Is this really the top cleric in Saudi Arabia, and why did he say this?

[cooterhein]

Wrong answer, maybe you can draw parallels to the statements made during the invasion of Jordan..

Although someone better qualified should remind me. I do not remember them.

Maybe he is as much a "Jewish conspirator" as the isis group..daesh if they are even the same thing.

The irony of claiming to give graveyards.. while people try to take away yours.

Maybe they need better glasses...

A windows update if you will.

I'm not the well-informed expert that you need answers from, but I will contribute this.

ISIS and Daesh are exactly the same thing, Daesh is an abbreviation of the same thing but in Arabic (and then transliterated to English letters).

The fun thing about Daesh, though, is that this acronym comes very close to spelling out an otherwise-unrelated Arabic word that means "sower of discord," and when English speakers make a point of using the Arabic abbreviation, that's pretty often the thing they're alluding to. Within the region that it controls, Daesh doesn't allow anyone to call them that, and I think the penalty is cutting off a hand. The prime minister of Australia found out about this, and when he did he was quoted as saying he doesn't know too much about the term Daesh, but he does know they really don't like to be called that, and so he instinctively likes that word and intends to use it. I agree with him.

Isis, in English use, also happens to be the name of an Egyptian goddess of oh who cares, that's not nearly as much fun.

 

[syed_z]

That is extremely helpful and informative, I previously knew very little of what you just told me. Thank you very much! You included some very helpful distinctions along with the basic facts, and for that I thank you.

You're most welcome bro.

By the way what is the purpose of your thread if I may ask? There will be many of us who will agree with you and many would still disagree and some would even go to the extent that they might agree with many acts of Daesh sadly... but alhamdulillah I see a lot of improvement here MAshA'Allah....

My question to you is, what is the purpose of your argument?

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

(Peace be upon you)

Brother, do you really think they'd dare? I'd like to see anyone try, right before I rip apart their arguments of course and report their posts. And I think the two members on IB whom you might be referencing here haven't been active for a long time and that's because I think (a) Daesh might have become too extreme even for them, and (b) they are probably too busy in their residences in non-Western countries with their own lives and problems.

:wa: (And peace be upon you)

You're most welcome bro.

By the way what is the purpose of your thread if I may ask? There will be many of us who will agree with you and many would still disagree and some would even go to the extent that they might agree with many acts of Daesh sadly... but alhamdulillah I see a lot of improvement here MAshA'Allah....

My question to you is, what is the purpose of your argument?

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I think you make some excellent points; but one thing I'd like noted is that an inner circle to penetrate would have been very difficult in the beginning but easier as time passed and they were able to let their guard down as "victory" after another started happening in terms of their capture of towns and maintaining stronghold, and what I know of human nature is that no male inner circle is completely immune to male sycophancy or the divide-and-conquer method or gaslighting or a woman's wiles (as a wife). And let's say even if you're right and Mossad agents were not able to truly penetrate the inner inner circle, there's still the ability to influence the group by discussing his/her ideas (of specifically West the bigger enemy and priority and fomenting anger) within Daesh and any agreement used to bolster the idea as a collectivist rather than an individual thought process and thereby enable groupthink to occur which would necessarily demand the inner circle give into the battlefield front-liners' desire of also attacking the West rather than immediately Israel until a better opportunity comes to target Israel. Because to be honest, either way a person slices the pie, Israel had been/should have remained the next enemy for target considering the strength of passion that is aroused in the Middle East at Israel's existence and occupation rather than the world stage witnessing Daesh aggressing into Western countries and Muslim-majority countries first as we've seen time and again in 2015 and 2016.

Daesh's plans of ushering in Armageddon were not new because in 2014 there were reports of fighters who had dreams about setting the stage of Armageddon; and if you don't know its significance, the significance is that a Muslim person's dream is regarded in Islamic eschatology as 1/46th of prophecy from ahadith (prophetic traditions). In the beginning at least, some of their dreams might have been true good dreams free from satanic influence because the early persons who went there were most likely earnest and legitimately not interested in anything but fighting the aggression of Assad and his armed forces to provide help to the suffering Syrian peoples - widows and orphans - because media coverage for the plight of Syrian peoples had been by and large positive in Western nations and around the globe. However, later, with the reputation that Daesh started earning with negative press, I'm inclined to think some of the worse dregs of humanity in the West started joining Daesh as a means to retaliate against the West; but that's a separate matter. What I'm trying to say is that I cannot rule out Mossad agents' infiltration simply because survival of Israel is crucial both to Israel and to United States and matters like that would not have been allowed to rest in Israeli government: The expression "chance is a fine thing" is not acceptable when your nation's peace and survival is threatened.

I do thank you for your comments, and I appreciate what you put yourself through in the course of talking to some of these people- even if you say it doesn't faze you, I've said that before too but I do know the Internet venom can be quite something, even if you're handling it well.

There is one particular thing that I've heard from several sources on Daesh, though- specifically, that there are multiple levels of leadership, but the truly inner circle that really makes the key decisions is a very small group of people, these are men who literally all worked for Saddam together back in the day, if anyone is added to this core group it tends to be their family members and that is literally all. This, at least, was how they did it for as long as this group was able to survive well enough to stay functional. From everything I've heard though, this has been an ironclad group right from the outset that didn't allow anyone outside the circle to infiltrate or influence them in any way- they were well aware of such a threat, and they seem to have guarded against it quite well. Perhaps up to a certain point, but for a really good length of time these efforts were effective.

I've also come across some reports of intel that was basically stolen and then made available- it's not the most comprehensive information, but from what I saw, it was some paperwork from some of the earliest plans that Daesh had put together. Evidently, they had a certain type of PR campaign, and a set of objectives that they put out there for recruiting purposes. And some of that was accurate to the actual plans, and to what they did. Apparently though, there were some other plans that were being made from the outset that they never made public, and they never would have been known if not for these leaks. Right here, you can look at pictures of the actual pages (written in Arabic, so I can't read them myself).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...jihadi-refresher-course-weapons-training.html

Some of the things they reveal are plans for a Quranic constitution, an unexpectedly dense and detailed web of bureaucracy, health and education, departments for dealing with state assets (since they did plan to form a proper state)....they went public with a plan to keep fighting and expanding their borders forever, they went public with a plan to usher in Armageddon within the next few months or years, but all along they had a series of plans that they weren't telling anyone about. So perhaps they had plans all along for attacks on certain nations, or on whoever made them angry. Or maybe they formed new strategies in response to unforeseen events as they occurred. What I can't imagine is that Israeli agents (or CIA agents, either) would have been able to infiltrate the inner circle, as tight and defensive as it was. Did they try? They certainly did, and some of these guys may have even been able to hold recruiting positions so they could usher more of their guys into the region. But were they able to breach the inner circle and really influence decision-making at the top levels? I seriously doubt it, this was extremely well protected against and so they had to live with being able to gather intel.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I do acknowledge that Israel is- and will- be using the Syrian instability as a reason to take more control of the Golan Heights and they are already getting more settlers in there. However, I also believe Israel can use any type on instability in their region in order to do some more of what they've always planned on doing, and if you care about the Palestinian people, it's always a bad idea to start a war within a few hundred miles of Israel. I don't think this is suggestive of a master plan between Israel and Daesh, I think it's consistent with the idea that Israel has always had certain goals and it will always use any regional instability as a way to get them done just a bit faster.

I know you're right about this.

But it's a little more complicated and is even more dirty a picture because in September 2013 an article had come out called, "'Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,'" containing Michael Oren's, a former Israeli ambassador to US, statement: "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go."

Also, Amos Harel, one of Israel's leading media experts on military and defense matters, authored an opinion editorial titled, "Israel Is Changing Its Approach to Syria War Amid Assad's Battleground Advances" which was about Jerusalem's concerns over a regime victory, which would be victory for Iran as well. To prevent that, Israeli officials believed that the West must intervene in favor of moderate rebels. And it wanted the rebels to stand up to the "Islamic State." This piece was written in February 2016, but the Israeli government I believe would have already known all that and therefore would have planned to interfere in/infiltrate Daesh, though of course it is always preferable to also have the dirty work be done by the West.

In a 1996 paper authored by pro-Israeli individuals that were later appointees during the Bush administration titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the advice given to Israel's President was to "shape its strategic environment by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria" which in part also required a "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." They wrote: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

In a 1982 issue of Kivunim, a “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" written in Hebrew. The writer suggested that the Arab states should be destabilized from within by exploiting their internal sectarian conflicts and weaknesses.

 

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



I know you're right about this.

But it's a little more complicated and is even more dirty a picture because in September 2013 an article had come out called, "'Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,'" containing Michael Oren's, a former Israeli ambassador to US, statement: "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go."

Also, Amos Harel, one of Israel's leading media experts on military and defense matters, authored an opinion editorial titled, "Israel Is Changing Its Approach to Syria War Amid Assad's Battleground Advances" which was about Jerusalem's concerns over a regime victory, which would be victory for Iran as well. To prevent that, Israeli officials believed that the West must intervene in favor of moderate rebels. And it wanted the rebels to stand up to the "Islamic State." This piece was written in February 2016, but the Israeli government I believe would have already known all that and therefore would have planned to interfere in/infiltrate Daesh, though of course it is always preferable to also have the dirty work be done by the West.

In a 1996 paper authored by pro-Israeli individuals that were later appointees during the Bush administration titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the advice given to Israel's President was to "shape its strategic environment by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria" which in part also required a "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." They wrote: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

In a 1982 issue of Kivunim, a “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" written in Hebrew. The writer suggested that the Arab states should be destabilized from within by exploiting their internal sectarian conflicts and weaknesses.

Thank you very much for sharing all this information, I'm learning so much! There is one thing I'm just a little confused about and I hope you can explain (it was actually in the previous post), what did you mean when you mentioned the part about 1/46? The part where you said "a Muslim person's dream is regarded in Islamic eschatology as 1/46th of prophecy from ahadith (prophetic traditions)." I pretty much understood everything else, this is just one thing that I'm not completely understanding, and that's probably due to a lack of some context on my part.

I hadn't been fully aware of the wishes of Israel with regard to either Saddam or Assad, and I thank you for pointing those out. I don't wish to discount any of this, and I do acknowledge that US foreign policy does put a very high priority on what Israel wants. I also want to point out, however, that Israel isn't the only one that the US cares about, and Turkey is a really major ally in the region as well. Here's a link that has to do with that.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...all-about-regime-chan-201410785656887159.html
I'm not sure what you think of al-Jazeerah, and it is an opinion piece, but it does lay out some facts that indicate a certain timeline when it comes to Syria and Turkey as of August 2011. I hear all sorts of different things about why Erdogan is against Assad (and to me, it seems kind of personal), and from what I've been told, Turkey was the main reason why the US wanted Assad out. Portraying Turkey as the only reason may not be entirely accurate, but I do know the future of their relationship with the US is something that's not entirely assured, and the US wants to retain those privileges. Of course this does not preclude the idea that Israel has some extreme influence on US foreign policy, that is undeniable. There are some other countries in play here though, and Turkey is a big one. They seem to have been wanting Assad out since 2011, and they may have been expecting him to be gone by some time in 2012. Saudi Arabia also wanted him gone and they still do, and it's not as if Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sitting down with Israel so they can reach these conclusions together. They're all allies of the US in one capacity or another, and somehow they all want that same thing for some different reasons.

For what it's worth, my personal impression of President Obama is that he's always been at least a little doubtful about who the FSA really is and how well they could really govern if they were to force Assad out. I've felt like he was being led into this approach by his allies while having some personal reservations and looking for alternate strategies, but maybe that's just been my impression. I don't know exactly when I started thinking this, but I feel like the main reason I have reservations about the potential replacements for the Assad regime is because Obama and the Joint Chiefs have reservations.

That's just my take though, and even though we're pretty far into these various events as they've unfolded, I clearly have a lot more to find out about the specific goals and objectives (and reasons for those) from country to country.

 

[cooterhein]

You're most welcome bro.

By the way what is the purpose of your thread if I may ask? There will be many of us who will agree with you and many would still disagree and some would even go to the extent that they might agree with many acts of Daesh sadly... but alhamdulillah I see a lot of improvement here MAshA'Allah....

My question to you is, what is the purpose of your argument?

Well, to be quite honest, I think it's kind of like this.

I saw something crazy that was said in Saudi Arabia. I'm quite certain that it was crazy and untrue, and I'm not really looking to be persuaded otherwise, what I wanted to know about the source of this thing is just how much exposure the rest of Islam has to it. I know that Islam has a leadership structure that's pretty different from Christianity of any kind, so I know I can't equate any Muslim cleric with well-known Christians. To some extent I suppose I'm trying to put together an understanding of who he is to the rest of Islam strictly on Islam's terms.

 

[M.I.A.]

I'm not the well-informed expert that you need answers from, but I will contribute this.

ISIS and Daesh are exactly the same thing, Daesh is an abbreviation of the same thing but in Arabic (and then transliterated to English letters).

The fun thing about Daesh, though, is that this acronym comes very close to spelling out an otherwise-unrelated Arabic word that means "sower of discord," and when English speakers make a point of using the Arabic abbreviation, that's pretty often the thing they're alluding to. Within the region that it controls, Daesh doesn't allow anyone to call them that, and I think the penalty is cutting off a hand. The prime minister of Australia found out about this, and when he did he was quoted as saying he doesn't know too much about the term Daesh, but he does know they really don't like to be called that, and so he instinctively likes that word and intends to use it. I agree with him.

Isis, in English use, also happens to be the name of an Egyptian goddess of oh who cares, that's not nearly as much fun.

Thanks for that.. well I guess, one man's freedom is another's discord.

..what you have to do to get it is in itself the test, let's hope it don't cost an..

Arm n a leg