Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

Sand

@Nodin

You think a United States presence in the middle east would not draw concerted hostility from elements on both sides of the sectarian divide?

In short,no, not automatically. If anything, the US often acted as a mediator between the factions in the civil war. For example, the "Awakening" was a series of deals between Sunni militias and US forces, not the Iraqi government which was and is viewed as sectarian and Shia dominated.

Reekwind wrote: »

Which implies that the problem here is a lack of will or moral character on the part of the Iraqis. And not the fact that the forging of a competent state apparatus is the process of a long and difficult evolution, one strongly driven by socio-economic factors. It's not something that can be created from above with a few shock reforms.

I agree. I thought the rush to elections (done at the behest of figures like Sistani and critical international commentators) was a terrible mistake which confused the holding of elections with democracy. In the absence of rule of law and basic trust in the state its just mob rule. The rush to elections only heightened the tensions and hostility as factions rushed to seize power in the vacuum left by Saddam.

But while I sympathise with the difficulties, the Iraqi political leadership has been appallingly poor* despite more than a decade of exceptional American assistance - the U.S. quite literally fought their civil war for them for several years to buy them time to establish institutions of state and reach a political deal with the various factions. Instead they have relentlessly appealed to divisive sectarian instincts rather than anything that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds could all buy into. And ultimately, its is *their* problem now. I cannot see *any* set of circumstances under which the US will intervene with "boots on the ground".

*Its worth noting that US political leadership (for example) has also been very poor - to the point that recently the US political leadership was playing a game of chicken with a cataclysmic US default on issues of relatively minor importance. But ultimately they did pull back from the brink and make a deal. The Iraqis are playing for much higher stakes (it was unlikely Washington was going to be sacked by a 21st century barbarian horde regardless of what happened) and are performing much worse.

Sand

comongethappy wrote: »

I seen on the Guardian it mentioned that 35,000 Iraqi army personnel fled from approx 800 ISIS jihadis.

If that is true it would go down in history as one of the most one sided battles ever.

I don't know - one of the great mysteries of the sack of the western Roman empire in the 5th century by small bands of a few thousand Germans is "Where was the Roman Army?"

It was still the largest, best trained, and best equipped force, backed by the tax denarri of millions of Romans living in a economy so sophisticated and "global" that it wasn't matched until the Industrial Revolution. And yet, the Roman army, so large on paper, so feared and effective for centuries is nowhere to be found in the history books of the 5th century resisting what was at best a fairly small threat posed by small bands of raiders.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

@Nodin


In short,no, not automatically. If anything, the US often acted as a mediator between the factions in the civil war. For example, the "Awakening" was a series of deals between Sunni militias and US forces, not the Iraqi government which was and is viewed as sectarian and Shia dominated.

.

I'd call that "vastly optimistic", being unable to come up with a better phrase. The Sunni are not a cohesive block, and Iran's (justifiable) suspicion of a US presence would ensure Shia hostility.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

Interesting to note that ISIS are so far deliberately avoiding the north, even the town abandoned by the regular Iraqi security forces..

They are taking on Assad's heavily armed and mechanised forces, the FSA, and Maliki's Iraqi army.. but they aren't going near the Kurds

You can add Iranian special forces to that apparently they have been there since the weekend they are fighting the Jihadis around Tikrit and reinforcing Baghdad. Quds forces are badass and know how to organise and fight wouldnt think it will be too long before they along with the Iraqis retake Tikrit. The Iranians have moved a lot of men to their border the further the jihadis push south toward the shia populations the more that Iranian troops will move in. The Saudis have a lot to answer for they backed the ISIS with lots of cash and weapons and now they are on the rampage in both Syria and Iraq. Does anyone know how many Jihadis they are fighting Ive read between a few thousand up to the tens of thousands but nothing with any certainty. Some of the picture Ive seen are beyond words really these particular Jihadis are beyond horrible beheading everyone along the way seems to be how they roll they need to be crushed. I feel so sry for the ordinary Iraqi people once again things are going to be so bad for them when the counter offensive begins to retake towns and cities.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/first-syria-now-iraq-iran-sends-troops-to-ally/story-fnb64oi6-1226952434818#mm-premium

realweirdo

Reekwind wrote: »

So hooray for partition. The Troubles were not just tolerable but welcome as the best possible solution. Never mind that you've spun an absolutely ridiculous hypothetical (as if Ireland in the 1920s was primed for genocide) because partition works, apparently.

It's news to me that Sunnis aren't permitted to vote. So how exactly are Sunnis "completely disenfranchised"?

Why? Why should an Arab not aspire to living standards (or lack of violence) akin to those enjoyed by Westerners? Why should Iraq be fundamentally more fractiousness than France?

This is exactly the sort of snobbish pessimism that sees people support secular dictatorships or religious Balkanisation as 'the best the region can hope for'

Again wrong on so many levels. There's little point voting if you don't have any real say. Al Malaki has completed isolated large swathes of the Sunni population.

As for Northern Ireland, thankfully the situation has righted itself with the Good Friday Agreement which was pushed for in the main by Bill Clinton and the Americans. There is now power sharing. A similar power sharing arrangement might have worked in Iraq with Shia and Sunni sharing out posts. Al Malaki however renaged on a pre election promise to do this.

As for violently opposed ethnic or religious groups sharing the one country, can you name me one country where it has worked out? You said yourself that Northern Ireland suffered long running strife.

As for asking 1.5 million protestants to join a United Ireland in 1922, you know well this was a non runner. They were violently opposed to it, 100,000 at least were armed and ready to fight and there was as many hotheads on the other side who were also willing to fight. Like I said before, there are no perfect solutions to situations like this, only the least worst solution and in 1922, partition was the least worst solution for the whole of Ireland.

realweirdo

WakeUp wrote: »

You can add Iranian special forces to that apparently they have been there since the weekend they are fighting the Jihadis around Tikrit and reinforcing Baghdad. Quds forces are badass and know how to organise and fight wouldnt think it will be too long before they along with the Iraqis retake Tikrit. The Iranians have moved a lot of men to their border the further the jihadis push south toward the shia populations the more that Iranian troops will move in. The Saudis have a lot to answer for they backed the ISIS with lots of cash and weapons and now they are on the rampage in both Syria and Iraq. Does anyone know how many Jihadis they are fighting Ive read between a few thousand up to the tens of thousands but nothing with any certainty. Some of the picture Ive seen are beyond words really these particular Jihadis are beyond horrible beheading everyone along the way seems to be how they roll they need to be crushed. I feel so sry for the ordinary Iraqi people once again things are going to be so bad for them when the counter offensive begins to retake towns and cities.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/first-syria-now-iraq-iran-sends-troops-to-ally/story-fnb64oi6-1226952434818#mm-premium

Something tells me what we are seeing now is the start of a long running major conflict in Iraq similar to the one in Syria. ISIS are gaining recruits, money and arms by the day in the region. It's surely only a matter of time before they spread to other countries in the region too. The Iranians may well see an opportunity to increase their presence in Iraq with a puppet regime installed there. This conflict could go on for years. ISIS are also one hard to beat outfit. As ever its the civillians who will suffer most.

Reekwind

realweirdo wrote: »

Again wrong on so many levels. There's little point voting if you don't have any real say. Al Malaki has completed isolated large swathes of the Sunni population.

Again: how?

I think you're confusing 'disenfranchised' with 'not being listened to'. In which case the current UK government has 'disenfranchised' Labour strongholds like Liverpool.

As for violently opposed ethnic or religious groups sharing the one country, can you name me one country where it has worked out?

I've already given you an example: France. Perhaps you've heard of a little something called the 'wars of religion'? Of course, by following your logic, these should have been resolved by partitioning the country to create 'Catholic France' and 'Huguenot France'.

But then that shouldn't detract from the barb hidden in your own question. Can you name an example of anything in which having 'violently opposed groups' of any character have not led to violence?

As for asking 1.5 million protestants to join a United Ireland in 1922, you know well this was a non runner. They were violently opposed to it, 100,000 at least were armed and ready to fight and there was as many hotheads on the other side who were also willing to fight. Like I said before, there are no perfect solutions to situations like this, only the least worst solution and in 1922, partition was the least worst solution for the whole of Ireland.

I disagree entirely. Not least because there were no more than a million Protestants in Ireland at the time and their position was highly divided. The strength of the Unionist position was largely derived largely from the support offered by the British government, which continually pandered to Carson and his ilk. So much for setting up regional sectarian strongmen to run truncated apartheid states as a solution.

But, again, you're hinting that the only alternative to apartheid is a genocidal civil war in order to justify the former.

BuilderPlumber

WakeUp wrote: »

You can add Iranian special forces to that apparently they have been there since the weekend they are fighting the Jihadis around Tikrit and reinforcing Baghdad. Quds forces are badass and know how to organise and fight wouldnt think it will be too long before they along with the Iraqis retake Tikrit. The Iranians have moved a lot of men to their border the further the jihadis push south toward the shia populations the more that Iranian troops will move in. The Saudis have a lot to answer for they backed the ISIS with lots of cash and weapons and now they are on the rampage in both Syria and Iraq. Does anyone know how many Jihadis they are fighting Ive read between a few thousand up to the tens of thousands but nothing with any certainty. Some of the picture Ive seen are beyond words really these particular Jihadis are beyond horrible beheading everyone along the way seems to be how they roll they need to be crushed. I feel so sry for the ordinary Iraqi people once again things are going to be so bad for them when the counter offensive begins to retake towns and cities.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/first-syria-now-iraq-iran-sends-troops-to-ally/story-fnb64oi6-1226952434818#mm-premium

A blind eye is always turned to Saudi Arabia arming such groups as ISIS. But this is where the problem lies: Saudi Arabia can do anything as long as they keep providing oil deals to the West and the arms industry are very interested in any fanatic group that will fight for years.

Hopefully, Iran and Iraq's authorities can contain this situation and defeat ISIS as soon as possible. If they got a hold in Iraq and inspired similar groups like AQIM (North and West Africa), Al Shabaab (Somalia, Kenya) and Boko Haram (Nigeria, Cameroon) to set up their own states, it would be a very dangerous situation. Fascist 'Sunni Islam' dictatorships pose the greatest threat to the world since Nazism did. The world domination aspirations of the Third Reich are there as is their intolerance of anyone else different to their ideology. It would be frightening to see these take hold across North Africa and the Middle East. The people there would suffer greatly and Europe would have a tide of terrorist attacks at a rate never seen before.

larchill

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting times indeed as the Iraqi "army" fails to materialize,or.......is it all just an acceptable part of the country adjusting itself after years of Saadam's evil dictatorship etc .?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86da9f32-f169-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34M7DzIpx

So...what's next for the region ?

Above link doesn't work: you have to be paid up to have access

bnt

So far, what I'm seeing is that this is fundamentally a Sunni vs Shia conflict, just as the Iran / Iraq war was. I ask myself "is that too simplistic?", but I don't see much to contradict that assumption. So I'm not surprised to see that Iran has some limited covert involvement, and I expect much more to happen on that front. If there is a war, it won't be "civil", in my opinion.

The New York Times has maps here which show that the Sunni militants have, so far, been advancing largely through Sunni territory. That at least partly explains the lack of resistance they've encountered, I think. Sunni won't fight Sunni, will they?
If they push towards Baghdad and beyond, they won't have it as easy.

Mosul is an exception, on the edge of Kurd territory. That page says "the United Nations estimates that at least 500,000 Iraqis were displaced by the takeover of Mosul" - with the caption implying that families "have fled Mosul for the autonomous Kurdish region" i.e. that it's Kurds or other non-Sunnis who are threatened by the militants. I think it's only a matter of time before we hear about "ethnic cleansing" by ISIL, real or threatened. After all, if your town is "taken over", why does that mean some people have to leave, and others don't? :mad:

wes

bnt wrote: »

The New York Times has maps here which show that the Sunni militants have, so far, been advancing largely through Sunni territory. That at least partly explains the lack of resistance they've encountered, I think. Sunni won't fight Sunni, will they?

ISIL did attack other Sunni Islamist groups in Syria, so there not beyond attacking groups that should be allies. Al Qaeda even condemned them at one point for attacking other groups, even if some news outlets are still referring to them as being "linked".

BuilderPlumber

wes wrote: »

ISIL did attack other Sunni Islamist groups in Syria, so there not beyond attacking groups that should be allies. Al Qaeda even condemned them at one point for attacking other groups, even if some news outlets are still referring to them as being "linked".

ISIL/ISIS are so fanatic that even al Qaeda want nothing to do with them. That says it all. Their aim is to create an intolerant Taliban-style state out of Iraq and Syria with an aim to take over all the Islamic countries after that and to take over elsewhere afterwards.

However, I believe their aims will be twarted. Iran, Turkey, Israel and other countries will not allow it form: it is like living next door to a man whose aim is to kill you. al Qaeda, ISIL and ISIS all are common enemies of everyone and it is in the interests of no one to see them take control of a country. They have not controlled a country since 2001 but have a presence in and rule territory in many African and Arab countries and still control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

BuilderPlumber

bnt wrote: »

So far, what I'm seeing is that this is fundamentally a Sunni vs Shia conflict, just as the Iran / Iraq war was. I ask myself "is that too simplistic?", but I don't see much to contradict that assumption. So I'm not surprised to see that Iran has some limited covert involvement, and I expect much more to happen on that front. If there is a war, it won't be "civil", in my opinion.

The New York Times has maps here which show that the Sunni militants have, so far, been advancing largely through Sunni territory. That at least partly explains the lack of resistance they've encountered, I think. Sunni won't fight Sunni, will they?
If they push towards Baghdad and beyond, they won't have it as easy.

Mosul is an exception, on the edge of Kurd territory. That page says "the United Nations estimates that at least 500,000 Iraqis were displaced by the takeover of Mosul" - with the caption implying that families "have fled Mosul for the autonomous Kurdish region" i.e. that it's Kurds or other non-Sunnis who are threatened by the militants. I think it's only a matter of time before we hear about "ethnic cleansing" by ISIL, real or threatened. After all, if your town is "taken over", why does that mean some people have to leave, and others don't? :mad:

Fascist Sunni ideology is very very intolerant of any other religion. Shia and Alawite Islam are not recognised by them. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists the same. Even other Sunni interpretations are not accepted. It is just the most intolerant and tribal doctrine imaginable and very cruel.

So, the Sunnis will fight each other and of course the Shias as well. In 2003 and 2004, there were united fronts against the US and before 2003 against Saddam. But now you have in Iraq the following groups:

-Fascist militant Sunni like al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIL and ISIS. Most are not just Iraq based but also involved in Syria.
-Moderate and secular Sunnis who are not Saddam supporters.
-Secular Saddam-supporters who are mainly Sunni or Christian.
-Shia (often with Persian blood) supported by Iran.
-Kurds.
-Persian minority supported by Iran.
-Marsh Arabs (Shia mainly) supported by Iran.
-Arab nationalists. Mostly supporters of Saddam.

bnt

If moderate Sunnis are at risk, then it's even worse than I thought, I see. Thanks for the clarification. That's the thing about "miitants": they want what they want really aggresively, which makes them more likely to get it if they have the numbers. I hope that a moderate majority can hold things together there.

Jonny7

bnt wrote: »

If moderate Sunnis are at risk, then it's even worse than I thought, I see. Thanks for the clarification. That's the thing about "miitants": they want what they want really aggresively, which makes them more likely to get it if they have the numbers. I hope that a moderate majority can hold things together there.

There are also many different factions within each of the camps (Sunni, Shia, Kurd)

Great news article I came across here on the Kurds that manages to give a good overview of the other factions

AlekSmart

larchill wrote: »

Above link doesn't work: you have to be paid up to have access

Sadly it was "Free" on the day of publishing,but is now in the archives which demand money !

Harold Weiss

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are also many different factions within each of the camps (Sunni, Shia, Kurd)

Great news article I came across here on the Kurds that manages to give a good overview of the other factions

US did a fantastic job in Iraq, it's a completely failed state after trillions of dollars spent, millions of dead Iraqis and refugees.

Libya and Afghanistan are also utopias.

Ignorance is strength...

Jonny7

Harold Weiss wrote: »

US did a fantastic job in Iraq

I think the Bush admin did a terrible job.

Libya and Afghanistan are also utopias.

Nope I think Afghanistan is pretty ****ed in the long run. Libya, well if they can rope in the militia's, they possibly have a chance.

Ignorance is strength...

Man tell me about it, if only the sheeple would wake up to the real truth

Harold Weiss

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think the Bush admin did a terrible job.



Nope I think Afghanistan is pretty ****ed in the long run. Libya, well if they can rope in the militia's, they possibly have a chance.



Man tell me about it, if only the sheeple would wake up to the real truth

haha

realweirdo

Harold Weiss wrote: »

US did a fantastic job in Iraq, it's a completely failed state after trillions of dollars spent, millions of dead Iraqis and refugees.

Libya and Afghanistan are also utopias.

Ignorance is strength...

Oh of course I mean afghanistan was a lovely place under the taliban unless you were a woman in which case cattle had more rights...libya under gadaffi, paradise on earth..and iraq under saddam, god be with the days when you could gas the kurds in peace without the west questioning it.

The sunni and shia have been massacring each other for centuries now. The fault is religion, not America.

Harold Weiss

realweirdo wrote: »

Oh of course I mean afghanistan was a lovely place under the taliban unless you were a woman in which case cattle had more rights...libya under gadaffi, paradise on earth..and iraq under saddam, god be with the days when you could gas the kurds in peace without the west questioning it.

The sunni and shia have been massacring each other for centuries now. The fault is religion, not America.

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and now Syria are all destroyed. Millions displaced or dead, scattered to various parts of the world as refugees to live off welfare in mostly EU countries.

I'm just trying to wake up the sheeple is all, coz those countries really are democracies where freedom flourishes.

I'm not suffering from delusions or anything, US/Israel really did a fantastic job in those countries. The evidence is overwhelming, wouldn't you say?

Augmerson

Saw Blair harping on about the latest violence in Iraq being a result of the Syrian Civil War and that the west should have gone in hard against terror in Syria.

Jesus, that man really sold his soul. The west wanted to go in against Assad and was supporting the freedom fighters/terrorists was it not?

Jonny7

Augmerson wrote: »

The west wanted to go in against Assad and was supporting the freedom fighters/terrorists was it not?

The "West" was supporting firm but essentially peaceful resolutions that were getting blocked at the UN (ironically by the UN member supplying arms to Assad) so they never really got past the first stage of a unified international approach

Third party peace initiatives (Kofi Annan plan and Arab League monitoring) also sadly failed. Assad saw international division and took full advantage

The US, UK, France, Turkey, etc support the original opposition to Assad, mainly military units which defected against the regime

The "terrorists" - jihadists, extremists, veterans from fighting the US in Iraq, even European jihadists were essentially the third element which came late to the fight, drawn more to the religious/sectarian aspect

They've ended up fighting everyone, including the original opposition to Assad

The closest the world came to some sort of military action on Syria was the "red line" on chemical use, which was to be approx 2 or 3 days punitive strikes against Assad's air capability and probably a few command and control centres, perhaps enough to tip balance in favour of rebels

Blair, whom I suspect is deeply bitter about Iraq, is pointing out that if the world had "done" something in Syria, then it would not be the extremist factory/magnet it has become today

Mr.Micro

Augmerson wrote: »

Saw Blair harping on about the latest violence in Iraq being a result of the Syrian Civil War and that the west should have gone in hard against terror in Syria.

Jesus, that man really sold his soul. The west wanted to go in against Assad and was supporting the freedom fighters/terrorists was it not?

Exactly. Who gives a f***, what he thinks. He had his jollies with Bush and their war. It's all fallen apart. He talks rubbish, did not have a clue then and even less now.

Harold Weiss

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "West" was supporting firm but essentially peaceful resolutions that were getting blocked at the UN (ironically by the UN member supplying arms to Assad) so they never really got past the first stage of a unified international approach

Third party peace initiatives (Kofi Annan plan and Arab League monitoring) also sadly failed. Assad saw international division and took full advantage

Tell me, why do you personally believe western nations want to topple Assad?

The US, UK, France, Turkey, etc support the original opposition to Assad, mainly military units which defected against the regime

I see you omitted Israel here.

The "terrorists" - jihadists, extremists, veterans from fighting the US in Iraq, even European jihadists were essentially the third element which came late to the fight, drawn more to the religious/sectarian aspect

They've ended up fighting everyone, including the original opposition to Assad

Well, mission accomplished I think you'll agree.

The closest the world came to some sort of military action on Syria was the "red line" on chemical use, which was to be approx 2 or 3 days punitive strikes against Assad's air capability and probably a few command and control centres, perhaps enough to tip balance in favour of terrorists rebels

Fixed your quote.

Blair, whom I suspect is deeply bitter about Iraq, is pointing out that if the world had "done" something in Syria, then it would not be the extremist factory/magnet it has become today

Like Libya and Afghanistan for example? Oh yes, Mr. Jonny7, you have it all sussed. Tony Blair is a such a great leader of our times, now working out of a penthouse for JP Morgan.

Jonny7

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Tell me, why do you personally believe western nations want to topple Assad?

The same reason I want him out of power or the Syrians. He was never elected, he was handed power by his father, he outlawed opposition, no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, under him Syria was one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world

Ironically he wasn't one of the worst dictators, but the protests really brought out the worst in him

He's literally against every democratic or humanitarian principle we have

I see you omitted Israel here.

Israel is relatively more neutral on Syria, they are certainly no fans of Assad, but equally they don't want an unstable country on their border, likewise they don't want some fundamentalist Islamic state next door either

They are firmly in the US/EU camp but didn't really take a pro-active role in the whole international process - however they didn't hesitate to blast anyone they thought might be a threat to their own security

Tony Blair is a such a great leader of our times, now working out of a penthouse for JP Morgan.

I thought he was a dreadful leader, obsessed with spin and manipulation

Harold Weiss

Jonny7 wrote: »

Great news article I came across here on the Kurds that manages to give a good overview of the other factions

I found it peculiar this ISIS group didn't attack the Kurds, but then I recall Israel wanting to establish a base of operations in the north of Iraq for any attack on Iran.

While Saudi Arabia and Qatar might sponsor these Islamic mercenaries throughout the Middle East, it is Israel that calls the shots.

Harold Weiss

Jonny7 wrote: »

The same reason I want him out of power or the Syrians. He was never elected, he was handed power by his father, he outlawed opposition, no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, under him Syria was one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world

House of Saud weren't elected, Bahrain regime wasn't elected so why do you suppose US/Israel still support them?

Ironically he wasn't one of the worst dictators, but the protests really brought out the worst in him

Well, Saddam Hussein wasn't a great leader either but it wasn't his idea to create a country out of warring Sunni, Shia and Kurdish tribes, you can thank Zionism for that.

He's literally against every democratic or humanitarian principle we have

Those mercenaries will do a better job, no doubt. Just setup McDonalds and Burger King, the locals will do the rest.

Israel is relatively more neutral on Syria, they are certainly no fans of Assad, but equally they don't want an unstable country on their border, likewise they don't want some fundamentalist Islamic state next door either

Hezbollah were setup as a response to Israel invading Lebanon and now these so-called Jihadists are fighting against Iran and Hezbollah in Syria so it's really a win-win for Israel if you ask me. These Jihadists are also against Maliki in Iraq who is also pro-Iranian.

Another win for Israel.

Israel also annexed the Golan Heights last year without any objection from the international community. They continue to build settlements even during so-called "peace process" with complete immunity to treat Palestinians however they like.

You might believe Russia is the belligerent in this Syria conflict because they supply weapons to Assad but Russia and Israel are a lot closer than you'd think. 1 million Russians enjoy Israeli citizenship.

I thought he was a dreadful leader, obsessed with spin and manipulation

Well, we can certainly agree on that.

Jonny7

Harold Weiss wrote: »

House of Saud weren't elected, Bahrain regime wasn't elected so why do you suppose US/Israel still support them?

The US "supports" them because of links, ties, history, oil, etc, although they have been relatively critical of treatment of protesters during the Arab spring

Israel doesn't support Saudi

You might believe Russia is the belligerent in this Syria conflict because they supply weapons to Assad but Russia and Israel are a lot closer than you'd think. 1 million Russians enjoy Israeli citizenship.

Israel has been one of the most active countries in bombing any Syrian military units or movements they don't approve of

Like I said, they are no fans of Assad at all, but their security is their primary concern. 1.6 millions Arabs enjoy Israeli citizenship.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Interesting to note that ISIS are so far deliberately avoiding the north, even the town abandoned by the regular Iraqi security forces..

It's ISIL along with Saddam loyalists, and sunni tribes as well, that are fighting against Maliki's sectarian government. ISIL would not have been able to take Tikrit and Mosul on their own. When Iran, the shiite militias, and the Iraqi army units from Baghdad, who are a judged to be better trained and likely more motivated to fight, try to retake Tikrit they will be fighting against ISIL and al-Naqshbandi order led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri - Saddam's right hand man.