar worden sjiitische, christelijke en yazidische vrouwen gekidnapt, om vervolgens te worden verhandeld. 'De organisatie zette tientallen families vast op het vliegveld van Tal Afar.' De vrouwen werden gescheiden van de mannen, waarna de laatsten in koelen bloede vermoord werden... en de vrouwen werden afgevoerd."

Aangezien dit een forum is: jullie mening?

http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/20...t-voor-vrouwen

[Lukkas]

Dat zijn de 'weldaden" van de islam. Onze politiekcorrecten keken ernaar en vonden het goed.

De islam moet gewoon verboden worden in het Westen. Het is een indoctrinatie die nog veel verder gaat dan het nazisme. In feite is het nog beter dat het helemaal verdwijnt.

[Thuleander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Marnik

De beesten van ISIS hebben een oude praktijk van hun zevende-eeuwse voorbeeld terug uit de nog niet zo oude doos gehaald: "Blijkbaar worden sjiitische, christelijke en yazidische vrouwen gekidnapt, om vervolgens te worden verhandeld. 'De organisatie zette tientallen families vast op het vliegveld van Tal Afar.' De vrouwen werden gescheiden van de mannen, waarna de laatsten in koelen bloede vermoord werden... en de vrouwen werden afgevoerd."

Aangezien dit een forum is: jullie mening?

http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/20...t-voor-vrouwen

Hmm ja ok...

STOP ISRAEL AWOE ISRAEL OCHARME DIE PALESTIJNSE KINDJES

[The Paulus Experience]

Op een of andere manier is de kerk er in geslaagd mij met mijn atheïsme toch te binden aan hun groep door mij te dopen.
Op deze manier vind ik het conflict ginds erger worden als er medegijzelaars gekrenkt worden. Ik ken de mensen niet, maar toch schept het een band op een of andere manier.
Moslims zouden best met hun onreine poten van christenen blijven. Dat ze hun haat in hun eigen club projecteren.

[nabat54]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Thuleander

Hmm ja ok...

STOP ISRAEL AWOE ISRAEL OCHARME DIE PALESTIJNSE KINDJES

Ik zie geen bombardementen van Israel op troepen van het kalifaat, ik zie geen Israelische tanks daar in het kalifaat ?

[CLAESSENS Joris]

Islam staat nu eenmaal al eeuwen voor slavernij, massamoord, genocide, pedofilie, genitale verminkingen...

http://www.irismonument.be/nl.Brusse...park.A004.html

Het beeld links – ‘De Belgische militaire heldenmoed / verdelgt den Araabschen slavendryver’ – stelt de campagne voor van baron Dhanis tegen de slavenhandelaars.

Anderzijds was het opschrift over de slavenhandelaars vanaf de jaren 1980 het onderwerp van talrijke polemieken die werden versterkt door de nabijheid van de Grote Moskee. Als gevolg van een klacht van de Arabische Liga in 1988 werd het woord ‘Araabschen’ en zijn vertaling officieel weggebeiteld. In 1992 werd het opnieuw gerestaureerd op vraag van de Cercle royal des anciens Officiers des Campagnes d’Afrique. Vandaag is het woord opnieuw uitgewist.

Beschermd op 18.11.1976.

[Snerror]

Het lijkt er op dat de mannen van IS gewoon 100% hun instinct volgen.

Net zoals in het wild, zoveel mogelijk territorium veroveren en zoveel mogelijk wijfjes afnemen van vijandelijke stammen en ze bevruchten.

Ik weet dus niet of je ze 'het kwaad' kunt noemen, het zijn in feite gewoon onderontwikkelde aapjes die hun instinct volgen.

We moeten ze dus niet ontmenselijken voordat we ze afslachten, deze dolgedraaide beesten afmaken is gewoon 'common sense'.

[TV-verslaafde]

Ik weet dus niet of je ze 'het kwaad' kunt noemen, het zijn in feite gewoon onderontwikkelde aapjes die hun instinct volgen.

De kruisvaarders die gedroegen zich niet als verkrachters en beesten in hun kruistochtjes, zeker?

[Nr.10]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Lukkas

Dat zijn de 'weldaden" van de islam. Onze politiekcorrecten keken ernaar en vonden het goed.

De islam moet gewoon verboden worden in het Westen. Het is een indoctrinatie die nog veel verder gaat dan het nazisme. In feite is het nog beter dat het helemaal verdwijnt.

² De Reconquista moet herbegonnen worden.

Laat de vlag van Asturië als inspiratiebron dienen.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nr.10

² De Reconquista moet herbegonnen worden.

Laat de vlag van Asturië als inspiratiebron dienen.

Zeer zeker!

[zonbron]

[tomm]

Ziet niemand hier een patroon? Waar de Amerikanen zich bemoeien, of het nu in Oekraïne, Libië, Irak, Vietnam, Afghanistan of Syrië is, wordt de situatie binnen de kortste keren een hel. Het wordt ook langzaam aan de naam te veranderen van "Arabische lente" naar "Arabische winter".

[tomm]

ondertussen zijn er landen die ook iets doen om isis te stoppen.

Syria conflict: President Assad's forces fight Isis militants for control of Shaer gas field

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-9616934.html


Iraq Military recieve Russian warplanes to attack ISIL // ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fv-AFHCSps

'Iranian attack jets deployed' to help Iraq fight Isis

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28125687

[tomm]

Zeer interessante analyse, een must voor iedereen die iets meer wil begrijpen over de huidige toestand in Syrië en Irak.

When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?

Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?

Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:

“President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad.

Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
(Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?

“Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”

It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?

It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:

“Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times)

Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.

Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.

To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.

So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.

What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:

“The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly…

It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)

So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?

Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.

Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?

No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.

Let’s summarize:

Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
Yes.

Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
Yes.

Has the CIA?
Yes.

Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
Yes.

Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
Yes.

Will Isis invade Baghdad?
No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)

Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
Yes.

Is Isis a CIA creation?
No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”

Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)

Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.

MIKE WHITNEY http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/...ttack-on-iran/

[subocaj]

God, Allah, Jahweh, de 111 Indische goden etc., ze vergaderen en vergaderen en brengen allen een boodschap van vrede, die door hen die er in geloven, door wapengeweld en wreedheden, verspreid moet worden.

Ik denk dat ik als vredelievende ongelovige veel gemist heb.

[DeProf_eet]

Teveel van het goede is ook niet goed.

[Lukkas]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TV-verslaafde

De kruisvaarders die gedroegen zich niet als verkrachters en beesten in hun kruistochtjes, zeker?

Er zijn slechts enkele kruistochten geweest, terwijl op een bepaald moment de helft van Europa onder het misdadige karakter van de islam zat. Vergelijk het maar gerust met de wreedheden van de IS. Dat is dus appelen met peren vergelijken.

[Nierika]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TV-verslaafde

De kruisvaarders die gedroegen zich niet als verkrachters en beesten in hun kruistochtjes, zeker?

U hebt het over de donkere middeleeuwen, een periode die al 800 jaar achter ons ligt? U snapt zelf niet dat u hiermee treffend illustreert dat 8 eeuwen van menselijke ontwikkeling, gevorderde denkwijze en evolutie blijkbaar aan die smeerlappen gepasseerd is?
Die achterlijke middeleeuwers moeten snel en doeltreffend zonder kwartier uitgeroeid worden, daar zou een grote consensus moeten over bestaan, maar als ik uw zielige vergoelijkende commentaar lees waarmee u de goorste smeerlapperijen die de mens heeft aanschouwd sinds W.O. II probeert te rationaliseren, is het duidelijk dat sommigen echt liever de strop rond hun eigen nek hangen dan de zaken te herleiden tot wat ze zijn.

[Nierika]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Zeer interessante analyse, een must voor iedereen die iets meer wil begrijpen over de huidige toestand in Syrië en Irak.

When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?

Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?

Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:

“President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad.

Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
(Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?

“Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”

It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?

It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:

“Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times)

Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.

Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.

To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.

So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.

What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:

“The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly…

It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)

So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?

Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.

Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?

No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.

Let’s summarize:

Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
Yes.

Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
Yes.

Has the CIA?
Yes.

Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
Yes.

Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
Yes.

Will Isis invade Baghdad?
No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)

Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
Yes.

Is Isis a CIA creation?
No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”

Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)

Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.

MIKE WHITNEY http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/...ttack-on-iran/

Heel verhelderend inderdaad, kn die zin dat alle plotholes gevuld worden en het plaatje compleet maken.
Het bewijst nogmaals wat een ongelofelijke lafaards die Amerikanen zijn!

[Nierika]

Sorry, dubbel...