ISIS: The latest in a 13-century long tradition of peace, tolerance, and human rights!
I always wonder why feminists, gays, and liberals in general take the Muslim side. It must be a self-loathing thing, because it sure ain't the way they're treated in Muslim territories.
you do know that the US funded ISIS in syria right? this is classic CIA blowblack. why do you think they have TOW missile launchers that was never given to the iraqis?
Wandering, it's because (IMO) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Muslims and Marxists have been natural allies for a century, and both have had a strong desire to bring down the West for that whole time. Each thinks they'll knock the other off and take over once the Great Satan is out of the way. Problem number one with the Marxist's viewpoint. They are nihilists at heart, where the muslims quite strongly believe in something. It's a lot of why they don't see the threat the muslims pose, it's just "hey, they don't really mean it. I mean, our 'leaders' speak certain words for the cameras and the proles, but don't really mean it, so the Mad Mullahs don't either." They'll be quite surprised at the violence coming their way once the common enemy is out of the way. Then again, a lot of lefties may convert. A sharia system is very fascistic, and both draw the sadistic sob's in, because both give them the ability to legally go after anyone they don't like.
There are two reasons especially when it comes to feminists talking Muslim sides. Similar ideology both see the modern display of women as "showing off women as products" and the Muslims are often seen as victims which suits their agenda.
The first thing that comes to mind is daddy Bush. As a CIA man he knew good and well the dormant monster that was in Iraq and while politically unpopular did not unleash it. Bush Jr. double fell right into Bin Laden's trap. All in the past, can't change it now, we have to deal with it.
Generally main stream media does a worse than piss poor job reporting on the Islamic State as it is called today.
Islam has "morality police", in the case of ISIS they are the police, they enforce the wearing of the hijab or burka, ensure child bearing age women are being escorted by a male blood-relative in public places, arresting women for violating the dress code or prohibiting any non related male-female fraternization. This is operationally enforcing inbreeding. Google "HBD chick" for a greatly expanded explanation of the root difference between the west and Islam which is inbreeding. One consequence is a progressively more clannish fiefdom like nature of adherents of Islam.
Saudi Arabia is the other Elephant in the room. Saudi Arabia has not had its version of the French revolution. Islam has not had its version of the protestant reformation. Saudi government is literally structured like the early middle ages. Inbreeding is widely practiced. The Saudi government is very oppressive. Operationally slavery is practiced. Most of the 911attackers were Saudis', Bin Laden was Saudi. If we were to take a 100% hands off approach sooner or later ISIS would invade Saudi Arabia and likely succeed in taking it over.
Another one is Israel who's social structure is western and they enjoy the benefits of this. It is impossible for their clannish inbred Arab neighbors to attain this because of the structural differences creating an unresolvable inequality. Israel is far more worried about ISIS, it's their direct neighbor. And they worry about America, we can make things worse.
Lastly remember Christopher Columbus, yep he sailed in 1492. The really big money was in spices, no refrigeration, it was the only way to preserve food and make it taste good. And India was where spices came from but you had to go through the Middle East to get there. As now the people there were degenerate, dangerous and generally very unpleasant.
The smart money at that time knew the world was round and about how big it was, They knew the ships of the day did not have anywhere close to enough provision to sail that far. And they were scared shitless of the unknown vast ocean with unknown winds, storms and currents.
With brass balls Columbus took the suicidal chance to avoid the Middle East to get to India.
11 comments:
ISIS: The latest in a 13-century long tradition of peace, tolerance, and human rights!
I always wonder why feminists, gays, and liberals in general take the Muslim side. It must be a self-loathing thing, because it sure ain't the way they're treated in Muslim territories.
Only problem is that the guy on the left turned over a whole lot if his modern weaponry to the guy on the right.
you do know that the US funded ISIS in syria right? this is classic CIA blowblack. why do you think they have TOW missile launchers that was never given to the iraqis?
@wandering - that's easy. Because like all bullies they shrink in the face of bigger bullies.
Wandering, it's because (IMO) the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Muslims and Marxists have been natural allies for a century, and both have had a strong desire to bring down the West for that whole time. Each thinks they'll knock the other off and take over once the Great Satan is out of the way. Problem number one with the Marxist's viewpoint. They are nihilists at heart, where the muslims quite strongly believe in something. It's a lot of why they don't see the threat the muslims pose, it's just "hey, they don't really mean it. I mean, our 'leaders' speak certain words for the cameras and the proles, but don't really mean it, so the Mad Mullahs don't either." They'll be quite surprised at the violence coming their way once the common enemy is out of the way. Then again, a lot of lefties may convert. A sharia system is very fascistic, and both draw the sadistic sob's in, because both give them the ability to legally go after anyone they don't like.
That's kinda unfair to the Arbiter, Captain......he listens to facts and reason, Al Quaeda does not.
I'm rooting for the Kurds. Hopefully they can be like that tank Sheila. Free Kurdistan!
There are two reasons especially when it comes to feminists talking Muslim sides. Similar ideology both see the modern display of women as "showing off women as products" and the Muslims are often seen as victims which suits their agenda.
Love the HALO reference.
That's the good, the bad, and the ugly you just posted there captain. Very good post to.
The first thing that comes to mind is daddy Bush. As a CIA man he knew good and well the dormant monster that was in Iraq and while politically unpopular did not unleash it. Bush Jr. double fell right into Bin Laden's trap. All in the past, can't change it now, we have to deal with it.
Generally main stream media does a worse than piss poor job reporting on the Islamic State as it is called today.
Islam has "morality police", in the case of ISIS they are the police, they enforce the wearing of the hijab or burka, ensure child bearing age women are being escorted by a male blood-relative in public places, arresting women for violating the dress code or prohibiting any non related male-female fraternization. This is operationally enforcing inbreeding. Google "HBD chick" for a greatly expanded explanation of the root difference between the west and Islam which is inbreeding. One consequence is a progressively more clannish fiefdom like nature of adherents of Islam.
Saudi Arabia is the other Elephant in the room. Saudi Arabia has not had its version of the French revolution. Islam has not had its version of the protestant reformation. Saudi government is literally structured like the early middle ages. Inbreeding is widely practiced. The Saudi government is very oppressive. Operationally slavery is practiced. Most of the 911attackers were Saudis', Bin Laden was Saudi. If we were to take a 100% hands off approach sooner or later ISIS would invade Saudi Arabia and likely succeed in taking it over.
Another one is Israel who's social structure is western and they enjoy the benefits of this. It is impossible for their clannish inbred Arab neighbors to attain this because of the structural differences creating an unresolvable inequality. Israel is far more worried about ISIS, it's their direct neighbor. And they worry about America, we can make things worse.
Lastly remember Christopher Columbus, yep he sailed in 1492. The really big money was in spices, no refrigeration, it was the only way to preserve food and make it taste good. And India was where spices came from but you had to go through the Middle East to get there. As now the people there were degenerate, dangerous and generally very unpleasant.
The smart money at that time knew the world was round and about how big it was, They knew the ships of the day did not have anywhere close to enough provision to sail that far. And they were scared shitless of the unknown vast ocean with unknown winds, storms and currents.
With brass balls Columbus took the suicidal chance to avoid the Middle East to get to India.
Post a Comment