Two explosions in Brussels airport

[Sbiker]

No I mean after the numbed feeling....it's probably getting angry and going ballistic. I'm meaning about what happened yesterday in Brussels.

Have you heard any more about your friends sister, Lucy? My thoughts and prayers are with her.

Thanks Tilly We had update at about 8pm, parents and older brother also at the hospital, they're told "critical but stable", it looks like she'll live, but how her and everyone will deal with her lets face it partial dismemberment that's what these Monsters did to her.

I myself would want to die, I wouldn't want to live without both legs, I personally wouldn't be able to deal with that.

Fraud.

You spend 90% of your Troll time on this forum apologising for your Islamic pets at every opportunity, so here get some testicles, a thread for you to focus your obsessive propaganda in to your black hearts content....make comments in this thread, or are you afraid to?

CDZ - Are Leftists as dangerous as the Terrorists?

They're actually a strange mix of Islamofascist and Stalinist. Sick assholes!!!

Greg

How interesting, what do you mean, saying "Stalinist"?

 

[theHawk]

We are witnessing the usual pro-Islamic apologists, they are actually disgusting.

Again, instead of dealing with the reality, you're trying to make people hide.

I am NOT APOLOGIZING for these terrorists. I already said what they did was terrible.

However I'm trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, on the right, people don't want it to stop. They want to keep fucking people around, and making people angry and making people take up arms so they can be tough on them and use it as an excuse to shut people up.

I WILL NOT SHUT UP.

You're not trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, your trying to tell them they are the cause of it. You progressives have no intention of stopping terrorist attacks like these from happening. You think appeasing these barbarians and allowing them to immigrate into Western countries is going to suddenly make them civil and peaceful so we can all coexist, or at least that's what you pretend to believe. The reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that believes in the subjugation of women, the enslavement of non-Muslims, and justified murder of infidels. Progressives are allowing these low lives to infiltrate our societies and enabling them to destroy it. Whether this is naive stupidity or intentionally being done is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is progressive low life pieces of shit continue to defend these terrorists and continue to try to appease them. Progressives continue to argue that these terrorists aren't real Muslims, despite Islams' 1400 year history of war, rape, enslavement, and murder. Take a good hard look at all the Muslim countries in the world, can you name one that is "civilized"? Maybe our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia? A country that outlaws other religions, subjugated women into virtually being slaves, and kills open homosexuals.

Actually knowing the cause of terrorism is the FIRST STEP. If people won't accept the cause of terrorism, then they won't understand the reasons for what I'm saying. However many reject the causes of terrorism simply because they don't care to look.

Islam can be barbaric. There's no denying that. So too can Christianity. Back in the day Christianity was a violent religion, there's a reason why Islam and Christianity are the largest two religions, and it has to do with conquest.

The whole of the Americas from the South to Canada are Christian countries.

Christians killing Incas.

The thing is that the problems have increased massively since 2003. Bush incited hatred and he got the backlash of this. Only it's not him who is being killed.

The IRA existed because of the way the British govt treated the Irish in their homeland.
ETA existed because of the way the Spanish treated the Basques in their homeland.
The Chechen rebels existed because Stalin deported all Chechens from their homeland and then they went back harboring hatred for the Russians.
Even if we look to Communist, say Russia 1917, Communism was born out of the treatment the poor people suffered at the hands of those in charge, like the Tsar in Russia.

Islamic terrorism has gone from these stages and moved further on. Hatred has been there and grown over a long period of time, and Muslims are angry, and with more and more interference by the US, the number of terrorist groups has grown massively.

List of designated terrorist groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist groups.

I'll write down all of those that have been formed post 2003.

Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Soldiers of Egypt, Al Ghurabaa, Al Mourabitoun, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, Ansar Dine, Ansaru, Army of Islam, Army of Men of the NaqshBandi Order.

And these are just the ones beginning with A. I'm not doing the rest it'll take me ages.

But you see how many Islamic Extremist groups have grown since 2003? Loads. 15 just beginning with A (sort of)

Notice how shitbag liberals always have to spend more time and energy on attacking Christianity.

The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. It's in their book, the idea that they can murder people to get into heaven. Their book gives them the right to enslave non-Muslims. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams found this out back then Muslim were raiding US and European ships in the Mediterranean. They were appalled by it and realized the only way to deal with violent terrorist thugs was with force. Which is why our first war after the Revolutionary War was with Islamist thugs in Libya.

Islam is a cult religion that has a 1400 year history of war and murder. They've murdered Jews, Christians, Hindu, Buddhists, pagans, atheists and many more.

But, you don't care about any of that. You have an Agenda, and that includes defending Islamic thugs. It gives you a chance to criticize and attack Christians and capitalism, the two things lefties hate more than anything, including Isamic thugs.

You start with an insult.

I don't do insults.

I just call a spade a spade. Besides, I didn't even insult you, I just made an observation. Obviously you felt it applied to you.

Good to know you can't respond.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

America created those mindless muzzie beasts...
And if we respond too harshly, we'll only create more of the bloodthirsty little pussies.....

Lol

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Its because theyre oppressed !!! Lmfao

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

 

[gtopa1]

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

What is being said, you dolt, is stop entry UNTIL there is a stringent vetting process in place. I totally agree that ALL refugees should and must be stridently checked out to ensure that they are legitimate. ISIS BOASTS that they already have 4000 operatives in Europe. Even if just 10% are successful then Europe loses BIG TIME!!! Is the US so stupid??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

WRONG!!! What people are saying is that ISIS are using the mass migration to cover their operatives. Are you really unable to grasp that concept??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

You are wrong. There is NO contradiction. You have a wrong understanding.

Greg

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, instead of dealing with the reality, you're trying to make people hide.

I am NOT APOLOGIZING for these terrorists. I already said what they did was terrible.

However I'm trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, on the right, people don't want it to stop. They want to keep fucking people around, and making people angry and making people take up arms so they can be tough on them and use it as an excuse to shut people up.

I WILL NOT SHUT UP.

You're not trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, your trying to tell them they are the cause of it. You progressives have no intention of stopping terrorist attacks like these from happening. You think appeasing these barbarians and allowing them to immigrate into Western countries is going to suddenly make them civil and peaceful so we can all coexist, or at least that's what you pretend to believe. The reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that believes in the subjugation of women, the enslavement of non-Muslims, and justified murder of infidels. Progressives are allowing these low lives to infiltrate our societies and enabling them to destroy it. Whether this is naive stupidity or intentionally being done is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is progressive low life pieces of shit continue to defend these terrorists and continue to try to appease them. Progressives continue to argue that these terrorists aren't real Muslims, despite Islams' 1400 year history of war, rape, enslavement, and murder. Take a good hard look at all the Muslim countries in the world, can you name one that is "civilized"? Maybe our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia? A country that outlaws other religions, subjugated women into virtually being slaves, and kills open homosexuals.

Actually knowing the cause of terrorism is the FIRST STEP. If people won't accept the cause of terrorism, then they won't understand the reasons for what I'm saying. However many reject the causes of terrorism simply because they don't care to look.

Islam can be barbaric. There's no denying that. So too can Christianity. Back in the day Christianity was a violent religion, there's a reason why Islam and Christianity are the largest two religions, and it has to do with conquest.

The whole of the Americas from the South to Canada are Christian countries.

Christians killing Incas.

The thing is that the problems have increased massively since 2003. Bush incited hatred and he got the backlash of this. Only it's not him who is being killed.

The IRA existed because of the way the British govt treated the Irish in their homeland.
ETA existed because of the way the Spanish treated the Basques in their homeland.
The Chechen rebels existed because Stalin deported all Chechens from their homeland and then they went back harboring hatred for the Russians.
Even if we look to Communist, say Russia 1917, Communism was born out of the treatment the poor people suffered at the hands of those in charge, like the Tsar in Russia.

Islamic terrorism has gone from these stages and moved further on. Hatred has been there and grown over a long period of time, and Muslims are angry, and with more and more interference by the US, the number of terrorist groups has grown massively.

List of designated terrorist groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist groups.

I'll write down all of those that have been formed post 2003.

Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Soldiers of Egypt, Al Ghurabaa, Al Mourabitoun, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, Ansar Dine, Ansaru, Army of Islam, Army of Men of the NaqshBandi Order.

And these are just the ones beginning with A. I'm not doing the rest it'll take me ages.

But you see how many Islamic Extremist groups have grown since 2003? Loads. 15 just beginning with A (sort of)

Notice how shitbag liberals always have to spend more time and energy on attacking Christianity.

The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. It's in their book, the idea that they can murder people to get into heaven. Their book gives them the right to enslave non-Muslims. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams found this out back then Muslim were raiding US and European ships in the Mediterranean. They were appalled by it and realized the only way to deal with violent terrorist thugs was with force. Which is why our first war after the Revolutionary War was with Islamist thugs in Libya.

Islam is a cult religion that has a 1400 year history of war and murder. They've murdered Jews, Christians, Hindu, Buddhists, pagans, atheists and many more.

But, you don't care about any of that. You have an Agenda, and that includes defending Islamic thugs. It gives you a chance to criticize and attack Christians and capitalism, the two things lefties hate more than anything, including Isamic thugs.

You start with an insult.

I don't do insults.

I just call a spade a spade. Besides, I didn't even insult you, I just made an observation. Obviously you felt it applied to you.

Good to know you can't respond.

You must have repeated this a hundred times recently. You justify your insults.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? You're an insulter, you're a person who uses insults instead of having a decent argument. "A rose by any other name is a fucking rose" Bill Shagspeare.

 

[gtopa1]

which is the first thread about this situation?

I find it fascinating that you crave this credit and that you later in the thread use this tragedy to garner sympathy for yourself.

Crave cred?? lol. More like nonchalantly disinterested but wondering in passing.

I am sure there are MANY threads on many boards already. This may well be the first on USMB but IO doubt anyone really cares; least of all Lucy.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

You're not trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, your trying to tell them they are the cause of it. You progressives have no intention of stopping terrorist attacks like these from happening. You think appeasing these barbarians and allowing them to immigrate into Western countries is going to suddenly make them civil and peaceful so we can all coexist, or at least that's what you pretend to believe. The reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that believes in the subjugation of women, the enslavement of non-Muslims, and justified murder of infidels. Progressives are allowing these low lives to infiltrate our societies and enabling them to destroy it. Whether this is naive stupidity or intentionally being done is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is progressive low life pieces of shit continue to defend these terrorists and continue to try to appease them. Progressives continue to argue that these terrorists aren't real Muslims, despite Islams' 1400 year history of war, rape, enslavement, and murder. Take a good hard look at all the Muslim countries in the world, can you name one that is "civilized"? Maybe our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia? A country that outlaws other religions, subjugated women into virtually being slaves, and kills open homosexuals.

Actually knowing the cause of terrorism is the FIRST STEP. If people won't accept the cause of terrorism, then they won't understand the reasons for what I'm saying. However many reject the causes of terrorism simply because they don't care to look.

Islam can be barbaric. There's no denying that. So too can Christianity. Back in the day Christianity was a violent religion, there's a reason why Islam and Christianity are the largest two religions, and it has to do with conquest.

The whole of the Americas from the South to Canada are Christian countries.

Christians killing Incas.

The thing is that the problems have increased massively since 2003. Bush incited hatred and he got the backlash of this. Only it's not him who is being killed.

The IRA existed because of the way the British govt treated the Irish in their homeland.
ETA existed because of the way the Spanish treated the Basques in their homeland.
The Chechen rebels existed because Stalin deported all Chechens from their homeland and then they went back harboring hatred for the Russians.
Even if we look to Communist, say Russia 1917, Communism was born out of the treatment the poor people suffered at the hands of those in charge, like the Tsar in Russia.

Islamic terrorism has gone from these stages and moved further on. Hatred has been there and grown over a long period of time, and Muslims are angry, and with more and more interference by the US, the number of terrorist groups has grown massively.

List of designated terrorist groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist groups.

I'll write down all of those that have been formed post 2003.

Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Soldiers of Egypt, Al Ghurabaa, Al Mourabitoun, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, Ansar Dine, Ansaru, Army of Islam, Army of Men of the NaqshBandi Order.

And these are just the ones beginning with A. I'm not doing the rest it'll take me ages.

But you see how many Islamic Extremist groups have grown since 2003? Loads. 15 just beginning with A (sort of)

Notice how shitbag liberals always have to spend more time and energy on attacking Christianity.

The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. It's in their book, the idea that they can murder people to get into heaven. Their book gives them the right to enslave non-Muslims. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams found this out back then Muslim were raiding US and European ships in the Mediterranean. They were appalled by it and realized the only way to deal with violent terrorist thugs was with force. Which is why our first war after the Revolutionary War was with Islamist thugs in Libya.

Islam is a cult religion that has a 1400 year history of war and murder. They've murdered Jews, Christians, Hindu, Buddhists, pagans, atheists and many more.

But, you don't care about any of that. You have an Agenda, and that includes defending Islamic thugs. It gives you a chance to criticize and attack Christians and capitalism, the two things lefties hate more than anything, including Isamic thugs.

You start with an insult.

I don't do insults.

I just call a spade a spade. Besides, I didn't even insult you, I just made an observation. Obviously you felt it applied to you.

Good to know you can't respond.

You must have repeated this a hundred times recently. You justify your insults.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? You're an insulter, you're a person who uses insults instead of having a decent argument. "A rose by any other name is a fucking rose" Bill Shagspeare.

No: you just don't argue very well...quite poorly actually.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Have you heard any more about your friends sister, Lucy? My thoughts and prayers are with her.

Thanks Tilly We had update at about 8pm, parents and older brother also at the hospital, they're told "critical but stable", it looks like she'll live, but how her and everyone will deal with her lets face it partial dismemberment that's what these Monsters did to her.

I myself would want to die, I wouldn't want to live without both legs, I personally wouldn't be able to deal with that.

Fraud.

You spend 90% of your Troll time on this forum apologising for your Islamic pets at every opportunity, so here get some testicles, a thread for you to focus your obsessive propaganda in to your black hearts content....make comments in this thread, or are you afraid to?

CDZ - Are Leftists as dangerous as the Terrorists?

They're actually a strange mix of Islamofascist and Stalinist. Sick assholes!!!

Greg

How interesting, what do you mean, saying "Stalinist"?

It's a typical Stalinist strategy. Get rid of any moderates; then the useful idiots and then you have totalitarian control. Saddam was similar as was Qaddafi as were ....quite a few ME Dictators.

Nocookies

They use useful Religious Zealots but discard them when they are no longer able to be controlled. Just more useful idiots.

Stalin is the godfather of Islamic State. The Soviet leader died 60 years before the brutal fundamentalist caliphate began to take shape in Syria and neighbouring Iraq. But just as Stalin created a spy-state founded on fear, so the architects of Islamic State set out to forge a new caliphate using precisely the same methods.

Stalin’s USSR and the self-proclaimed theocracy ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi both laid claim to ideological purity; but both, in reality, were predicated on the acquisition of power by means of a fearsome internal espionage network.

The KGB, the East German Stasi and Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat intelligence agency are the direct progenitors of the Islamic State security apparatus. The proof lies in a cache of documents uncovered after a shootout last year between Syrian rebels and an Iraqi intelligence officer now believed to be the strategic mastermind behind the Islamic State takeover of northern Syria.

Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, who usually went by the nom de guerre Haji Bakr, was a colonel in Saddam’s military intelligence services who found himself jobless when the Baathist regime was dismantled and dismissed after the US invasion.

“Bitter and unemployed”, Bakr and other disgruntled Baathists began plotting a seizure of power: the roiling chaos in the rebel-held territories of northern Syria offered the perfect opportunity.

Bakr was shot dead by Syrian rebels in January 2014. Inside his house in the town of Tal Rifaat his killers discovered a bundle of documents describing how to build and enforce a police state. The documents, revealed by the German magazine Der Spiegel this week, amounted to nothing less than a “blueprint for a takeover ... not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan for an ‘Islamic Intelligence State’.”

Spies, not religious converts, were the foundation on which Islamic State was built. Bakr’s plans called for missionary offices to be opened in towns across rebel-held Syria, as cover for the recruitment of informants, usually young men in need of money, regime opponents at odds with the rebels, and former intelligence officers. These spies were deployed to amass information that might be useful to divide and control the local populations: power structures, armed groups, potential opponents and the religious complexion of individual imams.

The agents were also instructed to gather evidence on criminal or homosexual activity which might be used to blackmail individuals, and to infiltrate powerful clans by marrying into them.

A local commander would be appointed for each province to oversee kidnapping, murder and espionage. But at the same time, the security structure would itself be subject to surveillance by parallel departments. Everyone would spy on everyone else — a recipe for the systemic paranoia that is the hallmark of totalitarianism.

The underground spy network established by Bakr enabled Islamic State to rise to power with a speed and efficiency that stunned Western intelligence agencies. But his methods were hardly new.

Bakr was a product of the terror state created by Saddam, whose system of internal surveillance in turn owed a great deal to the Soviet model of repression and manipulation. Saddam’s Baathist regime was a Stalinist dictatorship in all but name, controlling every element of society through fear, uncertainty and an all-seeing security apparatus.

As a young man Saddam bragged that he would turn Iraq into a “Stalin state”. He collected numerous biographies of the Soviet leader.

His seizure of power came with a staged scene of terror, when about 60 “traitors” were exposed at a meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council in 1979 and then led away to be shot, while Saddam wept for the cameras. Saddam urged his intelligence officers to recruit “a shadow in every house”; the shadows themselves were spied upon.

Men such as Bakr learnt their trade among the shadows, and have now successfully applied these techniques to build Islamic State, a caliphate ostensibly dedicated to jihad but built on old-fashioned Stalinist fear. Its nearest parallel may be that of the Stasi, the security force of East Germany. Using thousands of citizen-informants to root out dissent, it was perhaps the most effective secret police agency in history.

The spy regimes of the USSR and East Germany were created to bolster communism; Saddam claimed to be defending Baathism; the army of spies deployed by Islamic State are in the service of the self-styled caliphate. But what all spy-based regimes have in common is a hunger for power.

Islamic State portrays itself as a pure religious revolution. It is seen in the West as a terrorist state, dedicated to wholesale destruction and looting. But the discovery that the world’s newest state is the work of Saddam’s former spooks suggests that what appears to be a new phenomenon may really be the application of tried and tested techniques of autocratic rule.

According to Der Spiegel, Baghdadi was selected by Bakr and his cabal of former Iraqi intelligence officers to give the organisation “a religious face”.

Islamic State, it seems, has two faces: one fanatical and fundamentalist, imposing religious conformity; the other secular and strategic, pursuing raw power. When they searched Bakr’s house, the rebels found ample evidence of a super-spy at work, but not a single copy of the Koran.

THE TIMES

Greg

 

[gipper]

I don't often insult, unless I'm pretty annoyed. I fail to understand how Liberals and Leftists saying they're pro-women's rights and pro-LGBT can support Islamists who are anti-both.

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen Muslims entering the USA? I do not. As such, stopping all Muslim immigration until such time as we can properly screen or radical Islam is terminated, makes sense. Yes or no? Would we import known Nazis into our nation today?

An ironic point...the Left today demands gun control or in some cases, out right confiscation. This at a time when our borders are open, the lying corrupt fool of a president is bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims, and after several terror attacks in the country; which surely indicate radical Muslims are here.

Can't fix stupid!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because you aren't looking at it properly.

I'm not pro-Islam. I'm TOLD I'm pro Islam.

The reality is I hate Islam. I hate religion. I don't see the point. However I don't like basketball either. That doesn't mean I want to ban any of them. If people are happy with things that don't harm others, then who am I to say they can't.

Essentially I support freedom of religion. If there are Muslims who are peaceful, and there are and some are my friends, then I will defend their right to follow their own silly beliefs.

I'm pro-women's rights too, and pro LGBT.

Essentially my view is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people. People should responsible for their actions, and not groups of people who haven't done anything.

We should also look to the past to see where mistakes have been made and not make them in the future.

But all I get is being told I'm an Islamist sympathizer and all this attacking nonsense.

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen Muslims entering the USA? I do not. As such, stopping all Muslim immigration until such time as we can properly screen or radical Islam is terminated, makes sense. Yes or no? Would we import known Nazis into our nation today?

An ironic point...the Left today demands gun control or in some cases, out right confiscation. This at a time when our borders are open, the lying corrupt fool of a president is bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims, and after several terror attacks in the country; which surely indicate radical Muslims are here.

Can't fix stupid!!!

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen American citizens who want to own guns? I do not. As such, stopping all American citizens from owning guns until such time as we can properly screen makes sense. Yes or no?

Back to the point, would the US import known Nazis today? Simple answer is FUCK YES.

List of German aerospace engineers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gipper]

Why is it always the same old nonsense of 'its not ALL Muslims so....?"

The same tired refrain...and yet, NO ONE SAID IT IS ALL MUSLIMS.

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen Muslims entering the USA? I do not. As such, stopping all Muslim immigration until such time as we can properly screen or radical Islam is terminated, makes sense. Yes or no? Would we import known Nazis into our nation today?

An ironic point...the Left today demands gun control or in some cases, out right confiscation. This at a time when our borders are open, the lying corrupt fool of a president is bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims, and after several terror attacks in the country; which surely indicate radical Muslims are here.

Can't fix stupid!!!

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen American citizens who want to own guns? I do not. As such, stopping all American citizens from owning guns until such time as we can properly screen makes sense. Yes or no?

Back to the point, would the US import known Nazis today? Simple answer is FUCK YES.

List of German aerospace engineers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not serious now. Why have you chosen to go off the rails with stupidity?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Only people are saying ban all Muslims. Why? If it's not all Muslims, don't ban all Muslims.

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen Muslims entering the USA? I do not. As such, stopping all Muslim immigration until such time as we can properly screen or radical Islam is terminated, makes sense. Yes or no? Would we import known Nazis into our nation today?

An ironic point...the Left today demands gun control or in some cases, out right confiscation. This at a time when our borders are open, the lying corrupt fool of a president is bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims, and after several terror attacks in the country; which surely indicate radical Muslims are here.

Can't fix stupid!!!

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen American citizens who want to own guns? I do not. As such, stopping all American citizens from owning guns until such time as we can properly screen makes sense. Yes or no?

Back to the point, would the US import known Nazis today? Simple answer is FUCK YES.

List of German aerospace engineers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not serious now. Why have you chosen to go off the rails with stupidity?

Oh, so it's stupid to suggest that a threat which costs the lives of 9,000 people should be dealt with in the manner you're suggesting, but it's not stupid to suggest a threat which costs the lives of a dozen, max, people a year in the US should be dealt with in the manner you're suggesting.

Sorry, I don't get it. 9,000 people die, who gives a fuck? a dozen people die and you all go crazy as if this killing has to stop.

 

[gipper]

You misunderstand.

Many on the Left, whenever radical Muslims murder innocents, scream don't blame ALL Muslims for the acts of a radical few. Mrs BJ did it yesterday.

Problem is...no one is blaming all Muslims. Strawman...it is a propaganda ploy to dupe the ignorant.

...and discontinuing all Muslim immigration into the US, until this violence is stopped, makes sense to intelligent people...the unintelligent are easily duped into thinking this policy bigoted.

No, i don't misunderstand.

The point is that people say "ban all Muslims" and then the left say "don't blame all Muslims".

If you ban all Muslims, then you're implying that they're all guilty.

Isn't this a similar argument used for when people say that all guns should be taken away from people because of a crime they did not commit?

You're fighting against an argument that, possibly you and, many on the right use all the time. It's a contradiction.

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen Muslims entering the USA? I do not. As such, stopping all Muslim immigration until such time as we can properly screen or radical Islam is terminated, makes sense. Yes or no? Would we import known Nazis into our nation today?

An ironic point...the Left today demands gun control or in some cases, out right confiscation. This at a time when our borders are open, the lying corrupt fool of a president is bringing in thousands of undocumented Muslims, and after several terror attacks in the country; which surely indicate radical Muslims are here.

Can't fix stupid!!!

Do you really think our entirely corrupt and ineffective central government can properly screen American citizens who want to own guns? I do not. As such, stopping all American citizens from owning guns until such time as we can properly screen makes sense. Yes or no?

Back to the point, would the US import known Nazis today? Simple answer is FUCK YES.

List of German aerospace engineers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are not serious now. Why have you chosen to go off the rails with stupidity?

Oh, so it's stupid to suggest that a threat which costs the lives of 9,000 people should be dealt with in the manner you're suggesting, but it's not stupid to suggest a threat which costs the lives of a dozen, max, people a year in the US should be dealt with in the manner you're suggesting.

Sorry, I don't get it. 9,000 people die, who gives a fuck? a dozen people die and you all go crazy as if this killing has to stop.

If you think banning guns for the law abiding, is going to make you safe, you are dumber than you look

 

[theHawk]

You're not trying to tell people how to stop terrorism, your trying to tell them they are the cause of it. You progressives have no intention of stopping terrorist attacks like these from happening. You think appeasing these barbarians and allowing them to immigrate into Western countries is going to suddenly make them civil and peaceful so we can all coexist, or at least that's what you pretend to believe. The reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that believes in the subjugation of women, the enslavement of non-Muslims, and justified murder of infidels. Progressives are allowing these low lives to infiltrate our societies and enabling them to destroy it. Whether this is naive stupidity or intentionally being done is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is progressive low life pieces of shit continue to defend these terrorists and continue to try to appease them. Progressives continue to argue that these terrorists aren't real Muslims, despite Islams' 1400 year history of war, rape, enslavement, and murder. Take a good hard look at all the Muslim countries in the world, can you name one that is "civilized"? Maybe our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia? A country that outlaws other religions, subjugated women into virtually being slaves, and kills open homosexuals.

Actually knowing the cause of terrorism is the FIRST STEP. If people won't accept the cause of terrorism, then they won't understand the reasons for what I'm saying. However many reject the causes of terrorism simply because they don't care to look.

Islam can be barbaric. There's no denying that. So too can Christianity. Back in the day Christianity was a violent religion, there's a reason why Islam and Christianity are the largest two religions, and it has to do with conquest.

The whole of the Americas from the South to Canada are Christian countries.

Christians killing Incas.

The thing is that the problems have increased massively since 2003. Bush incited hatred and he got the backlash of this. Only it's not him who is being killed.

The IRA existed because of the way the British govt treated the Irish in their homeland.
ETA existed because of the way the Spanish treated the Basques in their homeland.
The Chechen rebels existed because Stalin deported all Chechens from their homeland and then they went back harboring hatred for the Russians.
Even if we look to Communist, say Russia 1917, Communism was born out of the treatment the poor people suffered at the hands of those in charge, like the Tsar in Russia.

Islamic terrorism has gone from these stages and moved further on. Hatred has been there and grown over a long period of time, and Muslims are angry, and with more and more interference by the US, the number of terrorist groups has grown massively.

List of designated terrorist groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist groups.

I'll write down all of those that have been formed post 2003.

Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Soldiers of Egypt, Al Ghurabaa, Al Mourabitoun, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, Ansar Dine, Ansaru, Army of Islam, Army of Men of the NaqshBandi Order.

And these are just the ones beginning with A. I'm not doing the rest it'll take me ages.

But you see how many Islamic Extremist groups have grown since 2003? Loads. 15 just beginning with A (sort of)

Notice how shitbag liberals always have to spend more time and energy on attacking Christianity.

The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. It's in their book, the idea that they can murder people to get into heaven. Their book gives them the right to enslave non-Muslims. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams found this out back then Muslim were raiding US and European ships in the Mediterranean. They were appalled by it and realized the only way to deal with violent terrorist thugs was with force. Which is why our first war after the Revolutionary War was with Islamist thugs in Libya.

Islam is a cult religion that has a 1400 year history of war and murder. They've murdered Jews, Christians, Hindu, Buddhists, pagans, atheists and many more.

But, you don't care about any of that. You have an Agenda, and that includes defending Islamic thugs. It gives you a chance to criticize and attack Christians and capitalism, the two things lefties hate more than anything, including Isamic thugs.

You start with an insult.

I don't do insults.

I just call a spade a spade. Besides, I didn't even insult you, I just made an observation. Obviously you felt it applied to you.

Good to know you can't respond.

You must have repeated this a hundred times recently. You justify your insults.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? You're an insulter, you're a person who uses insults instead of having a decent argument. "A rose by any other name is a fucking rose" Bill Shagspeare.

Aww, someone's safe zone was violated. Maybe you can get a therapy session to cope with it.

 

[Tilly]

It's a Troll and a Islamic apologist, it exhibits both in 98% of it's posts, it also hates America and exhibits a strong anti-American stance in posts on America. So ALL shame is on the Troll and it's ilk who love these Islamic monsters.

We all deal with shocking news in different ways. I think I posted to Zack that as I'm not male I couldn't answer his question, it was one post, hardly "actively participating in a discussion about arousal".

I commented to Tilly that as nothing like this has happened before, my feeling is numbed....at the moment, the next stage is probably me getting very angry and going ballistic.

I wouldn't get angry and go ballistic.

It's more entertaining to expose trolls to sunlight.

No I mean after the numbed feeling....it's probably getting angry and going ballistic. I'm meaning about what happened yesterday in Brussels.

Have you heard any more about your friends sister, Lucy? My thoughts and prayers are with her.

Thanks Tilly We had update at about 8pm, parents and older brother also at the hospital, they're told "critical but stable", it looks like she'll live, but how her and everyone will deal with her lets face it partial dismemberment that's what these Monsters did to her.

I myself would want to die, I wouldn't want to live without both legs, I personally wouldn't be able to deal with that.

Fraud.

Prove it or be known by everyone for the filthy liar you are.

 

[Sbiker]

Thanks Tilly We had update at about 8pm, parents and older brother also at the hospital, they're told "critical but stable", it looks like she'll live, but how her and everyone will deal with her lets face it partial dismemberment that's what these Monsters did to her.

I myself would want to die, I wouldn't want to live without both legs, I personally wouldn't be able to deal with that.

Fraud.

You spend 90% of your Troll time on this forum apologising for your Islamic pets at every opportunity, so here get some testicles, a thread for you to focus your obsessive propaganda in to your black hearts content....make comments in this thread, or are you afraid to?

CDZ - Are Leftists as dangerous as the Terrorists?

They're actually a strange mix of Islamofascist and Stalinist. Sick assholes!!!

Greg

How interesting, what do you mean, saying "Stalinist"?

It's a typical Stalinist strategy. Get rid of any moderates; then the useful idiots and then you have totalitarian control. Saddam was similar as was Qaddafi as were ....quite a few ME Dictators.

Nocookies

They use useful Religious Zealots but discard them when they are no longer able to be controlled. Just more useful idiots.

Stalin is the godfather of Islamic State. The Soviet leader died 60 years before the brutal fundamentalist caliphate began to take shape in Syria and neighbouring Iraq. But just as Stalin created a spy-state founded on fear, so the architects of Islamic State set out to forge a new caliphate using precisely the same methods.

Stalin’s USSR and the self-proclaimed theocracy ruled by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi both laid claim to ideological purity; but both, in reality, were predicated on the acquisition of power by means of a fearsome internal espionage network.

The KGB, the East German Stasi and Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat intelligence agency are the direct progenitors of the Islamic State security apparatus. The proof lies in a cache of documents uncovered after a shootout last year between Syrian rebels and an Iraqi intelligence officer now believed to be the strategic mastermind behind the Islamic State takeover of northern Syria.

Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, who usually went by the nom de guerre Haji Bakr, was a colonel in Saddam’s military intelligence services who found himself jobless when the Baathist regime was dismantled and dismissed after the US invasion.

“Bitter and unemployed”, Bakr and other disgruntled Baathists began plotting a seizure of power: the roiling chaos in the rebel-held territories of northern Syria offered the perfect opportunity.

Bakr was shot dead by Syrian rebels in January 2014. Inside his house in the town of Tal Rifaat his killers discovered a bundle of documents describing how to build and enforce a police state. The documents, revealed by the German magazine Der Spiegel this week, amounted to nothing less than a “blueprint for a takeover ... not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan for an ‘Islamic Intelligence State’.”

Spies, not religious converts, were the foundation on which Islamic State was built. Bakr’s plans called for missionary offices to be opened in towns across rebel-held Syria, as cover for the recruitment of informants, usually young men in need of money, regime opponents at odds with the rebels, and former intelligence officers. These spies were deployed to amass information that might be useful to divide and control the local populations: power structures, armed groups, potential opponents and the religious complexion of individual imams.

The agents were also instructed to gather evidence on criminal or homosexual activity which might be used to blackmail individuals, and to infiltrate powerful clans by marrying into them.

A local commander would be appointed for each province to oversee kidnapping, murder and espionage. But at the same time, the security structure would itself be subject to surveillance by parallel departments. Everyone would spy on everyone else — a recipe for the systemic paranoia that is the hallmark of totalitarianism.

The underground spy network established by Bakr enabled Islamic State to rise to power with a speed and efficiency that stunned Western intelligence agencies. But his methods were hardly new.

Bakr was a product of the terror state created by Saddam, whose system of internal surveillance in turn owed a great deal to the Soviet model of repression and manipulation. Saddam’s Baathist regime was a Stalinist dictatorship in all but name, controlling every element of society through fear, uncertainty and an all-seeing security apparatus.

As a young man Saddam bragged that he would turn Iraq into a “Stalin state”. He collected numerous biographies of the Soviet leader.

His seizure of power came with a staged scene of terror, when about 60 “traitors” were exposed at a meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council in 1979 and then led away to be shot, while Saddam wept for the cameras. Saddam urged his intelligence officers to recruit “a shadow in every house”; the shadows themselves were spied upon.

Men such as Bakr learnt their trade among the shadows, and have now successfully applied these techniques to build Islamic State, a caliphate ostensibly dedicated to jihad but built on old-fashioned Stalinist fear. Its nearest parallel may be that of the Stasi, the security force of East Germany. Using thousands of citizen-informants to root out dissent, it was perhaps the most effective secret police agency in history.

The spy regimes of the USSR and East Germany were created to bolster communism; Saddam claimed to be defending Baathism; the army of spies deployed by Islamic State are in the service of the self-styled caliphate. But what all spy-based regimes have in common is a hunger for power.

Islamic State portrays itself as a pure religious revolution. It is seen in the West as a terrorist state, dedicated to wholesale destruction and looting. But the discovery that the world’s newest state is the work of Saddam’s former spooks suggests that what appears to be a new phenomenon may really be the application of tried and tested techniques of autocratic rule.

According to Der Spiegel, Baghdadi was selected by Bakr and his cabal of former Iraqi intelligence officers to give the organisation “a religious face”.

Islamic State, it seems, has two faces: one fanatical and fundamentalist, imposing religious conformity; the other secular and strategic, pursuing raw power. When they searched Bakr’s house, the rebels found ample evidence of a super-spy at work, but not a single copy of the Koran.

THE TIMES

Greg

How deep are you, western people, really propagandizing in this question... I understand it - I remember all this propagand, which came to Russia after USSR falling and added to internal propaganda. We needed about twenty years of learning historical archive documents to get a point of view, closer to truth.... So, thanks for your information!