Describing little girls going to a concert as Crusaders, that's a new one.
No, it has been their lingo/worldview for quite some time. The guys in that Orlando nightclub were also crusaders, we both are crusaders.
Wtf do they mean by crusaders?
The Christian world. It's like what Russia does when it calls its opponents fascists, or Serbia did with Ustaze in the Yugoslav Wars.
They are going into history to create a narrative using an old enemy and put a reference on that detested enemy which previous "ancestors" had fought and given a big struggle against. ISIS used the same type of narrative against the Shia with Safavids, referencing the long and numerous wars between the Ottomans and the Safavids in Persia. It's an innovation by bin Laden.
Just like British WWI/II propaganda used the term "hun", and some other countries used "teuton" for Germans.
GW Bush post 9/11 did referred to the war on terror as a crusade, so maybe it still has some relevance for the more fundamental type of christian that you can find on the American right.
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while........."
Poor choice of words, not intentional rhetoric. His writers, or him, didn't understand the implication
Yes they did. In fact is was specifically targeted to appeal to their evangelical constituents. Trump does the same thing all the time.
> It's like what Russia does when it calls its opponents fascists
At the risk of straying off-topic too much, has Russia ever called its Western opponents fascist? I can only recall they did that with Ukraine, but considering the number of neo-nazis the new government incorporated, I can hardly blame them for that.
Ukraine was what I was thinking about (and Banderista) and a couple of right-wing dictatorships during Soviet times.
Not always to applicable people.
Using that term in Ukraine is pretty reasonable, as you allude. I'm not sure your comparison is all that great in the first place.
Considering they use it not just on Azov or Svoboda but the entire Maidan government, it isn't.
The great big Christian army hanging around Arabia and the Levant that Britain is part of.
It's not a "Christian Army". Stop being absurd.
It's an army full of Christians, what's a zealot going to think?
No, it's not really "full of Christians". Western armies are very secular. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and a whole lot of people who aren't very religious at all in Western armies. Calling them "Christian armies" is honestly an insult to Christians.
Well I'm afraid that those who would do us harm do not bother to make the distinction.
Then why are you bothering to justify their insane rhetoric?
[removed too quickly to be archived]
Striking military installations is a legitimate tactic.
But striking Targets without any Military use and with the goal to kill as many kids as possible is not a legitimate tactic.
I don't know but now incidents like these don't shock me anymore.
My reaction to this was very numb........unfortunately.
I get a growing anger every time this happens. If they want to piss off the West, they're succeeding.
That's their goal
No it's not. Their goal is to increase their legitimacy among extremists and maybe grab a few recruits. Pissing off the west is a side effect. A side effect that they have continuously underestimated as they get chased out of their core regions by western supported militias. These attacks have been a military and diplomatic disaster for them, but the short term gains outweigh the long term pain. They are the subprime mortgage of breakaway rebillions. Don't make this a "they hate us because we are free" argument.
Isis claiming responsibility for an attack, and Isis orchestrating an attack are two very different things.
Isis always claims it was them when a bomb goes off, but in Reality it was probably nothing to do with them, but seeing as the only person who could object their claim is dead, that may aswell. However we should stop promoting them and spreading "news" saying "the latest attach was an Isis attack" and simply report the news as facts not hearsay and propaganda.
Exactly ffs nobody is pointing this out
ISIS claimed responsibility for Westminster almost immediately and it turned out they were bullshitting but still got the reaction that they wanted, even though it was a lone wolf type thing.
Then there was also the (Munich?) bus bombing in Germany, which had nothing to do with them, but hey, claiming responsibility.
I think they even claimed responsibility for something to do with MH370 or something, but that was a long time ago so I can't remember.
We don't fucking know. Wait for Scotland yard to announce and then we can talk. I'm honestly not pointing fingers at anyone until then.
Edit: yep it was a lone wolf attack. We don't know if he was trained but hey, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have already made up their minds about this case anyway.
Edit 2: yeah so he did turn out to have links to IS. Great, now that we've confirmed that, we can now start reacting in a sane and calm way. Over 36 Hours after, we now know this, so for the last Damn time, stop speculating everyone.
[removed too quickly to be archived]
> What the actual fuck. We're dealing with insidious, degenerate retards here. The lowest of the low. Actual fucking vermin. Fuck you.
You should take a good hard look at the rules before posting here again. No matter against who you are saying this we do not accept such language. As this is your third warning I will have to ban you for 3 days now
What will it take for mods to allow disgust for a group who specifically targets and MURDERS innocent little girls, thousands of kilometers away from the battlezone? I understand the reasoning behind the rule, but I think it's time you people have a VERY good look at the rules and circumstances and think about whether or not it makes any sense to banning the guy for what he said. ISIS gladly claimed this inhumane massacre as their own, how the fuck does that make them a legitimate side of the conflict? Please mods, explain to me the reasoning behind this because I'm having a very very hard time understanding it. And for the record, this is first time I've complained about mods in this sub, or any other for that matter.
Ill give it a try. The reason this place works (or is supposed to) is because we as civilised people are able to suspend the part of ourselves which wants to be uncivil and sectarian, so we can look at this conflict through purely objective eyes.
That is what makes this a special place (imo what did make this place special, but that's another conversation) it's the fact that communities based on sides will lose some objectivity and truth, but we try to cling on.
I want to be totally clear, as a brit and as a human being I am absolutely shocked and appalled at last nights attack.
That being said, I don't come to this place to read anti IS comments, I can get that literally almost everywhere else. I come to this neutral place so that when I leave, and once again embrace my bias in the real world, I do so with as much good information as possible.
Yeah, their attacks somehow manage to become more appalling.
If that bomb fell from the wing of a western plane in some other country though, ah well war is hell.
yeah I'm a little surprised at the reaction to the attack on this sub. We read every other day about some disgusting attack on civilians which leaves dozens dead. What happened in Manchester is still horrible but just last week the Coalition dropped a bomb which killed twice as many people and it's already forgotten.
There's always been a huge gap between the cost of civilian collateral damage in a war and intentionally targeting civilians to kill as many people as you can.
It's the same reason there are vastly different charges for premeditated murder and negligent/wrongful death charges.
This really shouldn't have to be explained.
Wars of aggression are intentional though, that really shouldn't have to be explained.
It's intentional that I drive to the grocery store to buy food. If I hit a pedestrian crossing the street during that mission, it isn't intentional.
What's so complicated about this?
Because going to the grocery store isn't a war crime. If you were robbing a bank and hit a pedestrian they throw the book at you. They call that concept responsibility
Last I checked we were in Iraq with the consent of the legitimate democratic government.
The war itself isn't a war crime. You're trying to say it's illegitimate - it's not. The president has received authority through congress, and the foreign government to conduct military operations in their border. People sign these agreements with the knowledge that there will be some civilian casualties.
The war itself is not a crime, that's absolutely absurd and I'm done trying to drill these basic principles into your head.
Last I checked that's not how we got into Iraq, and that's what was illegal under international law, constituting a war crime without which we wouldn't have this problem today.
we're talking about the current war not the one from over a decade ago
No we're not, we're talking about the Iraq war which gave birth to ISIS because they just bombed this concert.
This is the comment that started this discussion:
> What happened in Manchester is still horrible but just last week the Coalition dropped a bomb which killed twice as many people and it's already forgotten.
"last week" means THIS war.
You're absolutely entitled to change the topic but don't try to weasel out of your ridiculous statement by changing the subject.
THIS WAR is not a war of aggression. end of discussion.
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
The point is that the deaths of innocent Western white people are met with so much more horror and outrage and receive so much more attention than the (much more often) deaths of (many more) innocent poor brown people in other countries caused by the West. Yes, there is a war going on in Syria and Iraq. That's not an excuse for hushing up and then quietly forgetting when Coalition forces kill hundreds of civilians. This is exactly what the other guy was referring to when he said that when something like this happens in the West it's time for everyone to flip their shit, but when something like the recent US airstrike which left over 200 civilians dead happens in Syria... "Oh well, war is hell."
It's especially telling that the reason things like Manchester happen is because things like Kunduz happen. It's easy to hate the West when they blow up your friends and family.
Obviously that western white people will have more empathy with people that are white and western and live closer to them. What is so absurd and outrageous about that?
People that live in South America or Far Asia won't give much of a fuck about this either. That's logical, common and human. It's not nobody's obligation to torture itself because of events that happened thousands of miles away with people that they have absolutely no link to.
Furthermore the vast majority of these terrorist attacks in Europe are commited by people who are second, third generation immigrants, with absolutely no links to Syria, Afghanistan, whatever. They don't have a "valid cause" to do what they do
I have one question - Does ISIS calls the Russians or other Eastern Europeans crusaders ? My country have never fought in the Muslims lands
Eastern European countries went on crusades just as much as western Europe, what country inpacticular do u mean.
Bulgaria . I dont think we have went . One of our rules fought them in the 13th century - the crusaders I mean . But we should have . Then there wouldnt have been Ottoman rule
>One of our rules fought them in the 13th century - the crusaders I mean . But we should have . Then there wouldnt have been Ottoman rule
One of the reasons the Ottomans managed to conquer Constantinople are the Crusaders, they literally sacked the city and tried to install a Catholic rump-state called the "Latin Empire". And that wasn't the only example of things like that happening.
Ah, the 4th crusade. When you need a little money, why not just besiege, sack and slaughter those in the city your journeys were originally intended to protect.
Well it should be noted those supposed "crusaders" were already excommunicated. They also attacked Catholic places and such.
Much like the "children's crusade" which was not only NOT called for but the Pope specifically told them to go the bleep home. They just didn't listen.
IIRC I think the people from the 4th Crusade were forgiven for attacking Bulgaria though, and the plan was made with the knowledge of someone from the Catholic church who was sent along on the Crusade and he didn't stop the guys. Based on what little knowledge I have I don't think it was a masterful plan orchestrated by The Pope or the Vatican, I was just pointing that out.
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
[removed too quickly to be archived]
>If ala is a rapist child molestor, wouldn't he be pissed if icies killed and hurt little girls? I am guessing they are not getting the virgins and all that, more like the pineapple.
Removed and banned: shit tier comment
[deleted]
Wow, almost like he warned everyone of it and no one took him seriously.
Really? Trump gets personal briefings from ISIS, he knows huh? No? More like he just spreads his isolationist, xenophobic, nationalist garbage and terrorist attacks fuel the fear he needs to get it done.
deleted comments: 11/334 (3.3%)