Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!

Talk:DAESH/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 June 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

oh noes the CIA[edit]

Some say they CIA.
Dynamic Google image search and Fugs.
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Troops in Iraq won't work?[edit]

Seriously? The US is good at fighting conventional enemies. WWI worked. WWII worked. Korea worked, until we fought too far. For now, the IS is a conventional enemy, in that it controls territory through force. Why couldn't troops remove IS control of Iraq and make them into just another jihadist enemy? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the point isn't to defeat the Islamic State, nor are we capable of defeating the Islamic State through force. What we need is to impose a total embargo of weapons, funds, supplies, and recruits throughout the entire Middle East, which would deprive them of everything. Force is not the way to go about it. Serocco (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Not capable? Only if we skimp on troops.
Why not defeat Daesh thru force?
And why not blockade and airstrike and invade? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Two weeks ago it looked like troop intervention was inevitable after the November US elections. But resources and focus on Ebola may change all that. Now the US must deal with both Ebola and beheadings here in America. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Washington has an awful track record with ground combat. Especially since we are absolutely guaranteed to stay there for longer than we should; it happens all the time. Serocco (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@nobs: I'm not saying that it will happen. However, the question is whether it would work if it did happen.
@Serocco: Where's the awful track record? DC handled the occupation of Iraq terribly. The invasion worked much more smoothly. And even if it's flawed, why wouldn't ground troops plus air superiority plus blockades succeed? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@nobs: BTW: Wouldn't beheadings in the United States by an ex-con Muslim convert help push the US towards larger-scale invasion? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Larger-scale invasion against the people we armed to fight Assad? Because that's how IS started. It's a recipe for disaster. There is massive sectarian violence, and if we fight off the Islamic State, that'll allow Shias and Kurds to massacre Sunnis, just as they already have, but in droves should we arrive. Serocco (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a larger question, now. What is there to be won anyway? Especially after all the experiences of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc.? Is defeating an armed force enough? Are we seeking to occupy territory simply to deny its use to our enemies? Was killing bin Laden the objective in the War on Terror? Are wars simply about retribution, conquest, access to resources, testing new technology etc? What is "liberation" or "freedom"? Can democracy be imposed? What is "nation building"?
The first thing that needs to be defined is a specific objective. Of course "national security" is always it. Is WMD in the hands of nutcases a national security threat? Does the death of 3000 9-11 victims justify retribution? Will killing bin Laden bring back 3000 dead? Does a nation's anger justify war? I think we know the answer to all these questions, and our current leadership and commander-in-chief certainly made a point that the War on Terror was solely about retribution. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Why are we calling it Daesh?[edit]

That is the Arabic abbreviation of their name. English has its own abbreviation, and it's "IS" for Islamic State. I know they hate being called Daesh, but they also hate being called ISIS or ISIL as well, so it's a moot point to have it as their name here. Serocco (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We should go with one or the other (or the other ISIS or the other ISIL) but make uniform throughout. I'm fine with either IS or Daesh (until they change their name again). But since Daesh is intentonally derogatory, maybe we should stick with IS, for now. However, even NPR & other's still preface it with "the group calling itself IS". What about, "the IS group", or the "IS terrorist organization"? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
They're the Islamic State, so IS should be the abbreviation (even though ISIS is still found in the phrase Islamic State, but hey). Serocco (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What about using all caps DAESH at least til people get familiar with it? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
They kill people for calling them anything that isn't the Islamic State. That's not something we should advocate, so call 'em Islamic State. Serocco (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not call it "the Submissive State" or "the Peaceful State"? Ya know, given the meaning of the word "islam". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They're trying to improve their image now. They repealed the smoking ban. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So, shall we keep it to Daesh or switch it back to Islamic State? Serocco (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Supposedly, they hate the name Daesh. Let's keep it as Daesh--"Shut up, Brx." 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point in validating their claim to the caliphate by calling them by what they decided was the name for the day, so let's stick with the other one. --Miekal 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
They hate being called anything that isn't Islamic State. Daesh is just the Arabic acronym for their name, which is a direct translation to what we've been calling them up to now (meaning Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). ISIS, or simply IS, is the English acronym. Shouldn't we go with that just based on the language barrier? I mean, if there was a fundamentalist evangelical terrorist clique calling themselves the Christian Nation, would calling them by that name somehow "validate" their claim towards being a so-called Christian nation. Bounds of reason, people. It is our job to call out fundamentalism every bit as much as regular religion, so why sugarcoat what they say they are? Daesh is just their Arabic acronym, and there's no point in calling them what is essentially the same name in different languages. Serocco (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
No objections either way, as long as we keep the redirects and bolden acronyms in the Intro. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
How does RW's "Daesh" come up in Google rankings? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers ISIL (the L is for Levant), and Daesh doesn't show up as often as ISIS or IS. Serocco (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I prefer to call them what they really are: Murdering Bastards, or MBs for short. (Or, if you really want to up on the offensiveness, switch it around to "Bastardly Murderers" or "BMs"!)--Chair tater (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I call them filthy motherfucks not worthy of acronymization! Well, not really, but wouldn't that be cool? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now you can call them the only thing standing between the Iranian Superpower and Israel. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
That sounds hilariously paranoid. Also, overestimative of Iran and underestimative of Israel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The Spring Offensive has begun; Tikrit is the First Battle on the road to re-taking Mosul. Iran is betting the farm, placing Gen. Qasem Soleimani in command. Just think, yesterday Nethanyahu warned of a nuclear armed Iran spreading its influence outside its borders, tomorrow American media will hail Gen. Soleimani, the man already on the UN Security Council's Wanted List for illegal procurement of nuclear weapons technology, as the hero who beat back ISIS and spread Iran's influence outside its borders. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

all cooperate against them[edit]

NATO... Syria...and the Kurdish Communists[13] of the Kurdistan Workers' Party to all cooperate against them.

This line definately has to go; Syria (Assad) is buying oil from Daesh and the NATO ally, Turkey, just bombed the PKK while Daesh is slaughtering PKK in Kobani. [1] So how can it be rephrased with the internal link to the [Enemy of my enemy]? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is.

Why the hell is Assad buying oil from someone trying to kill him?Serocco (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIS has accomplished so far what they've wanted to accomplish -- reestablish a caliphate. Then summoning the Muslims globally to war against apostates and infidels.
ISIS primary objective was not to overthrow Assad, making it different from Assad's enemies (and the Obama administration). Assad is small potatoes in the larger scheme of things; first they wish to cleanse the territories under their control from apostate (read Shi'a influence) and Christian ("Monotheism" is a code word for anti-Christian) and few other non-believers. The House of Sa'ud is the big prize, cause then Caliph Ibrihim will assume the title "Keeper of the Holy Places" as well (even the Turkish Sultans & Caliph's did nat have this title). But the U.S. and Zionists stand in the way.
Where this leadership of the global jihad differs from al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Zawahiri is, al Qaeda wanted to unite Sunni & Shi'a to defeat the U.S. first, then destroy the Zionists & the House of Sa'ud; Zarqawi & Baghdadi want to declare the caliphate first (they feel they are 10 years behind schedule now), purify the Muslims by destroying the apostate Shi'a and other infidels in their midst, then destroy the global infidel alliance (NATO, Isreal, & Saudi Arabia) to secure the holy places of Mecca & Medina. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You forgot, how al-Qaeda lead a war against Shiites, too?--Arisboch (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Bin Laden, tragic figure that he is, had to betray his deeply seated principles, his vision of a Muslim unity movement incorporating Sunni and Shia, when he accepted Zarqawi's oath of allegience after 8 months of negotiation. Courts have since ruled Shi'ite Iran is a "material accessory" to the 9/11 attacks. These matters are handled on other pages. Meanwhile, it appears Iran and Al Qaeda are back in bed together. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

anti-smoking nazis[edit]

DAESH wants to ban guns and smoking. These are longheld basic tenets of the American Democratic Party, so should this article really belong Category:Wingnuttery, defined as a rightwing ideologues? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This anti-smoking business belongs somewhere; first Allah tells them to ban cigarettes. Then 4 months later Allah flip-flops to help improve their image after the beheadings. They claimed cigarettes were "slow suicide", based upon Western science and research, no doubt. There is no record, AFAIK, of any Muslim or Arab entity or state spending a damn dime in the past 50 years to research the negative effects of tobacco use, yet DAESH hijacked Western science and medical research to ban cigarettes. And then they bitch about Western civilizations influence on their culture. Jeez-Louise.nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hilarious, Rob. Both Republicans and Hitler agreed that having roads is a good idea. Do Republicans belong in Category:Nazis? No, because there are vast fields of difference in their other views, such as the "Should we genocide those we disagree with?" viewpoint. (Sorry, guys.) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If you think wanting to ban smoking and guns automatically means you are no longer "right-wing", you're an idiot. The political Right-wing changes by country since it claims to embrace nationalism, or the superiority of the values of the country it's in. Opposition to communism, socialism, and an appeal to nationalism and, on the far right, a belief one group is inherintly superior to others are the few consists among the political right since their values change by what country they're in. The fact I have to explain this is kind of sad. ClothCoat (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
What a fucking idiot you are. That ain't no such thing as "nationalism" in Islam (this is an Islam-related article if u haven't noticed). Islam is multicultural, multiracial, and rejects the very concept of "nation-state". Please keep your Western Anglo-Euro Centric public school musings to an article more on your level.
Incidentally, Dabiq issue #5 (ISIS's propaganda rag) is on the same anti-smoking jihad the U.S. Democrats & Obamacare are again (see page 17). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Fuck you Rob. And for the last fucking time I'm not British you ignorant troll. Have you seriously never heard of the association fallacy? And ISIS still believes in the inherent superiority of one group over others making it by definition far-right. Regardless of whether or not it claims to embrace the nation-state it still wants one for Islam where one group very clearly rules over others. ClothCoat (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, Marx is a right-wing extremist because he believed that people that didn't agree with him were living in a false consciousness. "Right Wing" varies by country in the exact definition, but it generally boils down to "keep things as they are, or how (we think) they used to be".CorruptUser (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Phil Robertson quote[edit]

I think we need another section for Phil Robertsons hilarious "convert or kill" quote from Faux news. Anyone agree?Greatnecro (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of ridicule. And thus far Daesh has proven adept in the propaganda war (a whole section needs to be developed on this line whic will spill over into the Muslim Brotherhood, Syrian War,etc.). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Why the Beheading of James Foley is fake[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRr-ALeqtos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmeDwsguvkA#t=118

These two videos show his parents show no remorse. No tears, no mourning, etc.

Also: Why was Foley smiling when he was being beheaded?

This video sums it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9wKEjbhFcE&bpctr=1417415907 --ReptoidKiller (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the obvious: Youtube videos are generally not reliable, reputable sources. Case in point. Why were his parents showing no remorse? Why was he smiling? Hopefully you are old enough to know that physical expressions don't always connotate states of mind. Many times have I laughed hysterically when I reach my stress limit. You cannot use physical expressions to say something that was documented by everybody else as happening was faked. To do so is quite a stretch indeed. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to go bounce my head off my table until nothing is left but a bloody stump. Maybe, just maybe, I can forget the awfulness that is this garbage after that. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS/al-Nusra alliance[edit]

The recent additions and links (dated Sept 2014) about the al-Nusra/ISIS alliance probably should be removed . Those rumours, reported by some AP outlets, were vetted back in Sept & Oct and amount to, basically, ISIS propaganda. 65 members of an al-Nusra associated militia defected or swore alliegiance the Caliph and remain in their home territory. It was done over a negotiating table and announced to idiot Western journalists as a merger of ISIS & al-Nusra. It's pure bullshit. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Ba'athist's armed militia (the JRTN) is making a comeback with American funding (thru our Saudi, Jordanian and other fronts). It is a Sunni group at war with the Baghdad Shi'ite Iranian stooge regime (alsp known as the Green Zone). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

conundrum[edit]

Breaking news now has one of the gunmen in France declaring allegiance to al-Baghdadi. At the same time, Eric Holder still doesn't know which group is responsible. DAESH's own literature (Dabiq) boasts of it being able to pull off lone wolf attacks and posthumously gives itself credit. Now, should we be able to list these in the Human Rights and war crimes entries, or maybe we should begin a separate list of these lone wolf attacks outside DAESH occupied territories for which the attackers and DAESH later take credit. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting and it makes some sense, his girlfriend was reportedly traveling to Syria.BlackProg23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Daesh, Daish, Daiish or yet something else?[edit]

I'm just wondering what the correct transliteration of the acronym should be. Since the full name doesn't include an 'e' anywhere, it seems kinda weird to use it in the acronym, even if it leads to the right pronunciation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I still like using all caps, DAESH, which is supposed sound like "under foot"; it's reminiscent of SMERSHWikipedia, (which the arresting officers used to wrinkle their nose when they said "I'm from SMERSH") and stands for smiert spionam or Death to Spies. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'll just use the original Arabic acronym. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There isn't an official format for transliterating Arabic and Latin characters, so I recall. "I" and "E" are interchangeable (hence why bin Ladin's name was spelt so differently across American news networks in 2001). The basic etiquette there is to stay consistent when you make your mind up. I don't know how the acronym came about, though, but I can provide theories:
  • ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām
  • ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām
  • ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām --Forerunner (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Pieter van Ostaeyen has an interesting page on its origin and meaning; he spells it DAESH and in the comments say's it is pronounced Daa’ish. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram and داعش[edit]

I've heard reports that Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to داعش and that they're capturing territories in Nigeria and neighbouring countries with the intent of them being added to al-Baghdadi's caliphate. But on various sites, if any mention is made of Boko Haram in relation to داعش, it's only summarily as a group that's expressed support. So what exactly is the relationship between Boko Haram and داعش? Has داعش made any statements regarding its stance towards Boko Haram? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a developing narrative there. It's my understanding Boko Haram boss has declared alliegance to the Caliph [2] but the Caliph hasn't reciprocated in accepting Boko Haram territories as provinces. One can only speculate why. Two theories: (1) ISIS is controlled by racist scum, and (2) claiming territory in West Africa conflicts with the current strategy to bait Western Crusader ground troops into Syria and Iraq. For now, I'd suggest updating the Boko Haram page until the racist dog Caliph Ibrahim recognizes a black man's loyalty and life is just as worthy as an Arab. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 11:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting point raised here; The Management of Savagery describes several priority regions for "vexation and exhaustion" operations, particularly Yemen and Nigeria, which are "in remote areas, which makes it difficult for any state powers to control" (see pages 36-39). This text published in 2004 has borne out over the years more so than al-Qaeda's Master Plan, published in the New Yorker in 2006. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

active disinformation campaign[edit]

There is an active disinformation campaign at work. Boko Haram remains an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet is seen in videos flying the IS flag. Likewise, the third shooter in the kosher deli store in Paris left a video pledging allegiance to IS. IOW, al Qaeda affiliates are seeking to blame IS for their actions, especially when it attracts international news coverage. The reason is simple: the international coalition will take reprisal action against the Islamic State and not al Qaeda, doing what al Qaeda itself is incapable of - weakening and destroying its enemies.

Sidebar:(there's a textbook example available not fully complete in the Ayman Zawahiri article. Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad was competing with the blind Sheik's Islamic Group to lead the overthrow of the Mubarek regime in the late 1990s. The Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania brought the wrath of the US & Eygpt down upon the Islamic Group, which had no interest in actions outside Eygpt. For this reason, al Qaeda - at that time a bin Laden and Zawahiri operation - was not very popular in the jihadist community for its recklessness and causing disruptions to groups who had no interest in making war with the United States. Al Qaeda today, under Zawahiri's leadership, is attempting to provoke France & others to take reprisals against ISIS for AQIP actions in the Charlie Hebdo incident). nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

iT's A conSPICARY BY The shAPsSHifting lIzARD pEoPLE. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's more reasonable to see Boko Haram as a seperate entity that's trying to be acknowledged by and have beneficial relations with both jihadist/terrorist factions. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes that may be true of several groups; a former head of the Pakistan Taliban was just appointed "Governor of the Khorosan." We can assume it wasn't just one guy who defected from al Qaeda and got appointed Governor. Nobody knows for sure what the predecessor groups in Yemen & Saudi Arabia are that Daesh claims have sworn allegiance, but everyone knows AQIP is one of al Qaeda's strongest groups. So, if Daesh is to be believed, they've likely made inroads and secured some defections from AQIP. Some al Qaeda groups are probably sitting on the fence, scared the Caliphate in the long run will crap out and be obliterated by the rest of the world. Defections in Syria, Iraq, and the likely the Maghreb are probably involuntary and only done by intimidation. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 20:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIS greenscreen conspiracies[edit]

We got anything about these?108.46.9.229 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were so, that ISIS did it with greenscreen, my personal guess is the conspiracy theories originated among Japanese pacifists alleging it's a CIA plot, etc. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Daesh" DOES contain a reference to "Islamic"[edit]

It is incorrectly stated in the intro that "the Arabic world knows them pejoratively by the acronym DAESH (داعش), which omits references to "Islamic" in their Arabic name." The acronym داعش takes one letter from each of the words in its full name, الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام, except for في, which means "in." د comes from دولة state, ا comes from إسلامية Islamic, ع comes from العراق Iraq, and ش comes from الشام Al-Sham (the levant).

The name is derogatory not because it omits "Islamic" (it doesn't), but because it sounds similar to the words دائس "Daes" and داهس "dahes," both of which mean someone who tramples upon [others]. I would edit it myself but I'm too retarded, can someone do it for me? — Unsigned, by: 96.33.227.245 / talk / contribs

Yes, that is my understanding, too. The idea of being "underfoot" or "crushed underfoot" like a cockroach is a supreme insult. Someone should try to explain the insult by comparing it with famous Bush shoe-throwing incident. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Name of war[edit]

The whole Daesh affair, being an international military action (Daesh boast recruits from 90 countries and ground war now is being led by iran), needs a name. Anybody got any ideas? Names like "operation Pushing Up Daisies" suck; how about, "Islamic State War", for now. We got enough contemporaneous observations here in RW for a permanent historical record already. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have a clear beginning (unless you go back to 632), and it will likely have an unclear end. "The Forever War" is already taken (good book though). It's more part of the rise of militant Salafism starting in, well, you are our expert on that. We should call the whole thing, from Chechnya to Bosnia to Iraq, "The Salafi Crusades", just piss off all the Salafi-Jihadists who go on and on about "evil Crusaders". Make them understand that the "offensive Mujihadeen" are the reincarnation of the "Crusaders" they despise so much. CorruptUser (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"That one time Assad purposefully overlooked some rebels, and the US created some enemies by invading Iraq and it turns out they get along great and by-the-way-here's-some-guns"? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The Syrian Arab Spring of Doom". "The Arab Sprain". "Levantine Lament". "Douche". "Operation: How Fucking Stupid Are We". "The War on Decency". "Operation: Cactus-fucker". Wait no, that last one is my new band name. CorruptUser (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The Arabian peninsula doesn't have cacti in its deserts. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Operation Tails They Win Heads We Lose. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Operation Tail Everyone Is fucked, Heads Everyone Is Even More Fucked?--Arisboch (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Operation Cluster Fuck. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Operation Fighting Smoke (From A Fire We Started) With Fire? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
We didn't start the fire. This fire has been burning since the world's been turning, or like I said, 632/ So, Operation Billy Joel. If we are using military insults, might as well call it Operation SNAFU (situation normal, all fucked up), FUBAR (fucked up beyond all repair), TARFU (things are really fucked up), Tango Uniform (tits up, aka dead), BOHICA (bend over, here it comes again)... CorruptUser (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, please. Putting all the blame on events from over a millennium ago is just being historically ignorant. Western powers hold plenty of the responsibility in the recent destabilisation of the Middle East. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The old Shia-Sunni-conflict is still raging on and the DAESH is a part of it.--Arisboch (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You make it sound like the locals are SOOO innocent in all this. Mighty Whitey isn't responsible for every little thing that goes wrong in the world. As we've discussed earlier (and on other threads, admittedly), the biggest source of blame are the Saudi religious establishment and the Iranian religious establishment. The Saudis use their oil wealth to fund the Salafi madrasses everywhere, they ended up creating the Muslim Brotherhood as a sister movement, which spawned the Qutbis, which pretty much is the core of DAESH. The Iranians use their oil wealth to fund every nutjob that would advance their interests, regardless of whether they are Shia or Sunni, and tens of millions suffer as a result. If you think that the Iranians are Shia and would thus hate the MB and all its progeny, you'd be right, but you would be wrong to think that would stop them from getting into bed with the Islamist bastards. CorruptUser (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty accurate thumbnail synopsis. I would add, there's a cynical manipulation of naive fundamentalist fuckwits whose global perspective is limited to a 20 mile radius by Great Powers on all sides. We have the same problems in the West, Is it the parents or the schools that keep turning out fuck up young people?
Even after Daesh dies, a lingering problem faces the planet for decades to come: Islam is undergoing a Reformation movement which will remain as bloody as its Christian counterpart. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 13:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
And we're right at the corner of it. "Yay". The phrase "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind.--Arisboch (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Daesh and the Internet[edit]

Is there enough information online to justify creating a fork article for Daesh's Internet campaigns? Along with the hacking of random websites, they've also been involved in a cyberwar with Anonymous, with elements of the two collectives working to publicly reveal names and addresses after sneaking into each other's chat rooms (Anonymous in order to get police involvement; Daesh in order to scare people with threats of murder).-- Forerunner (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems the cyber-propaganda war is indeed a very important aspect of the global jihad, not just the Daesh War episode. Even when/if Daesh is militarily defeated, or put back in a box, the cyber-propaganda war will continue. I could provide background narrative as to how it's evolved since at least the 1982 Syrian uprising, and how overtime the global jihad has learned to and/or attempted to manipulate international media. Some of the technical and social media stuff we'll need help on. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 23:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Some guy on Runescape tried to recruit me for some sort of Salafi something or other. Was rather funny at the time, and he was barking up the wrong tree. This was years ago, before I even knew what Salafism was. Maybe 2005? 2006? He was named "Muslim Umar" ingame, but it was quite interesting some of the weird things he had to say. Like why Saudi Arabia isn't a proper muslim state. He could only answer something about it being too influenced by the US. When I asked how so, he said it was because they were making treaties with the house of conflict or whatever (I know now it's the Dar al Salam vs Dar al Hab crap). When I asked, if one "house" is making treaties (US and Saudi Arabia) while the other "house" refuses to not go to war (his Islamist buddies, I guess) how do you figure that the other "house" isn't the "house of conflict", he had to go consult with someone for an answer. I eventually got bored of him and asked him if he valued my opinion (he said yes), then claimed to be a girl (I'm not) and asked if he still did and why being a girl would change that, and once again, he had no answer offhand. CorruptUser (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you came face to face with the real deal (whether it was a violent jihadi or potential recruit, is another matter). The important thing, is to learn the idioms they speak and think in (as Hillary said, we must understand our opponents). Remember, Salafism is the dominant mainstream view in the Arab Middle East and North Africa right now (see Note here). Western media and "authorative sources" have done a piss-poor job translating these idioms; take Takfir for example, usually described innocuously as "excommunicate"; "death sentence" or "death warrant" is more accurate. When Daesh takes over a town, the residents live in mortal fear an informant or the occupying forces will come for them and finger them as takfir.
The Salafi-jihadis success can largely be attributed to learning Western social, media, and political idioms; our misunderstandings are because few have extended the same courtesy back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, don't called them Mujihadeen; call them Crusaders. That's what they hate. That's what they are. CorruptUser (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That's very good, too. "jihadi-crusaders" and other variants should ease the transition til the public catches on.
jihad is another idiomatic term; jihad is really seen more as "youthful rebelliousness", like hip-hop or punk rockers, that the elders since the of Mohammad seek to harness and channel against the society's perceived foreign enemies, rather than a potentially destructive force within the society itself. That's why community elders and religious clerics encourage its "positive" aspects. Hence, you won't eliminate jihad anymore than you can eliminate youthful rebellion. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 16:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet more parallels with the Crusades; it was less "GOD DEMANDS SACRIFICE!" and more "Well, we have all these young men acting rebellious and harassing the women*, so instead of sending them to kill each other let's send them to kill people we don't like".
  • There's never enough young women to go around. In medieval times there's a 1% chance a woman will die in childbirth each time. That's 1% EVERY YEAR, on top of all the other old-timey diseases we don't have to worry about (unless Jenny McCarthy has her way). Now add in the families favoring sons, giving them better healthcare/nutrition than the daughters. Now combine this with the old but powerful men taking young wives, those same men "reserving" mistresses, and you have a shortage of women. Want to know why medieval women got married around age 13? It was because the men had to grab them young or not at all. NOW add in the Mid-East practice of polygyny among the wealthy. Want to know why Mohammed married a 6 year old? It was because marrying children was the ONLY way a person back then could secure a wife. CorruptUser (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Bit off-topic, but the European trend in the late-Medieval period was for women to get married around 18-23, with their husbands going up to 30. For ordinary people it was less about the "fear of not getting any" (that was there too, though; if you didn't get married by your 30s you're looked upon as some creep) and more about security - there's no way a poor father is going to marry his daughter off to some jobless 25 year old who still lives with his mother (getting a house for your wedding was VERY important to these people). But, due to their definition of "security", if a rich guy with his own personal fortune (some sheep in England and cows in Ireland) and a mansion is interested in your 13 year old daughter you immediately jump on the opportunity because compared to that guy, no one's good enough. I'm not saying you're wrong (I haven't looked for any journal articles regarding your claim), CorruptUser- just that the youthfulness only applied to rich and powerful people-- Forerunner (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
And it's no coincidence the Arab Spring uprisings happened in 2011 at a time of unprecedented global unemployment following the Crash of 2008. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 12:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that and one of the biggest droughts in North Africa in decades. It's as true as it was in medieval times that starvation drives rebellions. Which is why every group that promises "any day now" rebellions in the US are kidding themselves. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Watching a nation of overweight men rebel would be an interesting sight though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we add...[edit]

...the dildo-sis flag?--Arisboch (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Positive Achievements[edit]

Instead of the tumbleweeds, The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji could be quoted as to what he and Daesh regard as positive: (quote)

  • Spreading internal security
  • Providing food and medical treatment
  • Securing the region of savagery from the invasions of enemies
  • Establishing Sharia justice among the people who live in the regions of savagery
  • Raising the level of belief and combat efficiency during the training of the youth of the region of savagery and establishing a fighting society at all levels and among all individuals by making them aware of its importance.
  • Working for the spread of Sharia science (putting the most important aspects before those of lesser importance) and worldly science (putting the most important aspects before those of lesser importance).
  • Dissemination of spies and seeking to complete the construction of a minimal intelligence agency.
  • Uniting the hearts of the world's people by means of money and uniting the world through Sharia governance and (compliance with) rules which are publicly observed, at least by those in the administration.
  • Deterring the hypocrites with proof and other means and forcing them to repress and conceal their hypocrisy, to hide their discouraged opinions, and to comply with those in authority until their evil is put in check.
  • Progressing until it is possible to expand and attack the enemies in order to repel them, plunder their money, and place them in a constant state of apprehension and (make them) desire reconciliation.
  • Establishing coalitions with those with whom coalitions are permitted, those who have not given complete allegiance to the administration.

(end quote - Funding for this translation was provided by the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, and any use of this material must include a reference to the Institute. original pages 11 & 12) - 173.21.216.98 (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, the tumbleweeds is better. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
umm, what did I just read? CorruptUser (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A list of their stated goals from a document entitled The Management of Savagery. Pretty much the only 'good ones' are the first two, though arguably what they actually mean by these is "Destroying all resistance in conquered territories." and "Keeping subjects alive and fed (except when we decide otherwise)." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Uppercase or lowercase?[edit]

Is it Daesh or DAESH? The article keeps changing between the two and it keeps ticking me off. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I like... being punched in the face. 20:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say uppercase, since it's an abbreviation. Do a search and replace on the article.--Arisboch (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
"In American English, the general rule is that acronyms of more than four letters are written in lower case (e.g., laser, but UNESCO, UNHCR and many others) while those with four or fewer letters are written in all caps (e.g., NATO). (In European usage the latter example is usually written "Nato", it being both a true acronym and a proper noun.)"according to Wiktionary. cf. radar, laser etc. BicyclewheelModerator 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a romanization of the Arabic acronym based on pronunciation, not spelling, so many letters of the English acronym don't correspond with initial letters in the full name (see this footnote). Though you could also construe DAESH as being the acronym of Dumb Asshole Extremist Shia-Haters, or somesuch. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like good snark, could be added to the article :D--Arisboch (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe I can add it to the footnote. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Say, is it possible, that you're a regular BoN-editor here?--Arisboch (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's quite possible indeed. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
He's the RW version of Clint Eastwood - the man with no username. BicyclewheelModerator 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No name, but a big, big gun?--Arisboch (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Opps[edit]

al-Tamimi claims the document on the price list for sex slaves is a forged document. We may have to take that part out. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 21:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is al-Tamimi a legit source?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth noting on the page, as al-Tamimi seems like a reasonable person with a good analysis, but the original document was obtained and verified by the UN according to Bloomberg News. The latter would carry more weight I think. Bongolian (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


The CIA video featuring Jihadi John staging the killing of James Foley proves isis is a CIA invention[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_qf9wgCpL0

you guys need to look at this critically, as the footage is perfectly in sync to the staging of this entire ruse. Im begging you, you must not take this at face value... If you want evidence uncensored by the media, here it is.

This video in the start was released by a small hacker group CYBERBERKUT, there is no way they would ever have the means to have filmed this studio footage.

The morons who still believe that Emwazi is not CIA will have to explain who filmed this video, and why.

This is in my opinion the most important video to see when it comes to the islamic state Illuminati conspiracy.

All I can say is - ISIS Illuminati confirmed. — Unsigned, by: TASOfficial / talk / contribs

*deep sigh*
*roflmao*
--JorisEnter (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's leaked e-mails and ISIS connection (Wikileaks)[edit]

Why isn't the article updated with recent Wikileaks information about Hillary's connection to ISIS? When I have time I will try to do some research on those e-mails and provide links.

Quote from article: Republican presidential nominee and professional dickhead Donald Trump has even gone so far as to suggest that he [Obama] is the literal founder of DAESH, with "Crooked Hillary" being the co-founder. To which a Clinton surrogate issued a tu quoque statement that "Trump and his friend Putin" were the real founders of DAESH. Neither of which, incidentally, is true. End of quote.

Well, now it seems to be proven that although Washington might have not participated directly in its founding (although either way they are responsible for its creation, which is mentioned in this article), it doesn't mean they haven't been funding them. On the contrary... Theinsider (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought — given the documented history of Soviet forgeries, and the documented connections between Trump & Putin and Assange & Russia, how does one know that the ever-so-conveniently leaked documents are not a Russian forgery? Bongolian (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The Russians wouldn't do that! They're on our side; they even like Trump! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an old game. We saw it in the 80s Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was provided assistance. When Saddam starting gaining the upper hand, Saddam was dropped and Iran recieved the assistance. The same thing is happening in Afghanistan, the Taliban is fighting forces which have sworn alligience to ISIS, so as long as the don't threaten Kabul, they are doing the governments dirty work.
Bongolian "Ever-so-conveniently"? Please explain that. As for Putin & Assange, can you provide some of those documented connections? Because all the "sources" I have seen so far about it are laughable and idiotic, to say the least (not surprisingly, most of them are featured on the very RationalWiki's article on Wikileaks. "The biggest boogie-man monster-demon Russia" fable from the Cold War era doesn't interest me either. I thought that those times when truth was labelled as "commie forgery" and "KGB conspiracy" threatening to destroy our liberty are over, but I guess they are revived, stronger than ever. So are you implying it's not a coincidence that all this is emerging right now, during the US elections, and that it's a Putin-Assange plot to smear Hillary's image, in order for Trump to win the elections?
It's been fairly obvious Daesh and the forces its fighting, Assad, al Nusra, some Kurdish forces, have all recieved assistance at various times when it appeared thier enemies were gaining the upper hand. So please, don't go off half-cocked with partial information like you're onto a big story or scandal or something. It'll make this article sound like Donald Trump (or worse yet, Michael Moore).nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
nobs, why are you being an asshole? You probably missed the "when I have more information" part. WHEN the e-mails do get released (announced this September) we will know for sure. I was merely calling out to anyone who has more information. You're implying that it doesn't matter who is or was secretly supporting them, because "everyone does it". Is it a reason not to include it in the article? Personally, it seems more logical to see those yet unconfirmed allegations about a woman with a dark past and such a large body count behind her, than their stupid pre-election hypocritical childish games featured as nothing more than a footnote in the article. Theinsider (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Look at "the big picture", as they say. The overriding concern is Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea's attempt to weaken NATO. But the global jihad provides an opportunity for a limited alliance and cooperation. Iran wants a place at the table as an equal partner among Superpowers. Iran however remains hostile to key US allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Daesh is doing the US and its allies dirty work right now, as its primary focus is keeping Iranian influence (among Hezbollah, the Alawites and the Shia outside Iran) in check. So, until NATO and its allies become convinced Iranian bluster toward Israel and Saudi Arabia is just that, bluster, intended to unite Sunni and Shi'a under Iranian representation on the UN Security Council with a willingness to negotiate rather than use force, the Daesh dogs of war unleashed by Saudi Arabia and the US will continue being costly to Iranian military strength.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This post is vague as fuck. What exactly was so telling in the emails. Cursory internet searching seems to suggest crazy people saying crazy things with some vague reference to wikileaks, but what you've given me here as a pull quote is meaningless. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
ikanreed, and you were expecting what? It can't be less vague than it is because the e-mails aren't released yet. They are announced for this October and the purpose of the post was to encourage those who maybe have more insight into the issue and know better than "cursory internet searching", to say something. Theinsider (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does anybody still do this? Funding and arming people we know are terrible? What about a "radio free Arabia" funded by US and EU Dollars and staffed by Arab dissidents, feminists and secularists? And cutting all funding to idiots, warlords, clerics and dictators. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It's called real politique; you can thank Henry Kissinger for that. You'll be searching an awful long time before you find the Democratic Secularist Army of Free Syria. By the way, do not search Wikileaks: it's been infested by malware due to the policy of non-editing/non-censorship.[3] Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
As they say of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the only thing that held dozens of ethnic groups together for more than a century was their mutual hatred of each other.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An historical parallel[edit]

To understand US policy and how this may play out, let's look at an historical parallel. In 1979 after the US withdrew (when the Shah fell), a power vacuum ensued and a cross-border war erupted between Iran and Iraq. First everybody wanted both sides to lose. When Iran gained the upper hand because of numerical superiority, the US backed Saddam Hussein, partly as an emotional response because most people were still pissed off at the Ayatollah over the hostage crisis. When Saddam evened the score and began gaining an upper hand, suddenly everybody got nervous Saddam might be strong enough to invade Kuwait. Then it became time to take Saddam down a notch by selling TOW missiles to Iran. It was only natural to try to re-establish relations with an ally who had been loyal going back to the war against Hitler. But domestically, some wanted to make a political scandal out of it.

Ultimately, the overture to Iran was quashed, Saddam did invade Kuwait, the US sent 700,000 troops to oust him, Iraq was under sanctions for 10 years. 500,000 children allegedly died under the sanctions. Al Qaeda attacked America in reprisal. The war on terror was a failure. And another power vacuum ensued after the US left a second time, leading to cross-boarder fighting that the US wanted to see both loose, in this case Daesh & Assad.

But Daesh and Assad really have avoided fighting each other; they've focused on fighting smaller groups in an effort to consolidate their position. When the lines are drawn, it is Assad/Iran vs Daesh/Saudi Arabia. And when the lines are drawn back farther it is Assad/Iran/Putin vs Daesh/Saudi Arabia/US. And in a total conflagration it's Assad/Iran-Russia/China vs Daesh/Saudia Arabia/US-Nato.

So, looking at the historical experience from a US perspective there are one of two likely scenarios: (1) a domestic scandal enflamed by partisanship to fuck up US foreign policy the next 20 or 30 years; or (2) the likelihood of a second Cold War (a cold war differs from a hot shooting war; in a cold war the antagonists avoid a hot shooting war with each other, bang heads together of minor allies, and encourage hot shooting wars between their minor allies and their chief antagonists minor allies, so long as they don't get dragged into a face to face confrontation with their own chief antagonists).

This second scenario is a distinct possibility. The major antagonists have territorial ambitions (Russia in the Ukraine and elsewhere; China in Taiwan, the Spratlys and elsewhere; Assad to hold on to what he's got and regain some of what he's lost; Iran has teroritorial ambitions, not necessarily to annex neighboring territories, but definitely to assert hegemony and control throughout the region and the planet.

What makes Cold War II a distinct possibility and (and maybe even a preferred outcome) is that Nato does not have the power to dictate and enforce borders it once had, the chief antagonists (Russia/China/Iran) are allied in challenging this power.

Next up: a discussion where India fits into the new Asian strategic military alliance of Russia/China/Iran which doesn't give a shit what the Anglo-American alliance (more commonly known as Nato) thinks about redrawing borders, and its impact on US-Pakistani relations.nobs 04:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)