You mean like the (mainly former) situation in Northern Ireland where the Pope was a truly uniting figure 
Orangemen love him even now.
Orangemen love him even now.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm sorry but this is absolute nonsense.
Of course they're terrorists, these mentalists were even deemed too extreme for Al Qaeda. They're behind many bombings, beheadings and mass executions of those who don't follow their religious and ideological mantra in both Iraq and Syria - that's pretty much terrorism. To top it off, many of them aren't even Iraqi - they're a unsavoury amalgamation of jihadists from countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya and even the Chechnya region, so its hardly their country they're trying to control. Its most probable that they're also being channeled funds from the Saudis.
Furthermore, many of them hold European (predominantly British) passports. So I wouldn't rule them out being a western concern.
I'm not Maliki's biggest fan but holding him solely culpable isn't entirely fair. Yes, his policies have tended to favour the Shia majority (wrongly), but he's not this great dictatorial figure his opponents depict him to be. He couldn't even pass an emergency powers act in parliament to deal with ISIS because of how many parliamentarians voted against him. Not even the country's biggest Shia factions are fond of him - he's constantly clashing with the likes of the Sadrists and Badr brigade.
They weren't deemed too extreme by al Qaeda and al Qaeda didn't disown them.
They announced that themselves and jabhat al-nusra were going to form a new state but al Qaeda and nusra denied it and they got pissed off.
They announced that themselves and jabhat al-nusra were going to form a new state but al Qaeda and nusra denied it and they got pissed off.
Absolutely.
What's amazing is now Muqtada Al-Sadr is being pictured by many as a "moderate shia" because he is opposing Maliki, and, delibertely or not, forgetting that Muqtada Al-Sadr was actually behind the terrible sectarian violence that errupted in 2006. Go back a few years and look what everybody was saying about Muqtada Al-Sadr being a terrible Shia extremist who is responsible for the death of all the Sunnis.
What happened eventually is that Al-Maliki didn't want any militias outside the army, which is why he fought A-Mahdi Militias and practically destroyed their influence in Baghdad and the South (he launched a major offensive against Al-Mahdi militias in Basra in 2008 and the army stayed there for years to ensure that there are no more Shia militias there).
He also put many leaders of Shia militias (who had a role in 2006 sectarian war) in Baghdad and the South in prison.
The other Shia party who was accused of sectarian killing and torture was the Islamic Supreme Counsel. Baqir Jabr Al-Zubaidi (who is a member of their party) was the interior minister at some point (if some here still remember him) and he was also accused of mistreating the prisoners, sectarian crimes...etc. Now the Islamic Supreme Councel is also against Al-Maliki.
What's ironic is that even Al-Sadr and Al-Hakeem (leader of Islamic Supreme Counsel) are now accusing Al-Maliki of being "sectarian"! Shut up I would say.
The main differences with Al-Maliki are political really, but they hide behind that "sectarian" excuse because it provides them with more leverage to apply more pressure on him (both popular and international). Kind of, in some way, like the Republicans calling Obama a "Muslim".
Al-Maliki is not a perfect PM, and he made a lot of mistakes, but all the other parties who are accusing him of being "sectarian" are actually far more sectarian than him.
And like you said, look at the parliament. He can't make any decisions if he doesn't have the approval of the other constituents. How can he become a dictator that way? Look at the Iraqi forces who fled. Many of the leaders are Baathists (and many of them are Sunnis) who didn't have any loyalty for him or for the country. If he was a dictator and he's ruling for 8 years now, don't you think he would have built far more solid and loyal army forces??
Well said. He certainly seems like a beacon of secularism compared to the likes of Sadr and Al-Hakeem who've done heaps more damage for Iraq's delicate sectarian fabric
It's all abit silly really. The most ludicrous thing I've heard him being called is the 'Shia Saddam'
This turned out to be inaccurate, especially the bolded part. The security forces there (despite their small number) are still fighting till now (and are receiving reinforcements now), and ISIS hasn't seized control over the city till now.
A well written article. Its too long to post the whole article so i will just post the link.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/17/367304/is-isil-really-sunni-not-at-all/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/17/367304/is-isil-really-sunni-not-at-all/
Good article that touches on something we discussed a few pages back. This is less sectarian and more about power.
Kurds have completed an oil pipeline linking Kirkuk oil field to their own network. They don't plan on moving then!
Unfortunately their pipelines to Ceyhan go through territory currently occupied by ISIS.
Listen, why do they add 'ism' or 'ist' to the end of every wordism?
I've been told that the pipeline for Kurds is different to the Iraqi one. The Kurdish pipeline has a different route that goes through Kurdish areas and then connects to the Ceyhan one. It goes through Duhok which is in Kurdistan.
Barzani and Kurdish political parties have agreed on 4 things from today's meeting.
Peshmerga forces will not withdraw.
There will be no attack by Peshmerga forces in any place.
No parties have the right to declare war.
In case of counter attack by militants, the answer will be severe and defensive.
Peshmerga forces will not withdraw.
There will be no attack by Peshmerga forces in any place.
No parties have the right to declare war.
In case of counter attack by militants, the answer will be severe and defensive.
Terrorists don't mount full on motorized infantry assaults to capture territory. ISIS use terrorist tactics but they are predominantly a fighting force. The exact same thing happened in Bosnia with foreign fighters flocking back to join the fight yet nobody called them terrorists.
Terrorists are best dealt with via enhanced intelligence and law enforcement. That wouldn't work with this group as is being demonstrated by the full-on armed resistance that is coming together to fight them off.
The PKK have also offered to support the Peshmerga against the ISIS. If it happens then it will be very good for Kurdistan as a whole, all the seperate groups from the different areas fighting side by side. Big difference from a few decades ago.
And with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and later in the FATA/NWFP in Pakistan. Same origins as tribal militia, same blitzkrieg style of occupying regions, same extreme form of Islam. Do you consider the Talib to be terrorists?
Not in the traditional definition, no. They were the 'government' of Afghanistan.
Ironically he did bring back a lot of Baathist/Sunni leaders in the army. And also to note he has pissed off Shia as well (Sadrists for e.g. call him anti Shia). He is just an incompetent and corrupt PM, but this is not an anti-Maliki civil war. It is a full scale occupation on religious grounds much like the Taliban did
No, they came to power by overthrowing a government (made up of various factions of Mujaheedin). One of their first acts after capturing Kabul was killing an ex Mujaheedin leader after dragging him out of his embassy protection. Governments do not do that - elected or not
I am not even going to go into the fact that theirs wasn't a proper "army", and also that they do not follow any war protocols
I understand the Taliban do not qualify to be a "terrorists" in a Western definition because they did not attack Western soil and why you say they are not terrorists, but then no one else except Al Qaeda is terrorist. The Afghan Talib were hosts to OBL, and the Pak Talib have links to out-and-out terrorist organizations like the Lashkar e Taiba/Jaish e Mohammed etc
The definition of terrorist has changed over time, especially after 9/11
Plenty of governments have brutally assassinated opposition leaders and used torture and other objectionable methods to subdue opponents.
War protocols don't really exist anymore.
War protocols don't really exist anymore.
Now it just means Muslim and scary.
Regardless of semantics about 'terrorism', Grinner's general point is correct - attacks on the West have their origin in Western interference in the Middle East - Osama Ben Laden was outraged by Western 'desecration' of the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.
There's no doubt that fundamentalist Islam and Western liberalism are incompatible value systems, and if the former triumphs in the Middle East and elsewhere, a clash is inevitable in the very long term. But right now these people have their hands full fighting enemies closer to home. If we let them alone, they'll let us alone.
Imo, the general trend of Obama's foreign policy is correct - stop fighting other people's battles. America and the West can't control what happens in these troubled parts of the world, and only get into a mess trying. Even drone or aircraft strikes against ISIS are dubious - probably futile militarily, and once again marking America and Americans around the world as enemies. America is out, and if it's wise, will stay out.
There's no doubt that fundamentalist Islam and Western liberalism are incompatible value systems, and if the former triumphs in the Middle East and elsewhere, a clash is inevitable in the very long term. But right now these people have their hands full fighting enemies closer to home. If we let them alone, they'll let us alone.
Imo, the general trend of Obama's foreign policy is correct - stop fighting other people's battles. America and the West can't control what happens in these troubled parts of the world, and only get into a mess trying. Even drone or aircraft strikes against ISIS are dubious - probably futile militarily, and once again marking America and Americans around the world as enemies. America is out, and if it's wise, will stay out.
Grinners post is absolutely correct regarding the fact that they just want to start their own country. The means by which they do so is a completely different topic. Sayinng that, an explosion has gone off in Baghdad according to Iraqi officials.
Are you arguing that they're not terrorists?
They are terrorists and rats that need to be wiped out.
I agree with grinner when he says that they're not exactly terrorists however they are, or were, using terrorist tactics. If you call them terrorists just for killing soldiers then I find that a bit odd, a soldiers job is basically to kill or be killed. Didn't a peshmerga soldier recently say that the only people who consider them as terrorists are the outside world?
They want to start a caliphate and they need land. You don't win land by trading hugs and kisses, you kill people and invade lands.
Is iraq attacking peshmerga forces now? Someone on Twitter said they're attacking them.
It's not the killing soldiers bit. It's
more the massacre of women and children in villages, taking over a shopping mall and doing terrorist stuff, the mental execution of anybody they don't like, the suicide bombings etc etc.
more the massacre of women and children in villages, taking over a shopping mall and doing terrorist stuff, the mental execution of anybody they don't like, the suicide bombings etc etc.
I said it in this thread before, there was a heli attack on Peshmerga that killed 6 of our men. "Friendly fire".
Is all of that stuff proven or is it alleged?
They have been blowing car bombs like crazy to kill civilians dude. For some time as well..
Twitter is nonsense. Check the BBC and other reputable sites for information instead.
Stop taking news from Twitter. It's very misleading.
Kurdish top commander confirmed the Iraqi army attacked them by mortar, that's all he said. The news channels all reported the 6 deaths though.
There are no literally no words to describe the chaos.
So what do you guys think will happen as a result of this? Will Iraq be split into 3 states or will they try and keep it together? Will Maliki try and get Kirkuk back? Or is it the end for Maliki completely?
America's Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ch/2014/06/americas-covert-re-invasion-of-iraq.html
Described extensively in the full New Eastern Outlook Journal (NEO) report, "NATO’s Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion," the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have funded and armed terrorists operating in Syria for the past 3 years to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - coincidentally the same amount that ISIS would require to gain primacy among militant groups fighting in Syria and to mobilize forces capable of crossing into Iraq and overwhelming Baghdad's national defenses.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/06/natos-terror-hordes-in-iraq-pretext-for.html
What's ISIS Doing in Iraq?
The NEO report would also post Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection," documenting over the course of 9 pages US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these "sectarian extremists" were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda's NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran's borders directly. Labeled "terrorists" by the West, grants the West plausible deniability in its creation, deployment, and across the broad spectrum of atrocities it is now carrying out.
The Redirection:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ch/2014/06/americas-covert-re-invasion-of-iraq.html
Described extensively in the full New Eastern Outlook Journal (NEO) report, "NATO’s Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for Syria Invasion," the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have funded and armed terrorists operating in Syria for the past 3 years to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - coincidentally the same amount that ISIS would require to gain primacy among militant groups fighting in Syria and to mobilize forces capable of crossing into Iraq and overwhelming Baghdad's national defenses.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/06/natos-terror-hordes-in-iraq-pretext-for.html
What's ISIS Doing in Iraq?
The NEO report would also post Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection," documenting over the course of 9 pages US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these "sectarian extremists" were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda's NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran's borders directly. Labeled "terrorists" by the West, grants the West plausible deniability in its creation, deployment, and across the broad spectrum of atrocities it is now carrying out.
The Redirection:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all
How many of you are Iraqi or have Iraqi roots ?