CDZ A Rundown on the Players in Syria

[william the wie]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

 

[Sunni Man]

Funny stuff........you should be a comedian. ......

 

[TheOldSchool]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Okay you touched on 3 of the sides. What about the others? Terrible rundown. Even of the 3 you mentioned.

 

[Moonglow]

How many different tribes of Muslims are in Syria?

 

[Fishlore]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

 

[jwoodie]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Informative, but I think you need a proof reader.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Informative, but I think you need a proof reader.

Yeah it's informative if you don't know anything about it and don't really want to.

 

[oldsoul]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

 

[Fishlore]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

 

[Syriusly]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Well that is hardly a rundown- I can include more than those players just off the top of my head.

1. The Syrian government- headed by dictator Ashad- Allwaite Shiia- brutal- happy to use poison gas and barrel bombs on Syrian citizens
2. Kurdish rebels- from Kurdish villages in Syria, Iraq and Turkey
3. Other Syrian rebels- non-Kurds- mostly Sunni
4. Syrian Druze- which apparently support the government.
5. - then from outside Syria
6. Iran- supporting some of the rebel groups
7. Saudi Arabia- supporting some of the rebel groups
8. Other Gulf States- supporting some of the rebel groups
9. Turkey- opposed to Kurdish rebels- supporting some of the other rebels
10. United States and European allies- wanting to expel Syrian President
    
11. Russia- supporting Syrian President
12. ISIS/ISIL who would gladly attack/kill any of the above

 

[oldsoul]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

 

[Fishlore]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

i'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent with "So, you're saying..." I don't think Islamic resistance, of which terrorism is at the moment their only tactic available, is anybody's "fault." Rather, this is just another phase in the violent conflict between Christendom and Islam that has been going on since the seventh century. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been on the defensive, both sides have committed violent atrocity. The immediate question is, for me at least, not how to assign blame but how to bring peace. Salaam and Shalom

 

[oldsoul]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

i'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent with "So, you're saying..." I don't think Islamic resistance, of which terrorism is at the moment their only tactic available, is anybody's "fault." Rather, this is just another phase in the violent conflict between Christendom and Islam that has been going on since the seventh century. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been on the defensive, both sides have committed violent atrocity. The immediate question is, for me at least, not how to assign blame but how to bring peace. Salaam and Shalom

I don't know how we can bring peace when one group has stated time after time they are bent on total annihilation of those who appose them.

 

[Fishlore]

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

i'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent with "So, you're saying..." I don't think Islamic resistance, of which terrorism is at the moment their only tactic available, is anybody's "fault." Rather, this is just another phase in the violent conflict between Christendom and Islam that has been going on since the seventh century. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been on the defensive, both sides have committed violent atrocity. The immediate question is, for me at least, not how to assign blame but how to bring peace. Salaam and Shalom

I don't know how we can bring peace when one group has stated time after time they are bent on total annihilation of those who appose them.

Well, we can start by looking at the facts and taking the inflammatory rhetoric with a grain of salt. We should also remind ourselves that camels are poor swimmers and that protecting our borders is far more cost effective than "bombing the hell" out of cities like Raqqa.

Arabia is in the midst of a great revolution. The biggest reason Arabs are attacking us is because we are over there, as Rand Paul has pointed out. Our leaving the region won't stop the civil war but it will get us out of the line of fire. There are number of steps we can take to assist combatants whose victory we deem in our best interest without having to join in the bloodbath. This requires shedding the colonial mentality that says intervention is not only our right but our duty. If all this seems hopelessly naive to you, you might consider that most of the world's major powers do not share our propensity to rush in and sort out the bad guys, an approach that is working well for them.

 

[oldsoul]

So, your saying that Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is OUR fault? Or are you simply saying that Islamic Terrorists are reacting to an "invasion" by Christians? Either way, I guess we are at fault, they are just reacting to what we did, so it's all ok. If we just leave them alone they won't see us as the infidel right?

Infidel:
noun
1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.
adjective
1. adhering to a religion other than one's own.

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

i'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent with "So, you're saying..." I don't think Islamic resistance, of which terrorism is at the moment their only tactic available, is anybody's "fault." Rather, this is just another phase in the violent conflict between Christendom and Islam that has been going on since the seventh century. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been on the defensive, both sides have committed violent atrocity. The immediate question is, for me at least, not how to assign blame but how to bring peace. Salaam and Shalom

I don't know how we can bring peace when one group has stated time after time they are bent on total annihilation of those who appose them.

Well, we can start by looking at the facts and taking the inflammatory rhetoric with a grain of salt. We should also remind ourselves that camels are poor swimmers and that protecting our borders is far more cost effective than "bombing the hell" out of cities like Raqqa.

Arabia is in the midst of a great revolution. The biggest reason Arabs are attacking us is because we are over there, as Rand Paul has pointed out. Our leaving the region won't stop the civil war but it will get us out of the line of fire. There are number of steps we can take to assist combatants whose victory we deem in our best interest without having to join in the bloodbath. This requires shedding the colonial mentality that says intervention is not only our right but our duty. If all this seems hopelessly naive to you, you might consider that most of the world's major powers do not share our propensity to rush in and sort out the bad guys, an approach that is working well for them.

You are correct that the first step would be to "get out", and support those we see as in our best interest. However, I seriously doubt that would have much, if any, effect on how Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists veiw us, and thus would have little effect on whether or not they continue to attack us, and our way of life. IMHO, the only way to effectively stop them is to kill them. They will do the same to us if we fail to do it to them first. They tell us this time after time.

 

[Fishlore]

I do not respond to statements purporting to paraphrase my posts. I take some care in choosing my words and post them when they say what I mean. I welcome your engagement with what I write.

Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is our label. I suspect that most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would prefer something like "true, holy jihad." I have no quibble with labels. Islam is a major faith with well over a billion believers around the world. It is one of the socio-religious tribes that has been relatively successful in resisting conquest and exploitation by the tribe of Christendom and has been one of the most steadfast in resisting acculturation as well. I don't present this as a vice or a virtue, merely as a fact.

There have been long periods of peaceful trade etc. between Christendom and Islam and I hope there will soon be one again. The bigotry and violence belching forth on both sides of the divide isn't going to bring about such a happy condition. Believing one's own propaganda is always a mistake.

I was merely inquiring if I understood you correctly, and assuming I did, responding. If you do not wish to confirm nor deny that my understanding is correct, that is your right. Just know that I have little choice but to beleive my understanding is, indeed, correct.

i'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent with "So, you're saying..." I don't think Islamic resistance, of which terrorism is at the moment their only tactic available, is anybody's "fault." Rather, this is just another phase in the violent conflict between Christendom and Islam that has been going on since the seventh century. Both sides have been aggressors, both sides have been on the defensive, both sides have committed violent atrocity. The immediate question is, for me at least, not how to assign blame but how to bring peace. Salaam and Shalom

I don't know how we can bring peace when one group has stated time after time they are bent on total annihilation of those who appose them.

Well, we can start by looking at the facts and taking the inflammatory rhetoric with a grain of salt. We should also remind ourselves that camels are poor swimmers and that protecting our borders is far more cost effective than "bombing the hell" out of cities like Raqqa.

Arabia is in the midst of a great revolution. The biggest reason Arabs are attacking us is because we are over there, as Rand Paul has pointed out. Our leaving the region won't stop the civil war but it will get us out of the line of fire. There are number of steps we can take to assist combatants whose victory we deem in our best interest without having to join in the bloodbath. This requires shedding the colonial mentality that says intervention is not only our right but our duty. If all this seems hopelessly naive to you, you might consider that most of the world's major powers do not share our propensity to rush in and sort out the bad guys, an approach that is working well for them.

You are correct that the first step would be to "get out", and support those we see as in our best interest. However, I seriously doubt that would have much, if any, effect on how Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists veiw us, and thus would have little effect on whether or not they continue to attack us, and our way of life. IMHO, the only way to effectively stop them is to kill them. They will do the same to us if we fail to do it to them first. They tell us this time after time.

If we take our "war on terrorism" seriously and protect our own nations as we would do in wartime, the capacity of ISIS to harm us will prove grossly deficient. Successful application of the economic stranglehold that crippled al Qaeda will work equally well. There are millions of Arabs, including wealthy and powerful political and religious elites whose position is deeply threatened by ISIS. They will do the job with only minimum assistance. We need to but out and ignore the screams.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The crusades were not the only factor which turned the Golden Age of Islam into garbage. Assigning blame, a millennium after the fact, seems pretty pointless. They were left to drift into oblivion until the world got too small and the Ottomans came to town. Then they started to get a bit ambitious. Not a lot, but a bit. They wanted the Turks gone and a nifty, new, shiny nation all their own. The rest of the world said hell no, and proceeded to carve them up like, well, a turkey.

And then we found oil under the sand. Oh, happy day. Now we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We can't just let them be, and we have achieved nothing through our interference except to make matters worse. We need a completely new approach.

 

[Picaro]

The "moderate" opposition are Sunni supporters of the Chechens.

Until the Russian jet was brought in Sinai by ISIS the "moderates" were target number one with a bullet and quite rightly so.

ISIS is trying to set up a caliphate in the traditional Islamic homeland of the first four Caliphs which does not include Europe or Russia. The downing of a passenger jet in that area by ISIS while annoying should have been anticipated by the Russian Foreign and/or Defense minister. It was not.

The attack in Paris changed things and moved ISIS higher up the target list.

The Russian bomber was fired upon and hit while it was Syrian airspace and that according to the Turks.

ISIS is a cash cow for Turkey and that was the reason for the attack.

Turkey now either gives up its cash cow or gets its butt kicked by Russia and France.

And that is the situation now.

Step back and take a satellite view of the conflict over the centuries. ISIS is the latest brand of Muslim resistance to Christian aggression, an aggression that has been going on since the Christian team got the ball back at the Battle of Tours with quarterback Charles Martel.

It is a cultural blindness of the West to see that while ISIS has used a bloody-minded theology to justify resisting Western encroachment, we have done exactly the same thing. It is a very human pattern to fight outsiders and to explain and justify the defense by an ideology that has religious roots.

France rejected Turkey's entrance into the EU because Turkey is not a Christian nation. The pope led the rejectionist effort. Denied the opportunity (very rare in history) to switch sides, Turkey is returning to its Muslim roots.

Bottom line: if you don't want war and terrorism, stay out of the other guy's yard.

ISIS is just a gang formed by Saddam's former Iraqi Republican Guards or whatever they were called, that Bush was too weak to eradicate; they're just Baathists with a nifty new title. The major 'problem' in the ME now is the Iranian axis; bombing ISIS doesn't do much of anything. Getting rid of Assad, Hezboolaboola, and provoke a coup in Iran and the most of the rest of it just fades away.

Pretending 'da Evul Xians iz just as bad' gibberish is of course just ridiculous propaganda nonsense only cranks buy into.

 

[Picaro]

The crusades were not the only factor which turned the Golden Age of Islam into garbage.

There was no great 'Golden Age of Islam', and the Crusades were merely a re-conquest as far as the Christianity vs Islam meme goes.

Assigning blame, a millennium after the fact, seems pretty pointless.

Assigning blame to the Crusades is pretty pointless any time.

They were left to drift into oblivion until the world got too small and the Ottomans came to town. Then they started to get a bit ambitious. Not a lot, but a bit. They wanted the Turks gone and a nifty, new, shiny nation all their own. The rest of the world said hell no, and proceeded to carve them up like, well, a turkey.

Well, not much left for a bandit culture built on robbing and murder everybody else to do but stagnate when the other guys get together and shut down your mob.

And then we found oil under the sand. Oh, happy day. Now we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We can't just let them be, and we have achieved nothing through our interference except to make matters worse. We need a completely new approach.

Can't find a single tribe that ever said 'no' to the oil deals. In fact they were all pretty enthusiastic about making them.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The crusades were not the only factor which turned the Golden Age of Islam into garbage.

There was no great 'Golden Age of Islam', and the Crusades were merely a re-conquest as far as the Christianity vs Islam meme goes.

Assigning blame, a millennium after the fact, seems pretty pointless.

Assigning blame to the Crusades is pretty pointless any time.

They were left to drift into oblivion until the world got too small and the Ottomans came to town. Then they started to get a bit ambitious. Not a lot, but a bit. They wanted the Turks gone and a nifty, new, shiny nation all their own. The rest of the world said hell no, and proceeded to carve them up like, well, a turkey.

Well, not much left for a bandit culture built on robbing and murder everybody else to do but stagnate when the other guys get together and shut down your mob.

And then we found oil under the sand. Oh, happy day. Now we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We can't just let them be, and we have achieved nothing through our interference except to make matters worse. We need a completely new approach.

Can't find a single tribe that ever said 'no' to the oil deals. In fact they were all pretty enthusiastic about making them.

No, they were swingin' back in the day. The center of world culture. Science, medicine, mathematics. To deny that is as wrong as denying their current state of barbarism. They led at one point and then they fell behind.

Vitriol clouds the mind. I don't hate these people, and I don't have contempt for them. I have contempt for their culture, which suppresses and limits them. That's the real enemy. and it can't be fought with guns.