Islamic State group targets gays with brutal public killings

[dust1n]

Yes, but they don't deserve our respect as such if they are doing these things of their free will.

I guess that's fine by me because I was not aware that being human automatically merited respect anyways.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand why you're mad, I just think it comes from a place of privilege and don't really care.

"Privilege"? Excuse me?

Interesting, because the anti-refugee groups are not really the ones advocating for social programs that would help the american people, they are against them because taxes.

I don't care what organized groups say. I'm presenting an angle that you may not have considered before.

 

[Forgemaster]

I'm just saying, we should be taking care of our own, this is something I, and many other people I know, have always had strong feelings about this, some of those refugees could be ISIS, it happened in Paris, and they most certainly do not HAVE to be welcome here

 

[psychoslice]

Sending people back to a bunch of Islamic extremists to be murdered is just as bad as killing them ourselves.
You're type are the same who were spurring bull**** about Irish refugees in Canada, and Vietnamese refugees in both Canada and America.

Those situations passed without "filth" being transferred. We can do it again.

Western cultures are also islamaphobic enough to reject anything resembling Muslim culture in our country.
We have very little (if anything,) to worry about.

Ha, and can you blame then for being islamaphobic, of course not, its people like you who don't think ahead, and when the country has lost its own way of life you don't give a **** well I do, and I'll keep voicing my opinion for the good of my country.

 

[psychoslice]

Well, stating that without reasoning is sort of pointless.

Well im sorry I care about humanity more than my country. If you wish to be a nationalistic xenophobe, so be it.

And if you wish to live with your fantasies, so be it.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Daeshbags can go die. Yes, they're human, and that's a problem with our species.

I do sympathize with the refugees, because if they're fleeing from Daesh they probably are less likely to be fundamentalists.

 

[Forgemaster]

Screening won't do anything, if they are extremists then they'll just come in and get the means to attack us once they are here

 

[Forgemaster]

That's factually incorrect, we have a fairly good method of screening new immigrants(excluding the TSA, that's garbage.)

And even in the event what you're saying is true, (which I doubt it is,) would it not be worth saving hundreds of thousands of Syrians to accidentally let a couple of extremists in?

First off: what facts? Facts about immigrants that we've let in in the past not from places where people hate us and want to kill us? Secondly: How did those three guys involved in the Paris attacks get in? Answer: they had fraudulent information. And lastly: Hel no it wouldn't be worth letting in "a couple of extemists" it doesn't take very many people to take the lives and many many more people. 19 people carried out 9/11 that killed and injured thousands, and it only took two in Boston (who were refugees by the way) to kill quite a few people, they were only two and they killed at least 14 of memory serves, and you want to risk it?

 

[Forgemaster]

I was not talking about Islamic extremists in that case, I was simply proving it does not take that many people to cause an attack but I understand I didn't make that clear, and yes they were refugees, they and their parents came to the u.s under political asylum and then became naturalized citizens, so while they never received refugee status they had to have met the criteria so there's not really a difference

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be totally honest, I understand where he's coming from. My city has been flooded with East African and Nepalese immigrants thanks to the refugee orgs over the past decade. Many of those people do hate Americans. The last place I lived, all the Americans on the block were being replaced with African Muslims and Nepalese (because the landlords get tax breaks for it and so Americans get shoved out). It's rare that I've felt such visceral hatred as I did from the Nepalese. I could feel the hatred rolling off of them and I didn't do anything to those people. Plus, these people are getting their rent paid 3 months in advance by refugee orgs. They don't work and get free healthcare. They also have a high number of children. The African Muslims are also known to be having multiple wives, but they try to pass them off in different ways. They also have a very high birthrate. The women are treated pretty badly, too, much like livestock. (However, the women do love sporting designer purses that run in the $$$+ price range and they do drive their own cars (badly, I'll say; I was almost ran over by one recently.)).

I actually live right next to a couple from Sudan. The wife is 22 and the husband is 11 years older than her. She comes from a Christian family and he comes from a Muslim family. He comes from Darfur, which is where that genocide is occurring. She was recently pregnant with her 4th kid, but I think she lost it because they drink and do drugs (probably smoking crack, as well as weed) very heavily. Apparently he beat the crap out of her, too. They let their kids run around wild, with no guidance. They apparently don't work. We're paying their damn water bill but they hate us. We can hear the negative remarks they make about Americans and white people. They've destroyed the back yard and leave trash strewn around (it's a duplex so it's a shared yard). They also gave us a very bad roach infestation.

Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans are falling into poverty, living in neighborhoods that are quickly spiraling downwards into third world status, people are getting kicked out of their homes because they can't afford to pay for them, unemployment is high and only getting worse, the economy in general is in the toilet, etc. There was just a local story of a young woman with children who is going to get kicked out of her house because the local housing authority made a mistake and they refuse fix it or listen to her pleas for lenience. Meanwhile, more and more "refugees" continue to spill in and take over neighborhoods, while effectively getting a free ride and free housing. My mom is turning 65 later this month. She worked all her life and we're living in a rundown dump that should be condemned. We were conned into it by *gasp* a black Tunisian Muslim. The owner - another black African Muslim - has pretty much abandoned this property. We're trying to get out, but there's no real help for people like us and there's a housing shortage in the city. She's also very sick with cancer and I'm disabled due to psychiatric issues as well as apparently being epileptic.

So please try to understand why some aren't happy with "our" (in quotation marks because the government really doesn't represent the common American) government flooding the nation with third worlders and rolling out the red carpet for them, when our own people are suffering and the country is close to collapsing. Yeah, some of us are a bit mad about this, but try to understand why some of us are mad before you judge.

Basically, you need to take care of your own people before you can try to help others. Otherwise, you're setting the stage for something very nasty. Mind you, there's also currently over 320 million people in this country. You do the math.

I was thinking about this the other day while I watched a report on CNN about how something like $5 billion is going to be spent on the 2016 presidential campaign. I see a lot of people complaining that we should all take care of our own (the homeless, the veterans) before allowing refugees into the country and how we can't afford all these refugees. I have yet to see anyone complaining about how the massive amount of money spent on presidential campaigns could be spent on taking care of the homeless and the poverty-stricken AND refugees fleeing these terrible madmen - that only comes up when talking about letting refugees into the country. I think the fact of the matter is that the homeless, poverty-stricken and the refugees could easily be taken care of with that $5 billion if anybody bothered to realize that spending that much money on an election is obscene.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm just saying, we should be taking care of our own, this is something I, and many other people I know, have always had strong feelings about this, some of those refugees could be ISIS, it happened in Paris, and they most certainly do not HAVE to be welcome here

As far as I can tell, one of the nine attackers came into the country with the Syrian refugees. He most likely did not go through the same extensive screening processes that anyone coming into Canada, the US, Australia, etc. would have to undergo before even being considered to be allowed into our countries.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hate saying this, but I think the only real thing that is going to stop them, dead in their tracks, is to unleash a terrible and dreadful monster on them. Utterly defeat and terrify them to the point they are too scared to dare even think about messing with you again. Send a very clear message that if you come after us again, you risk mutiny among your ranks because they will know another attack will bring them great woes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, The Independent published the opinion of one of the journalists who was being held captive by ISIS for ten months, and he thought almost the opposite.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Vlad Dracul III. ISIS would not want the Dragon released upon them. He was very brutal in his methods, but with what little he had he managed to drive the Ottoman Empire out of his lands by terrorizing them.
Really, it's a very basic tactic for dealing with bullies: make them think you're crazier than they are and they won't mess with you. There are other ways, but the zeal of ISIS is strong and someone needs to utterly destroy their moral in a very deep and profound way.
If it turns out the California shooting had anything, even remotely, to do with ISIS, then America needs to go in kick some serious *** like France did. Those who should have taken care of the problem have not, and now ISIS is becoming a global issue that is going to have to be dealt with by Western forces least we suffer more terrorist attacks while we still wait for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and the rest to actually do something about it.
What ISIS wants isn't attacking them, it is how we are marginalizing Muslims. We have become rather distrustful of Muslims, and Donald Trump's mandatory registration is a wet-dream for ISIS. Many people call Obama weak for making clear we are not at war against Islam, but rather an ideology, and we are in such a delicate and precarious situation that a part of any effective strategy must include efforts to show we are not fighting against a religion but rather an ideology, as presenting it as a war against Islam, and society becoming increasingly anti-Islamic is exactly what ISIS wants because it's how the recruit and make people "see it their way."
But when it comes to fighting ISIS, they should not receive mercy, they should know the fear of Hell before they die, and the sword must be drawn to sheath theirs. Unfortunately, those who should have drawn against them first have been reluctant to do so, and it is becoming a problem for others. Because it is becoming more and more our problem (and by our I mean the regular citizens of places like France, Australia, and America) the military is reaching a point where it must be mobilized for the welfare of the citizens, and with this particular enemy, an enemy who is not afraid of death because they believe they shall be eternally rewarded, must be dealt with in a rather unpleasant manner - a very harsh, cruel, and brutal way - in order to get them to leave us alone because the consequences are too severe. Make it clear that to attack us is to bring a wrath so severe and dire upon them that it makes even Satan shudder and weep in sympathy. Beast must be fought with beast.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm thinking more along the lines of Vlad Dracul III. ISIS would not want the Dragon released upon them. He was very brutal in his methods, but with what little he had he managed to drive the Ottoman Empire out of his lands by terrorizing them.
Really, it's a very basic tactic for dealing with bullies: make them think you're crazier than they are and they won't mess with you. There are other ways, but the zeal of ISIS is strong and someone needs to utterly destroy their moral in a very deep and profound way.

The only problem with that is there isn't much you can do to scare people who are ready & willing to fight to the death for what they believe in; and that they are heralds of their religion's Judgement Day which will see them given the ultimate reward. Threats of violence, actual violence, death; these things don't matter to Islamic State because they've already accepted them as a matter of course - perhaps even as inevitable.

I think the only thing that could possibly scare Islamic State into submission would be to nuke them. And at that point the world would probably be doomed anyway.

 

[Jumi]

The thing to wipe them out is just unity among the non-extremists in fighting them. They'd be all but gone by now if countries in the Middle-East and outside powers didn't have interests in Syria they are trying to secure by playing this dangerous game. If your goal is to take out Assad then fighting Daesh is against your goals. Now that Russia's hand was forced and they had to move to defend their ally, it should be time to switch for outsiders realize the switch and minimize their losses.

It will be harder for Turkey since they already showed their hand and made new enemies, for others it will be easier.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

REYHANLI, Turkey (AP) — Before a crowd of men on a street in the Syrian city of Palmyra, the masked Islamic State group judge read out the sentence against the two men convicted of homosexuality: They would be thrown to their deaths from the roof of the nearby Wael Hotel.

He asked one of the men if he was satisfied with the sentence. Death, the judge told him, would help cleanse him of his sin.

"I'd prefer it if you shoot me in the head," 32-year-old Hawas Mallah replied helplessly. The second man, 21-year-old Mohammed Salameh, pleaded for a chance to repent, promising never to have sex with a man again, according to a witness among the onlookers that sunny July morning who gave The Associated Press a rare first-hand account.

"Take them and throw them off," the judge ordered. Other masked extremists tied the men's hands behind their backs and blindfolded them. They led them to the roof of the four-story hotel, according to the witness, who spoke in the Turkish city of Reyhanli on condition he be identified only by his first name, Omar, for fear of reprisals.

Notorious for their gruesome methods of killing, the Islamic State group reserves one of its most brutal for suspected homosexuals. Videos it has released show masked militants dangling men over the precipices of buildings by their legs to drop them head-first or tossing them over the edge. At least 36 men in Syria and Iraq have been killed by IS militants on charges of sodomy, according to the New York-based OutRight Action International, though its Middle East and North Africa coordinator, Hossein Alizadeh, said it was not possible to confirm the sexual orientation of the victims.

The fear of a horrific death among gay men under Islamic State rule is further compounded by their isolation in a deeply conservative society that largely shuns them.

Many Muslims consider homosexuality to be sinful. Gay men are haunted constantly by the possibility that someone, perhaps even a relative, will betray them to the militants — whether to curry favor with IS or simply out of hatred for their sexual orientation. Islamic State group fighters sometimes torture suspected homosexuals to reveal their friends' names and search their laptops and mobile phones. Even among IS opponents, gays find little sympathy. Some in the public who might be shocked by other IS atrocities say killings of gays is justified. Syrian rebel factions have killed or abused gays as well.

Rest of article here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03f8...ate-group-targets-gays-brutal-public-killings

This is simply heartbreaking. No human being should have to live in such fear and terror. Probably the saddest part is family rejecting them and possibly even betraying them to ISIS. How mentally deranged and devoid of basic compassion do you have to be in order to turn your child over to a group of horrific demons to be brutally murdered, just because they romantically like other men? Why does it even matter at all? How can you betray your flesh and blood like that?

I really don't understand humans sometimes.

Sadly, brutal ignoramouses often find an easy justification in religion for their horrific acts,

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only problem with that is there isn't much you can do to scare people who are ready & willing to fight to the death for what they believe in; and that they are heralds of their religion's Judgement Day which will see them given the ultimate reward. Threats of violence, actual violence, death; these things don't matter to Islamic State because they've already accepted them as a matter of course - perhaps even as inevitable.

I think the only thing that could possibly scare Islamic State into submission would be to nuke them. And at that point the world would probably be doomed anyway.

A nuke wouldn't be horrifying enough. A serious issue being faced is we are being attacked not just by people, but an ideology that is held to such a degree that very few of us in the West can comprehend it. ISIS isn't what needs broken, it's the ideology that needs shattered. Vlad Dracul III, whose favorite method was impalement, scared the Ottomans out of his realm, and this included the Sultan who captured Constantinople - what finally broke them was seeing between 20,000 and 200,000 Turkish soldiers impaled and displayed in a canyon, what has become known as the "forest of impalement." We don't need to make the Middle East worst off like we have been doing, but we need to make it very clear that they do not want to mess with us. It's a dire enough situation that the West is needing to get involved because those who should have taken care of ISIS are failing to do so, and to end it what must be done is completely, totally, and utterly breaking the terrorist spirit and ideology. It may be against our "values," but it's better than not doing enough and continuing to be attacked.