| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Islamic State explains why it doesn’t attack Israel (yet) |
| 2016-03-27 |
| [IsraelTimes] Paleostine is not the Muslims’ ‘primary cause,’ IS article argues; ending Saudi control of Mecca and Medina takes precedence The Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allaharound with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not reallyMoslems.... terror group published an article explaining why it does not attack the Jewish state, arguing that the Paleostinian issue should not get preferential treatment. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #11 "Not the Muslim's primary cause" > no surprise here, iff the Paleo cause e-v-a-r! was. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2016-03-27 20:20 |
| #10 As far as the Koran is concerned Jerusalem always was a side-show. They just made a big thing out of it to concentrate the natural hate of everything that boils in the Arab mind towards a target that wasn't the leader of an Arab country. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-03-27 20:07 |
| #9 "ending Saudi control of Mecca and Medina takes precedence" Ummm - Israel could do that for you (as could we, the Brits, the Phrench, etc.). I'm sure any of us could spare a couple of nukes to help y'all out there. Why not just ask? |
| Posted by: Barbara 2016-03-27 15:16 |
| #8 They would get their asses kicked... |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2016-03-27 14:58 |
| #7 Oderint Dum Metuant in action. |
| Posted by: Matt 2016-03-27 12:25 |
| #6 If they fought Israel they wouldn't be mainly intimidating women and children? It does seem that the arab/islam infested can only really manage that "feat". |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2016-03-27 10:47 |
| #5 it seems to me that for ISIS, the Shia must be considered worse heretics than the saudis by far But Mecca and Medina are the ultimate possession, lord garth. Nonetheless, conquering Saudi Arabia would not be as easy as conquering Iraq, it seems to me. And even conquering Iraq turned out not to be the doddle it first appeared. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-03-27 10:37 |
| #4 the precedence of killing heretics and apostates before lifetime infidels is pretty clearly established in Islam the only problem is that the definition of heretic and apostate is changeable -- on this subject, it seems to me that for ISIS, the Shia must be considered worse heretics than the saudis by far |
| Posted by: lord garth 2016-03-27 09:06 |
| #3 Picking low hanging fruit first? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-03-27 04:26 |
| #2 LOL NGuard. Can you imagine the seething in the Paleos?: "We used to be sumpthin. The terror champs. Now... we're trying to stab random Jooos and getting killed for it" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-03-27 00:45 |
| #1 Translation: Are you kidding? if we so much as seriously point a weapon at those Jews, they will hunt us down to the last curly toed slipper! The Saudis are a lot safer and easier to attack. Look at the leadership of Hezbollah- those poor B@$!@#%$ have to live underground like moles. at least the americans give us some opportunities to get some air before they send the drones after us! |
| Posted by: Nguard 2016-03-27 00:31 |