| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Isis planning 'nuclear holocaust' |
| 2015-09-30 |
[DAILYMAIL.CO.UK]
|
| Posted by:Fred |
| #17 Articles like this always remind me of the Belmont Clubs "Three Conjectures" essay. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2015-09-30 18:34 |
| #16 ps the *hate america lefty* was the writer of the article who said he was a *fierce critic* of US policy in the middle east and that is why ISIS accepted him Grom - who is more dangerous Iran or ISIS. Both are dangerous. Right now Isis is but in future who knows ? Iran is already a sharia enforcing theocracy. They are both our enemies. Theocracy is the enemy, sharia is the enemy. One has a shia flavour and is now organised, entrenched and established. Before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini turned Iran into a theocracy, Shia Islam was a very secular religion. They did not believe the priests should rule the country or enforce laws because only the mahdi could do that with divine authority and he hadnt come yet. So all the priests should know their place and the country would be secular. That is why it was an *islamic revolution* - the ayatollah ruhollah khomeini smashed all that, brought in Sharia, brought in theocracy and invented Halal Certification (destroyed all the meat stocks declaring them unIslamic, and demanded Iranian holymen certify food at source) thereby creating a funding train to reinforce the spread of theocracy. Iran also will have nukes. So - it is difficult to say. ISIS is more brutal but then again that is a hallmark of a gang of thugs who do not yet control a country and have to deal with running it day to day. They have their caliphate but if they entrench it they will have the same day-to-day statecraft problems of all who run countries. They will not be able to behead people as regularly as they do now because it will implode. They will lose their labour force for one. So they will look more orderly simply by being more in control and more established. The internationalised nature of the sunni Islamofascist push for sharia and caliphate that ISIS is just another viral strain of is arguably more directly dangerous to us because it is decentralised fascism. It has a diaspora living in all our countries poisoning them and causing us to destroy our own Enlightenment traditions by passing laws that killed our own freedom of speech, right to fair trail, right to be free of intrusive government surveillance, creating a superclass of spies and cops above the law. So yes doing acts of evil that were numerically small in victims, a small number of religious sunni Islamofascist nuts were able to damage us a lot more and were a greater threat. Also our own homegrown Islamonuts have all gone off to fight with them being infected even more with the disease and getting their hands dirty with practical brutality before returning to do who knows what on our own streets. So one might think Iran the lesser enemy. But the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend as you think we would have learnt from the house of Saud - and soon Iran will have nukes. The only golden ticket about Iran that makes it less of a threat is its burgeoning youth population that *hate* the mullahs. Just look at brazen facebook pages such as *my stealthy freedom* where it is a mark of rebellion and joy for young women to take off their hijabs and snap a selfie. this is a byproduct of the wholesale throwing away of the lives of a million young people by the religious supreme leader in the Iran Iraq war. After sending more than a million to death (the religious dont care about that, they go to an afterlife so wholesale slaughter is justified to them), the Ayatollah instructed the women to breed up the numbers and gave financial incentives to do so - and they did. So they had a baby boom. Which is now biting back. However if the baby boom seeks the overthrow of the mullahs that would destabilise a nuke-based apocalyptic ideology islamic theocracy. So - the answer to which is more dangerous - ISIS or Iran. Is like saying in 1979 afghanistan - which is more dangerous, Russia or the Taliban. Both are our enemies. In this case unlike Russia both are apocalyptic supremacist religious cults that want us dead or converted - just one is more established than the other. |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-09-30 17:49 |
| #15 Who's more dangerous ISIS or Iran? Well, it's pretty clear Obama thinks it's ISIS. But then, that's Obama for you. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-09-30 16:03 |
| #14 The wet dream of the jihadists. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-09-30 14:47 |
| #13 The way they establish their global caliphate is by sending "refugees" by the millions into Europe and the United States. Those refugees/invaders make more babies than the indigenous population and impose sharia. All the tech they need will be supplied by the indigenous population. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-09-30 13:16 |
| #12 This strikes me as just one more incidence of the boy crying wolf. That does NOT mean that the wolf isn't there....somewhere. It's just that this constant overstating of the immediate threat desensitizes the public and so when the threat does become material, no one will care and the necessary support for action won't be forthcoming. How close does the threat have to be, to be in range of our available diplomatic, political and psychological resources? Another question of "will". Will we have the "will" to act when necessary given this constant barrage of chicken-littleism? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-09-30 11:37 |
| #11 Who's more dangerous ISIS or Iran? Yes! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-09-30 11:28 |
| #10 Interesting that a hate-america lefty has at least not supported the enemy for once Who's more dangerous ISIS or Iran? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-09-30 10:21 |
| #9 ps - good article thanks Fred for posting it. Interesting that a hate-america lefty has at least not supported the enemy for once |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-09-30 10:07 |
| #8 also it will not be long now until have access to nukes through sympathisers in the Pakistani ISI and through Hezbollah (via iran) and what are we going to do about it? We should have axed Saudi as an ally years ago screw the oil |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-09-30 09:57 |
| #7 it is not *todenhofer believes* -- it is a fact that IS and all Islamofascists want the same thing global caliphate through sharia whether that is wiping out the West by killing everyone or converting everyone it doesnt matter - our world will cease to exist if they get what they want newsflash - so far they are winning. BAN SHARIA |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-09-30 09:55 |
| #6 (i) Only tech society can sustain their currents numbers. (ii) They cannot maintain tech society. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-09-30 08:57 |
| #5 ..or slaves. That worked for them for a thousand years. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-09-30 08:16 |
| #4 No they not. Muslims are parasites---they need hosts! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-09-30 05:25 |
| #3 Wehell, AFAIC this Artic reflects or symbolizes the price the US-West/Allies = entire JudeoChristian or Non-Muslim World will pay for NOT taking the steps necessary to defeat or destroy the ISIS/ISIL as they should. THE LONGER THEY PUT IT OFF, THE MORE POTENT + DANGEROUS + AMBITIOUS, ETC. THE ISIS/ISIL BECOMES OVER TIME. The "Great Game" doesn't end just because the Cold War is over, OBL is repor dead, or that Man desires to explore Sapce. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-09-30 02:56 |
| #2 It's amazing how many Islamic 'experts' in the west have never read the Holy Crayon. It's all right there. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-09-30 01:01 |
| #1 What a sap 'journalist' - he spent ten days with them to come up with those two bullet points? Anyone here could have done the same in ten seconds. |
| Posted by: Raj 2015-09-30 00:18 |