islamic state of iraq and syria

If you are or know anyone who is at an airport:





Please protect yourself.

EDIT: Also, if you’re a green card resident who is a citizen of or from IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, OR YEMEN:


So, now that the Syrian government has finally recovered control over its border with Iraq, there’s a very real possibility that in the following months we will see:

Russian T-90s fighting alongside Iraqi M1 Abrams

Iraqi Mi-28 Havoks and soon-to-be-delivered AH-64 Apaches fighting alongside Russian Havoks and Ka-52 Alligators

Not to mention

Syrian, Russian and Iraqi Hinds working together!

And if Iran joins them, well

This will only get much, much more interesting. 

I haven’t been posting much but someone asked about that “ha ha go around the whole the US base thing” and it’s about this ^^^

Recently the Syrian Arab Army cut through the Syrian desert to rejoin borders with the Iraqi government for the first time since war broke out and the islamic state carved out most of the border region between the two states, physically erasing the border between the two states.

In the south, a couple years ago, American funded and supported(literally, American soldiers) rebels crossed into islamic state desert north of Jordan (a us ally and opponent of syria) with top of the line Jordanian and American vehicles/munitions to establish a “”“free syrian army”“” toehold in the Syrian desert to try and reclaim eastern syria when the Syrian government began reestablishing control in the east by retaking palmyra. The hopes were for the rebels to take islamic state held eastern syria before the Syrian Arab Army could, in order for assad to be further isolated.

However, the SAA proverbially cucked them as they had with Turkish backed syrian rebels in the north by racing around the bumblefucking multi million dollar US tax payer worth southern rebels and cut them off in the same shitty pocket of shitty desert they originally managed to take from ISIS during their original blitzkrieg.

Now, the SAA can expand north-east in lockstep with their Iraqi allies in their fight against the Islamic State while western puppets can not.



Starfleet’s moral relativism problem: is it ever ok to condemn another culture?

Central to all of Star Trek has always been the Prime Directive – that set of rules that governs our intrepid space explorers from Captain Kirk to Captain Janeway and everyone in between. Poor Captain Archer existed in a time before, and I’ve often pitied him for having to shoulder the burden of having to make some really questionable ethical decisions without having a Prime Directive to shift the blame to when it turned out his decisions really sucked.

At its core, the Prime Directive dictates that Starfleet cannot interfere with the internal affairs or development of alien civilizations. Some of the best Star Trek episodes involved our heroes clashing with the ethics of a rigid application of this doctrine, but there was always one implication of the Prime Directive that bothered me – the idea that we shouldn’t judge other cultures through the lens of our own because who’s to say what’s right and what’s wrong?

This philosophy of moral relativism argues that there are no universal moral standards – sentient beings are completely at the mercy of their own societies to impart a code of moral behavior and whatever it comes up with is “good enough.” There may be common themes among many societies in terms of morals – most seem to agree it is wrong to commit murder, for instance – but ultimately, what is “right” according one society is not guaranteed to be “right” for another. And let’s be honest with ourselves – even with the topic of murder, we still fiercely debate exceptions to the “no murder” rule such as war, capital punishment, or self-defense.

Our own society provides an incredible patchwork of thorny moral and ethical issues that we still have yet to decide upon. We debate things like abortion, torture, slavery, free speech, and more. We probe these issues by asking ourselves questions like, “At what point does life truly begin?” and “Is torture ever justified?” We explore them by posing philosophical experiments like the Trolley Problem and asking ourselves whether it is morally acceptable to kill one person to save the lives of two or more others. 

How does that line go again? Something about “needs of the many” or something? 

But at the end of the day, might (in terms of numbers) makes right in moral relativism. While I don’t subscribe to that theory, there are times when our beloved Star Trek characters do under the guise of defending the Prime Directive. On the surface, it sounds very peaceful and anti-colonialist. After centuries of watching many empires from the Romans to the British set fire to cultural diversity – and given arguments that many Western nations continue to do this today, just without being quite as invadey – this sounds like a nice change of pace. Live and let live. But this also creates a mind-boggling acceptance of suffering, genocide, exploitation, and oppression within Starfleet.

One of the first chronological examples of the faults of moral relativism is found in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode, “Cogenitor.” Archer and his crew meet an affable, three-gendered species called the Vissians, but we quickly learn that only two of the society’s genders have any real rights. The third gender is referred to as a “cogenitor,” and Trip Tucker ends up on Captain Archer’s shit list for teaching it how to read and putting ideas in its head. When the cogenitor later begs for asylum, Archer refuses. It gets worse – the cogenitor is sent back to the people who basically treat it as chattel and commits suicide, and Archer points out that Tucker’s interference led to its death and will mean the Vissian couple will probably never get to have a child. No winners in this ethical dilemma of an episode, only losers. Until you remember none of this would have happened in the first place if the Vissians had just treated the cogenitors like people.

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, “Angel One,” we encounter the cringe worthy society of Angel I, a planet of misandric women who oppress men. We all got a few giggles at the ladies of Enterprise-D being suddenly held in higher regard than their male counterparts, but things get very dark when Beata, the Elected One of Angel I, decides some dudes need to die for spreading heretical teachings that imply men are equal to women. We get a sort of cop out solution in which Beata has a change of heart and decides to banish rather than execute these “heretics” after Riker makes an impassioned speech about basic rights, but Riker was more than willing to let things go bad if need be, because, “The Prime Directive” and “Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”

The 80′s were a weird time. That outfit is a few inches of fabric away from having a codpiece.

In another Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, “Symbiosis,” we’re introduced to the Ornarans and Brekkians and we find out that after an ancient plague, the Brekkians started peddling an expensive and addictive drug to the Ornarans and calling it a “treatment.” There’s no plague anymore – the Brekkians just control the Ornarans through their drug addiction. Dr. Crusher finds a way to synthesize this drug and offers to help wean the Ornarans off their addiction, but what does Captain Picard do? He tells her to mind her own damn business because it’s not the Federation’s place to tell the Brekkians that it’s wrong to deceive and enslave the Ornarans through an addictive drug.

This episode also gave us one of the weirdest brawls in Star Trek history. Like a Reefer Madness for the 24th century, if you will. 

And this is the most uncomfortable part of moral relativism – who gets to draw the line and where do we draw it? On one end of the spectrum, we have moral relativism which claims anything goes – societies should be able to torture animals, employ the slave labor of children, and oppress women as they see fit – just as long as enough people agree it isn’t wrong to do so. At the other end of the spectrum sits moral absolutism, a theoretical construct that would result in a perfectly unified, homogenous culture, but one that would also strip away many facets of culture that lead to human diversity. 

If Star Trek is supposed to serve as a guide for how we might become a more progressive society, it does a terrible job a lot of the time. Now, there are many instances of our protagonists saying “to hell with the Prime Directive!” and taking what most of us would agree is the more morally praiseworthy route. But there’s no rhyme or reason to it. Just look at how they treat the Borg. Why is it ok to let some societies oppress men or drug another species into submission but it’s not ok to let the Borg assimilate the galaxy in their ultimate quest for perfection? 

I’m going to guess the answer is that until the Borg decided to stick nanoprobes in a Federation citizen, the cheerful little robots simply weren’t the Federation’s problem. We might argue that the Prime Directive certainly has provisions for self-defense - how ridiculous would it be to consent to being annihilated or assimilated just because the Federation is afraid of offending another culture and refuses to draw a line in the sand where right stops and wrong starts? The slope gets slippery here though. We could say this mirrors the concept of large Western nations trying to police the rest of the world and impose their customs on other societies - but how many of us watched documentaries about the Holocaust in school and wondered why the hell previous generations allowed shit to get that bad? How many of us continue to stand by while people in Iraq and Syria live under the threat of the Islamic State? I doubt most people even realize what’s going on in the Philippines or Venezuela right now because hey, “Not my country, not my problem.” It is a huge gray area for what constitutes forcing certain customs on unwilling societies and trying to genuinely help people, but if we can’t agree that Nazi extermination camps and religiously motivated beheadings are bad and need to stop (even when they aren’t happening to us personally), I’ll be surprised if we ever make to the 24th century. It makes me wonder how exactly Earth “solved its problems” and created a utopian society in the first place with this attitude of moral relativism.

Let’s face it – we have no shortage of modern travesties that sound ridiculous in the context of this philosophical approach. The Chechen Republic has been reportedly rounding up gay men and torturing them in recent months, and moral relativism would have us shrug and say, “But their culture says homosexuality is a sin.” 

To anyone who actually thinks that, fuck you. 

Bacha bazi, a practice where adolescent boys are groomed for sexual relationships with older men, remains pervasive in many Pashtun societies. Moral relativism would tell us that we shouldn’t condemn predatory pedophilia because to do so would mean unfairly imposing our Western beliefs on their culture. 

Just because one culture says widespread sexual coercion is ok doesn’t make it so. 

I could keep going on, but this post is already long enough. The bottom line is, all too often, Star Trek lazily glosses over a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas by using the argument, “Who are we to judge?” June is Pride Month, and in honor of LGBT individuals all over the globe who all too often have less rights than their cisgender heterosexual counterparts, maybe we should avoid looking to the “progressive” future of Star Trek and instead ask the question, “Who are we to not judge?” 

While I can’t resolve one of the greatest philosophical questions ever devised, someone once gave me a great piece of advice that I think applies to this idea of moral relativism: no person’s belief is inherently worthy of respect, but every person is. 

The World According to Trump

The starkest difference between dictatorships and democracies is that democracies are ruled by laws, and dictatorships are ruled by dictators.

The “rule of law,” as it’s often referred to, stands for laws that emerge from a process responsive to the majority, that are consistently applied, and are applicable to everyone regardless of their position or power.

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand this. Within a matter of days, Trump has bombed Syria and a group of fighters in eastern Afghanistan.

On April 12, Trump authorized the Pentagon to drop a 22,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) on people described as “Islamic State forces” in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.

It’s the first time this bomb – nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” and the largest air-dropped munition in the U.S. military’s inventory – has ever been used in a combat.

It’s the largest explosive device America has utilized since dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. (By comparison, U.S. aircraft commonly drop bombs that weigh between 250 to 2,000 pounds.)

Why, exactly? It’s not clear. And what was Trump’s authority to do this? Even less clear.

We still don’t know exactly why Trump bombed Syria. He said it was because Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, including children.

But it wasn’t the first time Assad had used chemical weapons. When he did in 2013, Trump counseled against bombing Syria in response.

And where did Trump get the authority to bomb Syria? Assad is a vicious dictator who does terrible things to his people. But U.S. law doesn’t authorize presidents to go to war against vicious dictators who do terrible things to their people.

The Constitution leaves it up to Congress, not the president, to declare war.

In 2014, President Barack Obama began hostilities against the Islamic State, arguing that Congress’s approval of George W. Bush’s wars against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002 provided him sufficient to authority.

Well, maybe. But there’s no way Trump can rely on Congress’s approval of these wars to bomb Syria.

And it’s a stretch to argue that a group claiming or alleged to be connected to ISIS, but located in eastern Afghanistan far away from where ISIS is attempting to establish an Islamic State, is the same as the Islamic State.

In a democracy, the rule of law means that we the people are supposed to be in charge, through our elected representatives in Congress.

It can be a heavy responsibility. It is especially weighty when it comes to warfare, to the destruction and annihilation of human beings.

As Commander-in-Chief, a president is empowered to manage the military might of the nation. But he is not empowered to initiate warfare on his own. That’s our job. 

The world according to Trump is becoming increasingly dangerous, in part because we are not doing our job. 

An Open Letter from British Fighters Against the Islamic State:

“We are some of an increasing number of British nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq as volunteers with local forces against the Islamic State.

We wish first and foremost to express our sorrow and anger at the recent terrorist attack in Westminster, London, and to convey our sincerest and most heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. We know only too well what is to lose friends, to treat those horrendously wounded, to pull the dead and dying from the rubble.

We also wish to express sympathy and solidarity with the many ordinary Muslims going to work and school today feeling that they are under special scrutiny, and fearful of what this might mean for them. We share their fear, and we urge anyone who might be tempted to take against ordinary Muslim people to think again. If you associate them with the Islamic State, you are giving such groups exactly what they want: a greater and more violent gap between the Muslim world and ours.

The familiar sounds of hate and bigotry are sounding again – on social media, and in the more guarded mainstream press - where the intent is nonetheless clear. Hate crimes will spike again. There are calls to demolish mosques. The fact that local Muslims raised thousands for victim support, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, is easily drowned out by the bandwagon. The EDL have called a snap demonstration, eager to make hay from the suffering of innocent people.

For all the sound and fury, we don’t remember seeing anyone from Britain First, EDL, UKIP, or their like, by our side in battle. Which is a good thing, because we wouldn’t have tolerated them.

Our ranks are made up of Kurds, Arabs, Yezidis, Brits, Yanks, Canadians, Aussies, Asians, Europeans - Muslims, Christians, Alevis, atheists - too many faiths and races to list. A multi-ethnic, multi-faith entity, standing united against hate and extremism.

The majority are, in fact, Muslims, and not only are we proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them - the truth is, we can’t do this without them.

The only way to defeat the Islamic State, and groups like it, is with ordinary, moderate Muslims on side. The only way to defeat hate and extremism is to not give in to it.

Don’t stand with Britain First, the EDL, UKIP or those who talk and think like them. Stand with us.”

Signed, British fighters of the YPG:

Joe Akerman

Aiden Aslin

Mark Ayres

Botan England

Michael Enright

Macer Gifford

John Harding

Jac Holmes

Steve Kerr

Jim Matthews

Tom Mawdsley

Ozkan Ozdil

Shaun Pinner

Joe Robinson

Josh Walker.


#RESIST protesters crash Trump’s speech to construction unions and more: April 4 in photos

Protesters hold up signs as President Donald Trump speaks at the 2017 North America’s Building Trades Unions National Legislative Conference in Washington; a man carries a child following a suspected chemical attack, at a makeshift hospital in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, northern Idlib province, Syria; fans arrive during a practice round for the Masters golf tournament in Augusta, Ga.; An Iraqi Federal Police member fires an RPG towards Islamic State militants during a battle in Mosul, Iraq; and, South Sudanese refugee children gather with their  belongings after crossing into Uganda at the Ngomoromo border post in Lamwo district, northern Uganda.

These are just a few of the photos of the day for April 4, 2017.

(Photos: Susan Walsh/AP, Edlib Media Center, via AP, Matt Slocum/AP, Khalid al Mousily/Reuters, Reuters)

See more photos of the day on Yahoo News.

In pictures: South Korea's Sewol ferry emerges from the sea nearly three years after it sank

The wreckage of a 6,800-ton South Korean ferry has emerged from the sea nearly three years after it capsized and sank, killing 304 people – most of them children on a school trip. The Sewol passenger ferry sank off the coast of Jindo island on 16 April 2014, touching off an outpouring of national grief and soul searching about public safety and regulatory failures.

Salvage workers started to bring up the vessel, which had been lying on its side at a depth of 44 metres (144 feet), late on Wednesday (22 April), rolling up 66 cables connected to a frame of metal beams divers had spent months putting beneath the ferry. At around 4am, the blue-and-white right side of ferry, rusty, scratched and coated in mud and sediment, emerged for the first time in more than 1,000 days.

Trending: London terror attack live: Eight arrests as more victims named

By about 7am the ferry had been raised enough for workers to climb on it and further fasten it to the barges. Once Sewol is raised to the desired point, salvage crews will then load the ferry onto a semi-submersible, heavy-lift vessel that will carry it to a mainland port. The loading process, including emptying the ferry of water and fuel, is expected to take days.

Don’t miss: Ex-EDL leader condemned for ‘Islam is at war’ rant at Westminster attack scene

Most popular: London terror attack: Theresa May states 'we are not afraid’ after killings

The bodies of 295 passengers were recovered after the vessel sank, but nine are still missing. Relatives, some of whom who are watching from two fishing boats just outside the operation area, are hoping that those remains will be found inside the ferry.

You may be interested in:
Bombings at Egyptian Coptic churches on Palm Sunday kill 43
At least 43 people were killed in bomb attacks on two Egyptian Coptic churches on Palm Sunday that included the seat of the Coptic Pope, the latest assault on a religious minority increasingly targeted by Islamist militants.

Targeted violence against Christian minorities by the Islamic State continues.

anonymous asked:

are you really trying to say theres no threat coming from people who are suni muslim? that its all right wing politicians "fear mongering" making these things up and not the sheer amount of rapes, sexual assaults and terrorist attacks committed nearly every day now? its funny how its all right wing politicians faults and not the fucking terrorists.. because people are so equally """phobic""" of sihks right?

In terms of proportional threat - yeah, the ‘threat’ is minuscule and the fear that exists is considerably inflated by right wing politicians using acts of terrorism to push their agendas.

In the west you are far more likely to get murdered by someone close to you than be a victim of a terror attack. You are far more likely to be killed in a road traffic collision. You are 260 times more likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed by terrorism committed by an immigrant. In France, which has seen its fair share of terrorist attacks, your chances of being killed in one are less than two ten-thousandths of one per cent. It feels like it’s constant, it feels like it’s a huge risk, because of how it is portrayed by our media and by our politicians. But the reality is that the risk of international terrorism is exceptionally low. 

In fact Islamic countries have far more to fear from the western world than we do of them - considering the United States and Europe are the biggest perpetrators of international terrorism, and have supported, funded and developed islamic terrorism in other countries for their own agenda.

The tragic thing is that Islamic countries have far, far more to fear from Islamic terrorism than the west does, and yet we vilify entire nations who are suffering as a result of our own actions. We should remember that western intervention is responsible for the development islamic terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIL. We should also remember that ISIL is ravaging Syria and Iraq in a way we probably can’t even begin to comprehend - and yet because those victims are muslim and not western we do not bat an eyelid. We are the ones who are apparently at risk, not the innocent civilians we have left behind after we’ve destroyed their country’s infrastructure. 

And personally, yes, I would extend the ultimate responsibility to western governments because of the huge role they have played in creating the situation in the middle east. They funded the groups, they destroyed governments and left vacuums that ISIL was able to fill, they have created an environment that is toxic, that leaves people feeling frustrated and disenfranchised - and ultimately leads to the radicalisation of those responsible for terrorist attacks. It’s far easier to blame ‘muslims’ and ignore any and all context, than accept your own government has a history of funding and fuelling terrorism for it’s own agenda, and has devastated the lives of millions of innocent people.

What will happen if we “carry on like before”? 

In the upcoming 30 years, Europeans will no longer be the majority in Europe. Muslims will be. This is a mathematical fact you can learn from official demographic statistics showing birth rates. Now, what does this mean? 
With the time muslims will also form own political parties and they will win (because they are the majority). They will make up the majority of officials and ministers as well as policemen and soldiers. Most muslims don’t support terror, allthough it is clear that most of them (I am not talking about those you visit university with) don’t care or even celebrate it, because western civilisation is their enemy. They are not even to blame for it and it is mostly our own fault, because we support liberal capitalist governments who - under the cloak of so called “humanity” - bomb and destabilise foreign countries and leave them in ruins*. Now those governments are the same who lecture you about “political correctness”, “equality”, “multicultural diversity” and so on. In other words: they make you weak, which is something muslims know and they hate us for it, because it is natural to do so. If your homeland is bombed by a “culture” consisting of fat ugly people spending their time with TV, cinema, concerts, parties, Mc Donald’s, just all in connection with decadent, disgusting hedonism - what would you think?
The next reason why western civilisation is the enemy of muslims is - surprise - Islam. This is another fact and you can scream and cry as much as you want. Islam is, just like abrahamic religions in general, a universalist religion, which means its main goal is to conquer the world. The god is considered the only one and every human has to acknowledge it and subjugate to his (man-made) laws. You can get rid of your peace-and-love-concept here, because that’s not what it is about. Also it is not the best strategy to just believe what muslim politicians tell you on TV. You would be surprised how many of them have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and they are not stupid. They know what to say in front of the typical liberal, they know about the weakness.

So, what will happen?
Muslims don’t even need war to conquer Europe, they can do it by migration and it doesn’t even matter if the migrants intend to do so, if they come here for economic reasons, they still take part in the demographic replacement. 
But still there are of course also thousands of Jihadists already in Europe and more will come, because we just let them in. Terror will increase. The next step will be militiant groups who start a real “civil” war (not really civil war, because they are no Europeans and civil war means a war within a homogeneous state) against Europeans. They will then receive support by official (now muslim) governments in Europe, like they do now in Syria, Iraq, etc., where they receive support from Saudia Arabia and Turkey. 
At the same time, there will be more and more laws according to Islam, making it the official religion of the European nations. Schools will teach it, European children will have to take part in it. One day everyone in Europe will be a muslim. All you know and love will be gone. 

You think this is hate speech or a conspiracy theory?
Well, pagans never thought their children would be christians one day. If you read about the the Christian mission in Europe you will realise what I am telling you. Today it is even easier, because of the technological possibilities. 

What do I want from you? 
Realise that Europe is your mother and home you have to love, realise that the present course will destroy it and realise that a few decades of liberal ideology didn’t find the absolute truth about “humanity” and didn’t lead to world peace, but to total chaos. They are trying to control that chaos by methods that will remind you of Orwells “1984″. Realise also that these politicians are traitors who want to build a liberal one-world oder and for that purpose they oppress their own people. They are not interested in culture, meaning they are not interested in the only thing that gives real value to human beings. Modern individualism is a lie. It is creating empty consumption drones with no identity. This is the definition of the worthless individual. Don’t you already see it when walking trough the streets?

Also see my other posts and questions I answered regarding politics and culture.

*here of course it is required to say that it is not western countries alone, but muslim nations destroy each other, like the Saudis do, e.g. in Syria. You still believe Assad is an evil dictator? Then you have a problem with indoctrination by media, because it’s a lie.