[Rei Murasame]

I should also add, by the way (for the record), that this is the verse from the Quran that the Islamists use for their opposition to racialism:

O mankind! We have indeed created you from one man and one woman, and have made you into various nations and tribes so that you may know one another; indeed the more honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is one who is more pious among you; indeed Allah is All Knowing, All Aware. (Piety is the basis of honour in Allah’s sight.)

And a Hadith relevant to that verse, further condemns ancestor-worship:

that the Messenger of Allah gave a Khutbah to the people on the day of the conquest of Makkah, and he said: "O you people! Verily Allah has removed the slogans of Jahiliyyah from you, and its reverence of its forefathers. So, now there are two types of men: A man who is righteous, has Taqwa and honourable before Allah, and a wicked man, who is miserable and insignificant to Allah. People are children of Adam and Allah created Adam from the dust. Allah said: O you people! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who has most Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware (49:13).

This 'anti-racialist' logic that they are using here becomes especially dangerous when it is united with the idea that Muslims can take non-Muslims as sex slaves.

That's why they are able to target the Yazidi in the way that they do. The Yazidi are an example of a racially-exclusionary tight-knit group, since they allegedly never marry with outsiders and a person cannot convert to being a Yazidi, they can only be born into the group.

When ISIL abducts Yazidi women and locks them in dungeons to rape them and give them forced pregnancies with Arab or African rape-children, they believe that they are not only allowed to do so because of their ability to take sex slaves, but also because it is 'fighting against racists'. Because the Yazidi care about blood, whereas Muslims do not.

So this means that when Wiseraphael said:

the fact is [ISIL are]....racialist based,

He was factually wrong to say that. His wrongness in saying that is also shown in the Arab STRUCTURE graphs (which are floating around somewhere out there), which shows that Arab Muslims have apparently had very little regard for race in practice either.

They are violent anti-racialists in practice, in the worst possible way.

If you are from a group that is tightly bound to blood descent for some reason, the worst possible geographic neighbours you could be blighted with are Muslims. Because Muslims will never stop sexually harassing people. They'll always be trying to poach people from the group, either by direct or by indirect methods, and they'll do it with a sense of smug righteousness because 'it is not racist'.

[abu_rashid]

Nope.....don't give a damn what these animals look like, the fact is they act and think like the Nazis....racialist based, bigoted, murderous and genocidal.

Given that IS are made up of people from all different parts of the world, I can't see how on earth you could consider them racialist.

As Rei's multiple posts full of ranting about this confirms, the major problem with IS and Islam in particular is that it doesn't respect any kind of ethnic isolationism. Islam is an ideology that breaks down the barriers of ethnicity and race and tries to unite all of humanity under one nation.

[abu_rashid]

I should also add, by the way (for the record), that this is the verse from the Quran that the Islamists use for their opposition to racialism:
O mankind! We have indeed created you from one man and one woman, and have made you into various nations and tribes so that you may know one another; indeed the more honourable among you, in the sight of Allah, is one who is more pious among you; indeed Allah is All Knowing, All Aware. (Piety is the basis of honour in Allah’s sight.)

And a Hadith relevant to that verse, further condemns ancestor-worship:
Jami at-Tirmidhi, Vol. 1, Book 44, Hadith 3270[/url] (emphasis added)"]that the Messenger of Allah gave a Khutbah to the people on the day of the conquest of Makkah, and he said: "O you people! Verily Allah has removed the slogans of Jahiliyyah from you, and its reverence of its forefathers. So, now there are two types of men: A man who is righteous, has Taqwa and honourable before Allah, and a wicked man, who is miserable and insignificant to Allah. People are children of Adam and Allah created Adam from the dust. Allah said: O you people! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who has most Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware (49:13).

Wow I'm impressed anyone would think you'd become a propagandist for IS

This 'anti-racialist' logic that they are using here becomes especially dangerous when it is united with the idea that Muslims can take non-Muslims as sex slaves.

That's why they are able to target the Yazidi in the way that they do.

Now you're just recounting whimsical fantasy.

The Yazidi are an example of a racially-exclusionary tight-knit group, since they allegedly never marry with outsiders and a person cannot convert to being a Yazidi, they can only be born into the group.

In reality they're just Kurds, not as racially exclusionary as you'd have us believe. They already share the exact same genes as many other Sunni Muslims in the region, so the idea they're somehow racially distinct from the Sunni Muslims is just like your claims above, whimsical fantasy.

When ISIL abducts Yazidi women and locks them in dungeons to rape them and give them forced pregnancies with Arab or African rape-children, they believe that they are not only allowed to do so because of their ability to take sex slaves, but also because it is 'fighting against racists'. Because the Yazidi care about blood, whereas Muslims do not.

Get off the crack, seriously.

[Rei Murasame]

Given that IS are made up of people from all different parts of the world, I can't see how on earth you could consider them racialist.

As Rei's multiple posts full of ranting about this confirms, the major problem with IS and Islam in particular is that it doesn't respect any kind of ethnic isolationism. Islam is an ideology that breaks down the barriers of ethnicity and race and tries to unite all of humanity under one nation.

Indeed. Thank you for providing me with that quote, so that I can refer back to it later on. Bookmarked.

I'll disregard your other insult-bait post, and focus on the fact that you actually do not disagree with what I've accused you of. Something I've noticed about your almost surrealist posting style, is that you often fill up space trying to be inflammatory, even though you know that my assessment is exactly correct.

That's how you can make back to back posts where you confirm what I am saying, and then immediately follow up by pretending to disagree even though just one post previously you were acknowledging it. Apparently my posts "confirm" the truth, but you would also like me to "get off the crack". Only a complete madman could say both of those things back to back, well, a madman or an Islamist.

Wow I'm impressed

Yes, imagine that, the pesky 'devil-worshippers and polytheists' are tasked with actually reading the Quran and the Hadiths, as well as the Tafsirs which explain it, so that we can figure out what you are trying to do. You thought that 'the devil-worshippers and polytheists' don't know how to read or interpret religious texts?

Sometimes I wonder if Islamists are retarded.

[abu_rashid]

I'll disregard your other insult-bait post, and focus on the fact that you actually do not disagree with what I've accused you of. Something I've noticed about your almost surrealist posting style, is that you often fill up space trying to be inflammatory, even though you know that my assessment is exactly correct.

That's how you can make back to back posts where you confirm what I am saying, and then immediately follow up by pretending to disagree even though just one post previously you were acknowledging it. Apparently my posts "confirm" the truth, but you would also like me to "get off the crack". Only a complete madman could say both of those things back to back, well, a madman or an Islamist.

Why on earth would I deny this? According to most sane, rational people ethno-centrism and racialism are undesirable beliefs. In fact I think amongst many of those who aren't interested in religion at all, this aspect of Islam is quite appealing. The universal brotherhood it establishes amongst peoples from different backgrounds is one of the most amazing aspects of Islam. I don't think any other ideology on earth has ever succeeded in doing this in such a convincing and effective manner as Islam has.

Yes, imagine that, the pesky 'devil-worshippers and polytheists' are tasked with actually reading the Quran and the Hadiths, as well as the Tafsirs which explain it, so that we can figure out what you are trying to do. You thought that 'the devil-worshippers and polytheists' don't know how to read or interpret religious texts?

It was more a commentary on the fact you were making propaganda in favour of Islam and didn't even seem to realise it. Most racialist nutjobs at least realise their whacky beliefs are unpalatable to the average human, and so they try to mask them... you are so taken with the insanity of your beliefs, that doesn't even seem to register with you. You actually seem to think most people will dislike that.

[Rei Murasame]

You are simply perplexed by the fact that I don't sugar-coat the racialist aspects of my world-view and that I don't lie. I understand.

Part of what I do is that I say precisely the thing which I actually mean, which is why it appears "crazy" to you, because people don't usually speak with the level of honesty that I do. There's actually some thread on PoFo where I declare that my motto is essentially "masks off" (so it's interesting that you should mention masks). My whole approach is that I deliberately do not do that masking that you are talking about.

I'm mostly interested in getting the agreement of people who want to consciously embrace things that I am openly talking about. If I have to mask something to get someone to accept it, then I don't consider my job to have been done. In my personal life as well, there are people who come to me to get my opinion purely because they know that I will tell them exactly what I think the situation looks like, regardless of how 'politically incorrect' it may sound.

I simply present unvarnished choices. If people choose to go with you as a result of being shown what I have shown people in this thread, then such people are those who I never wanted with me in the first place. That's how I operate. Those who are willing to stand on the side that I am on, will hear truth in what I'm saying and will gravitate toward it, if I am selling what they desire. I simply make the most honest sales pitch of all, and let people do what they're going to do afterwards. I am not a deceiver.

I even present your text in the most honest way possible, with the click-through link to the source and everything. All of that is quite deliberate. People reading the thread will make their choice. But no one will ever be able to accuse me of having lied about anything.

All these 'guests' that are supposedly looking at this thread, when reading all of this, they are faced with a simple choice:

• 1. Bring the honour and the dignity to their foreparents.
  
  OR
  
  
• 2. Throw it all away and go with the Islamists or the Leftists because of peer pressure and 'politically correct' petty-moralising.

Those who are capable of choosing #1 despite all adversity, are the ones who will hear me and realise the situation when I appeal to them, as I have done in this thread.

[abu_rashid]

You are simply perplexed by the fact that I don't sugar-coat the racialist aspects of my world-view and that I don't lie. I understand.

Yes, normally people of your ilk try to mask it, as they know it's unacceptable the vast majority of people. I just don't think you have the requisite social skills to realise this.

I simply present unvarnished choices.

I'd say unrefined.

If people choose to go with you as a result of being shown what I have shown people in this thread, then such people are those who I never wanted with me in the first place. That's how I operate. Those who are willing to stand on the side that I am on, will hear truth in what I'm saying and will gravitate toward it, if I am selling what they desire. I simply make the most honest sales pitch of all, and let people do what they're going to do afterwards. I am not a deceiver.

I even present your text in the most honest way possible, with the click-through link to the source and everything. All of that is quite deliberate. People reading the thread will make their choice. But no one will ever be able to accuse me of having lied about anything.

What I understand from all this is: "Yes my views are detestable to the vast majority of people, but at least I'm honest about them, and people should give me credit for that and join me anyway, regardless of how repugnant they find these views"

All these 'guests' that are supposedly looking at this thread, when reading all of this, they are faced with a simple choice:

• 1. Bring the honour and the dignity to their foreparents.
  
  OR
  
  
• 2. Throw it all away and go with the Islamists or the Leftists because of peer pressure and 'politically correct' petty-moralising.

Or the 3rd. choice, and the most logical one, just embrace humanity because we're all the same. I know it pains you deeply to think non-Japanese are just the same as Japanese, and that at the end of the day you're not superior, and not special, but that's the cold, harsh reality. All human beings are equivalent to one another in their worth, in their superiority. The only thing that differentiates them is their individual greatness, not some collective ethnic greatness. There are poor pathetic Japanese, just as there are poor pathetic Germans, just as there are poor pathetic Arabs, Eskimos or any other people for that matter.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, normally people of your ilk try to mask it, as they know it's unacceptable the vast majority of people. I just don't think you have the requisite social skills to realise this.

See my previous post for the explanation about why I don't do masking, and why I don't do lying. It's almost like the Islamist ideology that you adhere to renders you incapable of understanding what it is to tell the truth.

This is super simple. I present options in an unvarnished way. People then decide which side they would like to be on. If they don't choose the side that I am on because it's too ruthless for them, then I don't care because I am not interested in chasing around behind weaklings.

I'd say unrefined.

Oh, you mean you are essentially saying:

"I say old chap! She is rather unrefined! Why won't she just tell massive incredible lies instead, so that we can all feel more comfortable?!"

There needs to be a 'monocle' emoticon added, because seriously, white people are fucking hilarious with this shit. The fact that you are a white man and Muslim, Abu Rashid, seems to confer upon you the worst of both those worlds.

However, there are lot of people who don't see it the way that you see it, and who value the candid conversations and find it to be charming. One of my key conversational skills is to present 'terrifying things' as sounding kind of attractive. One of the standard ways to do this is to link the views to a particular identity. Time and place matters. Setting matters. Addressing the concerns of the particular person matters. Presenting an overview of the situation and then handing control back to the listener to make a choice between a set of options, is important, since the person becomes actively involved in the conversation rather than merely being lectured or ranted at. I can be extremely engaging and persuasive without having to tell any lies at all.

What I understand from all this "Yes my views are detestable to the vast majority of people, but at least I'm honest about them, and people should give me credit for that and join me anyway, regardless of how repugnant they find these views"

No, if people find it repugnant then they should not join me, because those are the kind of people who I do not want to see on my side. See how this works? I present people with unvarnished choices, and then they decide which side they would like to be on.

This is really simple. So simple that it offends you.

Let's take the UK as an example:

New Tribes

The Fear and HOPE research has identified six ‘identity-defined’ groups in society. At one extreme of this spectrum lie liberals and multiculturalists. At the other end lie both active as well as latently-hostile groups.

These tribes can be defined as follows:

• Confident Multiculturalists (eight per cent of the population)
• Mainstream Liberals (16%)
• Identity Ambivalents (28%)
• Cultural Integrationists (24%)
• Latent Hostiles (10%)
• Active Enmity (13%)

We can see that, broadly speaking, the new politics of identity splits as follows:

• Liberal 24%
• Mainstream 52%
• Hostile 23%

These divides constitute a new political understanding through which personal, community, economic, ethic, national identity, and global issues and attitudes can be understood. A person’s location on this spectrum is no longer accurately described by their socio-economic class alone. For example, voters of the DE social group split 5%-14%-30%-19%-10%-21% [see table: Segment breakdown by class].

I'm willing to keep going!

By applying the attitudes of these ‘tribes’ to a series of questions focusing on standard of living, race, immigration, nation, identity, community, values, and religion, a number of themes emerge. The following are particularly noteworthy:

• Optimism v pessimism; security v insecurity.
• Economic change and identity.
• Englishness, Britishness and identity.
• Changing minority attitudes.
• Social capital v social dislocation.
• Working class fragmentation and dislocation.
• Negative attitudes towards Islam and Muslims.
• The refraction of individual issues through the prism of identity politics.
• A potential political vacuum on the right.

This analysis is a challenge to central and local Government, political parties, the media, campaign groups and community organisations. A different political dynamic calls for a different approach to policy, communication, organisation, and prioritisation. This report concludes with a series of practical recommendations for a response to the new politics of culture, identity and nation.

The core message, however, is that this changing political dynamic cannot be ignored. As happened with the controversy over immigration, this new dynamic is real and it is not going away. The question is rather: which response will gain the most traction. If it is to be the political mainstream and not the political extremes then a swift set of responses is required. The choice is between a politics of unity or a politics of division. It is between hope and hate.

This report was fantastic, by the way. It also mentions that if your dumbass cuckholding left-liberal accidental-friends are unable to do anything, over the course of this generation it could end up with over 50% of the population shifting into the 'hostile' position, and history will tell you what usually happens after that.

Keep going, you Muslims can keep pouring fuel onto this fire.

And I can laugh at Muslims, in the knowledge that this struggle has only just begun, and my side gets to start with 23% of the population on-side already, which is quite nice. Some terrorist attacks will be coming soon to push more people into that position, right? I can point at the exploding objects on TV and say to people, "so how are you feeling about the Muslims now?"

All these guys who are coming back from Iraq and Syria to cause trouble in Europe, they are a dangerous terrorist threat, but they are also a gift-wrapped opportunity for the far-right.

embrace humanity because we're all the same.

Pseudo-leftist garbage. I don't even need to write a response to that.

[abu_rashid]

Well the only side I'm saying usually lies is yours, certainly not mine. Lying is completely removed from the character of a Muslim (contrary to the garbage people such as yourself peddle). Racialists usually try to sugar coat their despicable ethno-centric nonsense in order to sucker people into adopting it piecemeal.

Anyway, as you noted above, the Islamic texts unambiguously and proudly state that all human beings are the same, and none has a birthright to superiority over another. There's one other hadith you forgot to mention though which is this one:

"All people are equal like the teeth of a comb. There is no merit of an Arab over a non-Arab or a white over a black person or of a male over a female. Only Allah-conscious people merit a preference with Allah"

Thank you.

[Rei Murasame]

Well the only side I'm saying usually lies is yours, certainly not mine. Lying is completely removed from the character of a Muslim (contrary to the garbage people such as yourself peddle).

It is surreal that you are still trying to push this narrative despite everything that has just happened in this conversation. Absolutely surreal.

[abu_rashid]

What has happened in this conversation other than you making the Islamic case for me re: ethno-centrism? And me pointing out that your openness about your despicable supremacist views are best described as unrefined rather than unvarnished?

If you misconstrue that as an admission that lying is permissible, then you'd really have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Then again, I guess you're not left with much else are you?

[Rei Murasame]

Now you are just flailing around desperately. Look at how totally despicable my views are! It's so obvious, right? A very dastardly villain I am for sure, perhaps ominous theme music is playing all around me, it kind of just activates whenever it is theatrically appropriate!

Seriously, you sound like a complete joke right now, you humiliate yourself.

Also, is 'supremacist' the new term that you've decided to utter rather than 'right-wing'? Because I can totally understand why you'd need to do that, it adds some extra flavour to your posts which have increasingly become a string of epithets threaded together along a path that is desperately searching for some kind of destination or end-point.

[abu_rashid]

A very dastardly villain I am for sure, perhaps ominous theme music is playing all around me, it kind of just activates whenever it is theatrically appropriate!

Sadly it's not far off the mark, on more than one occasion I have seen you reference a "theme song" for your current villainous caper.

Also, is 'supremacist' the new term that you've decided to utter rather than 'right-wing'?

It aptly describes your particular 'ailment' if you ask me. Not all right wingers are as far gone as you, and you do seem quite fixated on your own supremacy and more broadly that of your race and more broader than that the region from which you hail (I assume you call them 'mongoloids'?).

[Rei Murasame]

Sadly it's not far off the mark, on more than one occasion I have seen you reference a "theme song" for your current villainous caper.

'Villainous caper', you actually say this stuff with a straight face! Amazing.

It aptly describes your particular 'ailment' if you ask me. Not all right wingers are as far gone as you, and you do seem quite fixated on your own supremacy and more broadly that of your race and more broader than that the region from which you hail (I assume you call them 'mongoloids'?).

I am quite fixated on the agenda of supporting policy preferences which carry the added value of serving the interests of the East Asian peoples, who I call "East Asians". As you have seen.

And yes, not all right-wingers are as serious about regional development as I am, and not all right-wingers are as confident about their superiority as I am.

[abu_rashid]

Thank you, no further questions.

[Rei Murasame]

Thank you, no further questions.

Good!

So we can get back to the topic at hand, which is the title of this thread. What was it again? Oh, yes, it was called 'US strikes in Syria won’t turn locals against Islamic State'. And indeed, ground forces will be required. Tony Blair seems to see it that way too:

In essay on threat posed by group, former UK prime minister says Britain and other nations must form wide-ranging coalition.

Britain must be prepared to join a wide coalition of countries in deploying ground troops, including special forces, to combat forces from the Islamic State (Isis), the former prime minister Tony Blair has said. In a lengthy essay on the threat posed by Isis on the eve of the UN general assembly meeting in New York, Blair warned that air strikes alone would not be enough to combat the jihadis.

The intervention by Blair comes as Britain considers whether to join the US and France in launching air strikes against Isis forces in Iraq and possibly in Syria. On Wednesday, David Cameron will attend a meeting of the UN Security Council in New York that is to be chaired by Barack Obama.

The prime minister may use the UN meeting to advocate British involvement in the air campaign, though he has ruled out sending in ground troops. But Blair made clear that air strikes were insufficient to confront Isis.

The former prime minister, now Middle East peace envoy, wrote on his website: "Air power is a major component of this, to be sure, especially with the new weapons available to us. But – and this is the hard truth – air power alone will not suffice. They can be hemmed in, harried and to a degree contained by air power. But they can't be defeated by it."

Blair stressed that he was not calling for a repeat of the lengthy military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wrote: "We're not talking here about armies of occupation. We are, in certain situations where it is necessary and subject to all proper limitations, talking about committing ground forces, especially those with special capabilities."

In his article, Blair also warned that western governments are in danger of making a "fateful error" in assuming that they should challenge only Islamist extremists who advocate violence. Echoing the warnings by Michael Gove, who has called for a "draining of the swamp", Blair called for action against the fringe of extremists who advocate violence as well as the wider spectrum that believes in religious exclusivity.

He wrote: "This Islamism – a politicisation of religion to an intense and all-encompassing degree – is not confined to a fringe. It is an ideology (and a theology derived from Salafist thinking) taught and preached every day to millions, actually to tens of millions, in some mosques, certain madrassas, and in formal and informal education systems the world over.

"It is the spectrum that helps create the fringe. A large part of western policy – and something I remember so well fighting in government – is based on the belief that we can compromise with the spectrum in the hope of marginalising the fringe. This is a fateful error. All we do is to legitimise the spectrum, which then gives ideological oxygen to the fringe."

Blair called on western leaders to avoid being naive as he said that unreformed Islamism is incompatible with modern economies. He wrote: "You cannot uproot this extremism unless you go to where it originates and fight it. The spectrum is a different matter. Here the most important thing is to expose it, to speak out against it, to make sure that at each point along the spectrum the proponents of this ideology are taken on and countered; but also be prepared to engage in dialogue and to acknowledge, as has been the case in Tunisia, that some of those on this spectrum may be willing to leave it. So there should be openness in our attitude, but the total absence of naivety. To engage successfully, we have to be willing to confront.

"We are not doing this as of yet. The truth is that Islamism, unless fundamentally reformed, is incompatible with modern economies and open-minded, religiously pluralistic societies. This truth has to be recognised."

This is truly amazing. Tony Blair is exactly correct. He hasn't been correct like that in a long time.

[abu_rashid]

Blair, who was Dubya's partner in crime in creating the whole Iraq mess to begin with, now has the foresight to advise others on how it should be done.

Here in Australia, the 3rd. stooger (John Howard) has just admitted he's "embarrassed" about the mistake of going into Iraq on false pretences. Nevermind the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died as a result of that "embarrassing mistake"..

Interesting though that you put all your hope in the ramblings of those who made the mistakes that led to the creation of IS to begin with.

Looks like you're not very adept at choosing the winning side, doesn't it?

[Rei Murasame]

Blair, who was Dubya's partner in crime in creating the whole Iraq mess to begin with, now has the foresight to advise others on how it should be done.

Indeed, so who would know better than he? He was there, he fucked it up, so it's unsurprising that he would have a close handle on how to fix it, given that he was in the environment in which these events unfolded.

Interesting though that you put all your hope in the ramblings of those who made the mistakes that led to the creation of IS to begin with.

Chronological order is strangely reversed in your comments here. Tony Blair only made this statement today (it says 22 Sep 2014), meaning that I didn't hope on Tony Blair saying anything, since I didn't know that he was going to reach the same conclusion that I've been adhering to.

I know I'm good, Rashid, but I cannot forecast what Blair will say in his speeches. I don't think anyone is capable of doing that.

[abu_rashid]

Indeed, so who would know better than he? He was there, he fucked it up, so it's unsurprising that he would have a close handle on how to fix it, given that he was in the environment in which these events unfolded.

If he botched it so badly first time around when it was 1000 times easier, what on earth gives you hope he's going to have a solution to it this time around?

Chronological order is strangely reversed in your comments here. Tony Blair only made this statement today (it says 22 Sep 2014), meaning that I didn't hope on Tony Blair saying anything, since I didn't know that he was going to reach the same conclusion that I've been adhering to.

Ok, so you aren't putting your hope in his adopting of this strategy, you just reached the same flawed conclusion as he did, accidentally. Fair enough.

I know I'm good

Yeh you are, keep on keeping on there.

[Rei Murasame]

If he botched it so badly first time around when it was 1000 times easier, what on earth gives you hope he's going to have a solution to it this time around?

Because he's obviously learned something since last time, which is why he's finally come around to the position that he should have held in the first place.

Ok, so you aren't putting your hope in his adopting of this strategy, you just reached the same flawed conclusion as he did, accidentally. Fair enough.

I find it funny that you refer to it as a 'flawed conclusion', even though you are the person who created this thread by saying that air strikes would not be sufficient. Tony Blair also is agreeing with you, he's just doing so from the opposite side of the fence.

But you are so used to just running interference, that you raise objections even when your opponents simply echo what you've said back at you.

ABU RASHID: Air strikes cannot stop ISIL!

REI MURASAME: Air strikes will degrade ISIL's capabilities but will not be able to destroy it. Ground forces are needed.

TONY BLAIR: Air strikes alone cannot solve the problem of Islamic extremism. Ground forces will be needed.

REI MURASAME: Hey look at that, Blair is actually right!

ABU RASHID: Blair is crazy and you are crazy for agreeing with him, Rei.

Amazing. Is there some special word in an Islamic context for this? Because I notice that Muslims tend to shamelessly do this pretty frequently.