Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
You may well be right. My issue with that strategy is that once ISIS has movbed into a large area...well, that means that the previous inhabitants of that area are all dead. A case could be made for killing them before that point, but then how the heck do you identify where they are, and who goes in on the ground? Easy for me to say, cuz it won't be me...
|
ISIS doesn't kill everyone. Certainly where they can they'll kill those who they consider infidels but they've left majority Sunni areas as is but subjected to their rule.
Quote:
|
You would never know this by listening to any liberal historian, but this is how the Crusades started. Contrary to popular current belief, the Crusades wasn't started by a bunch of bloodthirsty Christians hell-bent on killing everyone who didn't share their faith.
|
The Crusades were started by Christians in an attempt to take back holy sites held at the time by Muslims. It wasn't defensive at all and in sieges like for Jerusalem they certainly did massacre most Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders were also known for a lot of debauchery and land grabbing along the way.
Granted, the history of that area is very complex but I don't think you can claim any moral high ground with the behavior of European Christians over Muslims during those times.
I think a much more important discussion here is the coming attempt to retake Mosul and ISIS's recent demand of a son from families there. It's quite likely their supply lines are stretched, their fighters weakened, the civilian population ready to revolt, and Iraqi military regrouped and an enraged Jordan perfectly positioned to divide the Syrian and Iraqi ISIS militants.
Threaded Mode