If they are religious at all they are Wahhabis. Protected, promoted and funded by our BFF the Saudi Royal Family. Wahhabis are true fundamentalists who who seek a return to practice and values of the Middle Ages. All Wahhabis are nominally Muslim, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of Muslims are Wahhabi.

It is easier to make sense of it all just to think of them as fascists seeking power and control through violence..

.

I always thought that was the hot green stuff they put on Sushi in Vancouver?

Idiot.

But to follow up JonboyE's earlier post there's a decent article in the Huff on the historical background. You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia | Alastair Crooke

Although not part of the article, it's clear that what's going on right now is fairly analogous to the Troubles in Ireland just a few years ago. i.e a sectarian feud, fuelled by perceived historical wrongs, between two branches of the same primitive religion.

The Wahhabis are comparable to the Real IRA, extremists in a word, but the true struggle is between Sunnis (sponsored in the main by Saudi Arabia) and Shiites funded largely by Iran.

The Wahhabi/Sunni extremists have bothered their sponsors by being a bit over the top (even for the Saudis) so they're fearing that they have no friends left.

Thus, by releasing videos of executions of a couple of Americans, which are widely accepted to be about two years old, they have drawn the US (and the coalition of the stupid) into action against them.

This is obviously a (largely successful) attempt to invoke the "Our enemy is the Great Satan and if you're our enemy then you're their friend" thingy.

Bloody nonsense. And basically nothing but politics as usual in the Middle East. The West needs to be less naive and gullible.

It's OK, the Turks have started bombing.

Oh, hang on, it's the Kurds they're bombing, not ISIS.

An interesting historical account of the underpinnings of ISIS, but fact remains that they are a threat to the region and the West. Were it not for the inconvenience of events like 9/11, 7/7 and the countless foiled plots, it would be tempting to leave these kooky desert warriors up to their well documented habit of raping, pillaging and murdering their own. Not that even that would be morally conscionable. Every extremist movement needs to be disbanded, and ISIS is certainly no exception. The fact that conquest is in their DNA (to use a trite expression) and the fact that we "understand" their historical journey is no reason for complacency.

Two soldiers struck in Quebec hit-and-run - The Globe and Mail

Meanwhile somewhere in Quebec, a Known Muslim extremist runs over two service Personel in car then shot dead by police.

Conquest would appear to be in the 'DNA' of quite a few nations, if indeed it is a 'fact' that such things are genetic.

Do use that tiny lump of gristle between your ears before posting next time.

Meanwhile on topic the US airlifts 20 tons of supplies to Kurdish forces in Kobane overnight and Turkey finally says they'll allow Kurds to cross the border to fight in Syria.

No not really....I lived in a Wahhabis enclave for many years, and a more reasonable bunch you could not encounter....I still know lots of them today....hope I always will...

So it goes. So it goes.

Sectarian politics as usual, complicated as ever.

I made an analogy between the NI troubles and these recent events a few posts ago, but I'm increasingly struck by the similarity of the complicated and ludicrous scheming and shifting of alliances in Europe (which included Russia back then) in the year or two before WW2.

Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme.

Young British muslims go to Syria, a violent war zone, to join ISIS in fighting for their set of values, get killed, and the "community is in shock"? Really? What's to be shocked about? Saddened, maybe, shocked, no.

Shock as third Portsmouth jihadi fighter is killed in conflict - Portsmouth News

On slightly scrutinising the rest of the headline, it's not only the word "shock" that's a tad glib.

I mean, shouldn't they be reporting accurately by using phrases like "alleged criminal", "member of terrorist organisation" or "genocidal psychopath" (instead of the somewhat glamourous "jihadi-fighter")? Makes you wonder who they trying to please.

Interesting piece:

My brother wanted to be a jihadi – and society is creating many more like him | Robb Leech | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Typical Guardian. 'It's all society's fault!'