I guess adding or building on my above post. If you justify contempt and vitriol against beliefs in a deity, likening it to Krampus, because in essence your view is the correct one that's dangerous. It is in point of fact EXACTLY what the Westboro Baptists tell themselves, most of ISIS too for that matter.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

@enoch
I did my best :-) I honestly feel threatened by this attitude of feeding the bear crumbs and pretending he is a friend. Also cant help liking Abby, so very disappointed.

@newtboy
For russia Assad is a (replaceable) puppet, bolstering Assad is just using that puppet for their own needs. ISIS is a threat because it directly supports terrorist groups within Russia. Sending in their air force and that coal powered smoking joke of an aircraft carrier was a military excercise with minimal losses and huge political and home security gains. Expensive though.

One cant just send in a task force to take out a dictator simply because one believes it would be the right thing to do. Countries generally have a limitless supply of local mafioso would-be dictators or religious leaders which the local population prefers to foreign rule. Religion and politics are just a thin veil for local tribal wars. In spite of Syria being a fairly civilised country before the current events I doubt there was ever a "democratic" alternative to Assad. Sometimes you just get lucky and the dictator decides he wants democracy (South Korea, Chile, Gorbatchev inadvertently).

F**k the whole middle east actually IMHO, twice. The Kurds never get any love from anyone and they´ve survived in the middle of this crazy shitstorm for millenia. Yet they will never have a country of their own. Even "Palestinians" created only in the last few decades appear to be closer to that goal. Not fair at all.

For all I know, the Syrian secessionists (if that's what the original local revolutionists should be called) are all gone and the fighters of today are nearly all foreign invaders

Given that both the government and ISIS armies both specifically targeted them first they likely are all gone. If you go back to Al Jazeera's coverage of the early Russian offensives, their airstrikes and attacks were ignoring the ISIS held territory and only hitting the moderate/legitimate rebels. Similarly, pretty much all reports of the ISIS foreign fighters coming in were that they never pretended to support the rebels, but merely replaced them demanding obedience or death.

@radx

The foreign element is fighting both sides of the war. The strongest fighting force on the 'rebel' side is ISIS and the strongest fighting force overall is the Russians fighting for Assad. If foreign support makes the rebels illegitimate doesn't it do the same for Assad?

Absolutely. We've had our share of - primarily Austrian and French - mercenaries as part of our internal wars. These were groups who enlisted for one of the fighting parties.

In Syria, however, you've had thousands of mercenaries who were not fighting for the government or the "rebels", but for their own. And we're not just talking about ISIS carving out pieces of Syria for their own caliphate, but also other jihadists who merely want to turn Syria into another failed state, like Libya.

To describe this as a civil war distorts the nature of this conflict, it makes it sound as if it were a struggle for control between two groups of Syrians. It may have been at some point years ago, but it hasn't been for a long time.

Mali is looking awfully similar by now, too. Lots of foreign fighters in nation states that were only ever stable on paper anyway -- a recipe for disaster.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Fantomas.

Your video, Real Housewives of ISIS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You misunderstand, the US army aren't the worst people in the world; ISIS are.

That was my entire point. If your response to "the US army does some bad shit" is "yeah, but ISIS are worse" then you're setting a pretty low standard for your army.

I expect ISIS to be assholes... that's their thing.
And I expect the US army to be many orders of magnitude better than ISIS.

Same way as I expect cops to behave better than criminals.

So you are appalled at what ISIS are doing, but you still see the US army as the worst people in the world? This is why I'm agreeing with that quotation.

As much as US collateral damage could be lessened, they are hardly the worst people in the world. Especially as individuals - when a soldier goes home at the end of their tour, they're just regular a regular person. You cannot say the same thing for a member of a terrorist organisation where the practices listed above are considered not only normal, but law.

There is a really big difference between accidental, or even negligently causing civilian deaths vs. a doctrine to kill civilians (especially when they are your own civilians) - that's another thing entirely no?

Like I said in my previous comment, the bombing is not even anywhere near as indiscriminate as the left media would make it seem.

Ordinarily, I'd say that question is borderline retarded, but as it's a youtube comment, I'll give them props for actually using correct spelling.

But to answer his dumbarse question in reverse.... uh, first people ARE appalled at what ISIS is doing. Have you somehow missed the last 5 years of media coverage? Remember the whole "je suis charlie", "pray for paris" (as if praying wasn't what got us into this mess in the first place), etc?

Second, you hold your army to a high moral standard because they're YOUR FUCKING ARMY. When you give a bunch of people guns and a licence to commit violence in the name of your country, you expect that they do so in a thoughtful manner.

If literally the worst people on earth are your standard for moral behaviour.... that's a pretty fucking low bar.

woah woah woah woah.

It's one thing to accuse Obama of being a muslim, a communist, a kenyan, the founder of ISIS, but calling him "the Nickelback of presidents".... that's fucking harsh!

Also *quality Trump burn at the end
#phonedrop

I know it's a bit of a cliche to say it, but this whole video is just so much Russian propaganda. Right from the very first story 'ignored' by the MSM, you have the very same day coverage by the BBC here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36835678

The only difference is that the BBC coverage has some details that the video's source leaves out, like that the Free Syrian Army condemned the beheading and was seeking to punish those responsible.

There is absolutely zero question that Syria is currently a war zone, with Russian jets dropping Russian made bombs on Syrian civilians. There is overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons have been deployed by BOTH ISIL and the Syrian government.

I'm not really sorry if it seems like the MSM is drawing a picture that makes the Assad regime look like bad guys. The reality is that the FACTS make the Assad regime bad guys. That doesn't make ISIL good guys because they are fighting Assad, criminals try and kill each other all the time and that's what's happening. The really troubling aspect is there exist plenty of Syrian people in the region who legitimately wanted an end to Assad's dictatorship and started a legitimated rebellion and have been almost completely cut out and killed off by both Assad and ISIL. If you've been paying attention, Russian bombing strikes focus heavily on the NON-ISIS rebels because they have legitimacy and thus need to die first.

The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.