Article

2016-03-27 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Islamic State explains why it doesn’t attack Israel (yet)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2016-03-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views ] Top
File under: Islamic State

#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|| 2016-03-27 00:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 00:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Picking low hanging fruit first?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-03-27 04:26|| 2016-03-27 04:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 09:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 10:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 10:47|| Front Page Top

#7 Oderint Dum Metuant in action.

Posted by Matt 2016-03-27 12:25|| 2016-03-27 12:25|| Front Page Top

#8 They would get their asses kicked...

Posted by Bill Clinton 2016-03-27 14:58|| 2016-03-27 14:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 15:16|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 20:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2016-03-27 20:20|| Front Page Top

23:54 KBK
23:46 M. Murcek
23:42 Pappy
23:20 gorb
22:09 JosephMendiola
21:59 Procopius2k
21:53 badanov
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:47 JosephMendiola
21:17 Blossom Unains5562
21:09 swksvolFF
20:25 JosephMendiola
20:22 JosephMendiola
20:20 JosephMendiola
20:13 Frank G
20:08 rjschwarz
20:07 rjschwarz
20:01 DarthVader
19:10 swksvolFF
18:19 Rambler in Viginia
17:47 Besoeker
17:42 g(r)omgoru
17:42 Besoeker
17:11 rjschwarz