freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 9:18pm:


What an absurd way to prosecute your ridiculous argument FD. Even sadder that you seem not to even realise it.

Quote:


By "dealt with" I of course mean they were capable of merely preventing themselves being wiped out by ISIS.

FD are you seriously arguing that the shiites being willing to watch a few of their fellow shiites die is somehow a validation of the argument that the entire shia Iraq (and beyond) would have been overran by ISIS?

This is what your case amounts to:

FD: ISIS definitely would have conquered all the shiites
Gandalf: there is no evidence or logic to this
FD: oooh how many of their own people were the shiites prepared to see die before they acted??

Be honest FD - looking at that objectively - its pretty stupid right?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:


Because they never even began to attack Shia areas. What conclusion would you draw from that?

So lets be clear on your line of argument here FD:

ISIS attack, and have great success in conquering dominant sunni areas, which also happened to be hostile to shia rule (both in Iraq and Syria). Therefore, because the shia had not intervened in the conquest of those non-shia areas, ipso facto, ISIS would definitely have conquered the shia.

This is your argument FD. Take a look at it, own it, and actually address the gaping holes in it. If you still can't understand those gaping holes, I suggest you are not concentrating hard enough.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:


FD I'd prefer you to focus on your argument that rests on the non-logic that because the Shia had not attempted to stop the ISIS conquest of sunni dominant areas, they therefore would have conquered the Shia.

Its really REALLY dumb - wouldn't you agree?

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:18pm:


LOL how does that even remotely support your BS argument that they would have conquered all the Shiites FD? It is beyond absurd.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:24pm:


Even though they didn't even try?

Do you see the difference between shias defending sunni dominant areas and shias defending shia dominant areas?

Do you think there's a little issue related to priorities?

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:26pm:


You've gone back into idiot mode FD. Whether they did or not is completely irrelevant to your argument that they would have conquered the shia. Especially given your previous inability to demonstrate how exactly they could have "consolidated" in an barren desert shithole with a sparse population, and almost completely blockaded - not to mention at war on every front and horribly overstretched. For all we know the shia would have been happy to ignore the sunni half of the country, breakup Iraq and become part of Iran, or whatever. Who cares, it doesn't freaking matter to this point!

There is no evidence ISIS was going to overrun the shia in Iraq, let alone in Iran, and you have precisely zero arguments to support the ridiculous claim

And no amount of stupid irrelevant rhetorical questions about how the shia viewed sunni areas is going to change this.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 12:50pm:


So the age old sunni-shia fight is over and Muslims have submitted to the Western way of looking at geo-political conflict and are now submitting to nation-state boundaries and all that apostasy and House of Islam and House War guff Mohammed was on about is all forgotten and ... er... superseded???


Really?? Get out of here.  You Muslims really think everyone else is stupid because they haven't read the Koran in Arabic, as if that was really any authority to anyone but your sucked-in selves. In reality your beliefs are up there with Master Light's Flat Earth wheeze.i