Iraq, ISIS etc, Opinions ?

cruasder777

ISIS are an extremist Islamic group who have been fighting in Syria. In recent weeks they have taken vast amounts of territory in Iraq.

They fight in American uniforms and use American arms and vehicles. Obviously America funded them to fight in Syria, even though they are an Al Qaeda offshoot. And obviously someone must have trained them.

800 of them attacked the town of Mosul and three divisions (30,000 men) of the Iraqi army simply capitulated, even though they had armour, artillery and black hawk helos and fast air to support them. The US has invested 24 billion dollars in the Iraqi army.

So what's going on here ?

The war on terror has been a disaster, Al Qaeda offshoots now control, Libya, northern Nigeria, parts of Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, much of Egypt, Yemen, half of Syria, now half of Iraq. Turkey is their next objective.

If they keep going they will take control of the middle East. Your thoughts.


My opinion is the US has been so short sighted in funding ISIS to fight in Syria, they did not expect them to attack Iraq.

And how could a modern army simply capitulate as they have ?

mikeym

Whos worse bashar al-assad or ISIS?

Tricky one.

cruasder777

mikeym wrote: »

Whos worse bashar al-assad or ISIS?

Tricky one.

Assad is containable, as was Saddam, ISIS are not.

Its amazing that the US never saw this potential blowback from funding and training an Al Qaeda affiliate group.

Now they have to go to Iran and look for some sort of alliance in the region, the whole thing is crazy.

Victor

cruasder777 wrote: »

ISIS are an extremist Islamic group who have been fighting in Syria. In recent weeks they have taken vast amounts of territory in Iraq.

(a) They already controlled a chunk of territory and (b) a chunk of that is desert.

They fight in American uniforms and use American arms and vehicles. Obviously America funded them to fight in Syria

So if Anto is joyriding in a Ford Fiesta, is he also American-funded? In the Middle East, as in some other parts of the world, there is an open market in military equipment, with few controls.

800 of them attacked the town of Mosul and three divisions (30,000 men) of the Iraqi army simply capitulated,

No army can reliably operate without at least some local support. Shia Arabs are over-represented in the Iraqi government and army, Sunni Arabs are under-represented and Kurds aren't big into the whole Iraqi state thing.

even though they had armour, artillery and black hawk helos and fast air to support them.

How sure are you of this? How useful would those systems be in an urban environment?

cruasder777

Victor wrote: »

(a) They already controlled a chunk of territory and (b) a chunk of that is desert.

So if Anto is joyriding in a Ford Fiesta, is he also American-funded? In the Middle East, as in some other parts of the world, there is an open market in military equipment, with few controls.

No army can reliably operate without at least some local support. Shia Arabs are over-represented in the Iraqi government and army, Sunni Arabs are under-represented and Kurds aren't big into the whole Iraqi state thing.

How sure are you of this? How useful would those systems be in an urban environment?

The Ford Fiesta/civilian vehicles he goes around in is to avoid a potential air strike.

America has funded and trained the Free Syrian army of which ISIS is part of, that's a fact.

I don't dispute Iraq is a sectarian country. But 30,000 men with heavy weapons capitulating to 800 is ridiculous and shows the sham that the Iraqi state must really be. It says the Iraqi state must be totally rotten.

Hence the US needing to now bring Iran into the picture to potentially sort this out.

So we have gone from a contained Saddam to an Al Qaeda offshoot controlling half of Iraq and Iran becoming a big regional player.

What a total disaster the war in Iraq has turned out.


The war on terror has empowered the extremists. America claiming its winning it is ridiculous, at this rate most of the middle East and large sections of Africa could end up under Al Qaeda or their offshoots.

OS119

cruasder777 wrote: »

...America has funded and trained the Free Syrian army of which ISIS is part of, that's a fact....

its not actually, which kind of knocks a hole in your 'argument'.

ISIS is a development/name change of AQ in Iraq, which the US spent a lot of time and effort breaking, eventually succeeding after the 'Sunni Awakening' of 2005 -07. ISIS has never been part of the Free Syria Army, its occasionally been allied with it, but usually its fighting it (however you define 'it', what with the FSA being a somewhat amorphous shape/name/body..)

the US has actually been rather circumspect in choosing which groups to support - ISIS and Al Nusra not being among them - and those it has supported haven't recieved much. the big donors for ISIS were Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and that's despite very heavy US pressure - KSA has backed off ISIS seeing them as a tool that has gone too far, while Qatar has not yet done do, though its under very heavy US and Gulf pressure - to the degree that KSA, UAE and Dubai have all withdrawn their ambassadors from Qatar...

ISIS, having held a decent sized lump of Syrian oil production for 18 months-2years, and having captured the Iraqi Central Bank gold reserve in Mosul are now believed to have around $2 billion in cash reserves.

fear of blowback is the reason the US, and others, have been so reticent to get properly involved in Syria - everyone involved is acutely aware that if you send Anti-Tank Guided Weapons into Syria with the FSA at least one of them is likely to turn up at Heathrow, or Berlin, or CDG plowing into a 747 carrying 500 passengers and 100 tons of aviation fuel.

cruasder777

OS119 wrote: »

its not actually, which kind of knocks a hole in your 'argument'.

ISIS is a development/name change of AQ in Iraq, which the US spent a lot of time and effort breaking, eventually succeeding after the 'Sunni Awakening' of 2005 -07. ISIS has never been part of the Free Syria Army, its occasionally been allied with it, but usually its fighting it (however you define 'it', what with the FSA being a somewhat amorphous shape/name/body..)

the US has actually been rather circumspect in choosing which groups to support - ISIS and Al Nusra not being among them - and those it has supported haven't recieved much. the big donors for ISIS were Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and that's despite very heavy US pressure - KSA has backed off ISIS seeing them as a tool that has gone too far, while Qatar has not yet done do, though its under very heavy US and Gulf pressure - to the degree that KSA, UAE and Dubai have all withdrawn their ambassadors from Qatar...

ISIS, having held a decent sized lump of Syrian oil production for 18 months-2years, and having captured the Iraqi Central Bank gold reserve in Mosul are now believed to have around $2 billion in cash reserves.

fear of blowback is the reason the US, and others, have been so reticent to get properly involved in Syria - everyone involved is acutely aware that if you send Anti-Tank Guided Weapons into Syria with the FSA at least one of them is likely to turn up at Heathrow, or Berlin, or CDG plowing into a 747 carrying 500 passengers and 100 tons of aviation fuel.













ICIS and the the "free Syrian army," are part of the "Islamic front". These are people who behead and even video themselves eating the hearts of captured soldiers. The USA funding the Syrian free army is a huge tactical error, they are all extremists.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/04/23/306233248/cia-is-quietly-ramping-up-aid-to-syrian-rebels-sources-say


The Defense Department planning is twofold. One option calls for U.S. military trainers to take part in the training underway in Jordan. Another calls for the U.S. military to train the Jordanian military, who would in turn train the Syrian rebels. This is what the military calls the "train the trainers" model.


The U.S. is providing more arms and training to the moderate rebels in Syria, under a growing secret program run by the CIA in Jordan. Sources tell NPR that secret program could be supplemented by a more public effort in the coming months involving American military trainers.

OS119

cruasder777 wrote: »

...they are all extremists....

you're an idiot.

Jawgap

OS119 wrote: »

you're an idiot.

.....that reminds me - whatever happened to @investment? Didn't he head off to the Middle East to shake a sheik?

He went 'dark' and then ISIS appear on the scene..........

......coincidence????????:eek:

ChicagoJoe

ISIS can be defeated, but first there has to be assurances that any action by the US, who could solve this situation at a stroke, will not be aimed at fulfilling a sectarian agenda that Al Maliki could fully realise with his own resources. I think however it is way too soon to say that the US and Iran are getting cosy. Even after a potential nuclear deal is reached, which would be in Irans interests, the US will not be inclined to tick anything else off Tehran's wish list.

cruasder777

OS119 you just keep on forming your world view from Fox News, good boy.

cruasder777

Chicago Joe, ISIS is part of an extremist Islamic ideological movement which now has roots and control in numerous countries, but according to the US, its winning the war on terror.

The extremists keep getting stronger, the Taliban will take total control in Afghanistan near yr.

You don't defeat an idea with bullets, its far more complex.

pablomakaveli

This is a pretty good article on ISIS and shows they are being hyped up to be more dangerous than they are.

To summarize the areas they have taken are majority Sunni areas that were being occupied by predominantly Shia forces which is why they took places like Mosul with ease. They'll get beaten if they attempt to take Baghdad or take on the Kurds in the North.

Manic Moran

cruasder777 wrote: »

You don't defeat an idea with bullets, its far more complex.

Those pictures didn't show ISIS executing their opposition with flowers or well-reasoned argument. It is correct to say that you can't defeat (or propound) an ideal exclusively with bullets, but they are a pretty important tool it is foolish to entirely discount.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Chicago Joe, ISIS is part of an extremist Islamic ideological movement which now has roots and control in numerous countries, but according to the US, its winning the war on terror.

What's their ideology?

cruasder777 wrote: »

The extremists keep getting stronger, the Taliban will take total control in Afghanistan near yr.

You don't defeat an idea with bullets, its far more complex.

Really? TOTAL control? Even in the Tajik dominated areas? Do tell us more......

simplybam

Just 2 quick points.

ISIS got a lot of the American equipment they have from the surrendering Iraqi army. And there's no way they'll attack Turkey since Turkey is a NATO member so NATO would be obliged to go in there. I don't think ISIS would fancy their chances to take on NATO.

Victor

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Ford Fiesta/civilian vehicles he goes around in is to avoid a potential air strike.

You are completely missing the point.

I'm talking about Anto in Dublin with a Ford Fiesta. Ford is an American company.

An M4 that someone in Iraq has was likely made by Colt. Colt is an American company.

Just because something is made by an American company, does not mean it was American-funded.

Five Lamps

OS119 wrote: »

ISIS, having held a decent sized lump of Syrian oil production for 18 months-2years, and having captured the Iraqi Central Bank gold reserve in Mosul are now believed to have around $2 billion in cash reserves.

WHo are they selling this oil to in order to raise funds?

Anyway, Iraq is clearly plunging into an all out civil war that will have grave implications for the Middle East. 10 years of military involvement in Iraq has become nothing. Something that readily predicted by many back in the day.

OS119

Five Lamps wrote: »

WHo are they selling this oil to in order to raise funds?...

business is business.

they'll have been able to sell it directly if they had refining facilities, or indirectly if they don't. they'll have sold it directly to other groups/locations in Syria, in Turkey, they will have been able to move it into Iraq and bundle it in with Kurdish oil and 'official' oil, or move it around Syria and bundle it with FSA oil, or indeed 'official' oil.

they could also just tax it within the areas they control.

i'm unconvinced by all this 'the 2003 invasion caused all this, if it hadn't happened everything would be fine..' stuff - i'm not going to get all Tony Blair over it, but Saddam would be 77 now, he would not last forever and what would happen to Iraq after his death is up for debate - moreover, the Sunni/Shia/Kurd tensions are not something that George Bush invented, and i'm afraid that a civil war this long-running, and this vicious and all-encompassing is not an indication that the situation was particularly stable before it errupted.

now, i'm absolutely not denying that the 2003 invasion lit the blue touch paper, but it seems undeniable that the touchpaper was ready and waiting, and that the touchpaper was connected to a lot of fireworks. if it wasn't lit by the invasion it would have been lit by something - Saddams' death in power, Arab Spring, Saudi's/Qatari's funding Sunni groups, bolt of lightening....

folbotcar

I'm afraid as ever Crusader and other of his ilk always try to find a way of implicating the Americans in everything. Next he'll be telling us the Japanese are funding ISIS because they travel everywhere in Toyotas.

I have begun to become tired of the persistent idea that everything that goes on in these countries was somehow entirely caused by the west, the British the Americans. Either their actions or inaction.

Even the mainstream media keep up this message. Tony Blair was getting stick as if his actions started the whole thing. To me that's British hubris, a rather self regarding attitude that Britain truly has real power in this world. It's ridiculous.

It's also a bit racist in that we in the west tend to believe we are the arbiters of power and democracy and that we must take responsibility for other people's actions.

The west stayed out of Syria for the most part because it was obvious that this wasn't a good guy bad guy scenario as we in the west like to see things. It's messy and brutal.

It's also obvious now that Arabs in general are not yet ready for true democracy. All those dictators kept a lid on the bubbling tensions. As they were swept away in the Arab spring all the genies came out of the bottle.

All the sectarianism, tribalism, conservatism are out in the open now.

To me this is now developing into Sunni v Shia battle. Something the west needs to stay out of.

As for ISIS they have been overestimated, but their initial defeat of the Iraqi army is no surprise. Arab armies are always delicate flowers. But once rallied and they are better equipped it will be like Syria. Assad is very gradually winning his war and so will the Iraqis.

ISIS cannot hold ground against an army equipped with tanks and aircraft. No matter how much money they have they cannot beat that. Fanaticism alone won't help.

But we are seeing big changes in the middle east and we will see the return of the dictators. Like Russia and the dictator Putin it's seems that's what they're used to.

We should get used to it.

cruasder777

ISIS with leading US politician senator John Mccain

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/06/isis-post-pr-photos-they-took-with-john-mccain/


It was a very moving experience to meet these fighters who have been struggling now for over two years,” McCain said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”.


.........Either some of these US politicans are total nut jobs, the guys he met are basically Al Qaeda, or they are so naive they are not fit for purpose.

folbotcar

McCain is neither a nutjob or naive. The article even states that one of the men in the picture is a moderate who was forced out later.

I have to say that's a clumsy effort on your part to try and prove American support for ISIS. McCain is Republican. He doesn't represent the US government.

He like everyone else was caught out by what is a very fluid and confusing situation.

Better luck next time.

cruasder777

folbotcar wrote: »

McCain is neither a nutjob or naive. The article even states that one of the men in the picture is a moderate who was forced out later.

I have to say that's a clumsy effort on your part to try and prove American support for ISIS. McCain is Republican. He doesn't represent the US government.

He like everyone else was caught out by what is a very fluid and confusing situation.

Better luck next time.

People who cut peoples heads off with knives are moderates ? Are you a comedian ?


http://www.vocativ.com/world/syria-world/syrian-rebels-cutting-heads-hezbollah-fighters/


Raad Hammadi, commander of the Syrian rebel group Bilal al-Habashi Battalion (FSA), told the Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar that he would spare no supporter of Hezbollah, and showed footage of three beheaded corpses he claimed belonged to Hezbollah members.

folbotcar

cruasder777 wrote: »

People who cut peoples heads off with knives are moderates ? Are you a comedian ?

Sigh!:( Do you even read your own links? McCain met General Salim Idris, who was removed from his post according to your link for 'being too moderate'. In fact he was removed because he was considered militarily ineffective. The FSA is not ISIS. , not yet anyway.

As for beheadings, both sides do it. Atrocities are almost routine in the war. I can link you to a video of Hezbollah executing prisoners if you like? Nothing funny about it.

But I suspect you're not interested in the reality of the war as you appear to have an anti American agenda and from your past record you'll engage in a long pointless debate by linking to various sites you've googled in order to make you pointless points!

cruasder777

folbotcar wrote: »

Sigh!:( Do you even read your own links? McCain met General Salim Idris, who was removed from his post according to your link for 'being too moderate'. In fact he was removed because he was considered militarily ineffective. The FSA is not ISIS. , not yet anyway.

As for beheadings, both sides do it. Atrocities are almost routine in the war. I can link you to a video of Hezbollah executing prisoners if you like? Nothing funny about it.

But I suspect you're not interested in the reality of the war as you appear to have an anti American agenda and from your past record you'll engage in a long pointless debate by linking to various sites you've googled in order to make you pointless points!

Fox news has addled your brain,the Syrian govt had Christians in its govt and all denominations of Muslims. It was non sectarian.

The guys you support burn Churches, behead Priests and are totally sectarian.

Lockstep

Crusader, I strongly suggest you read up on the Syrian conflict before embarrassing yourself further.

ISIS are not funded by the Americans and neither are they part of the (admittedly nebulous) FSA which. In fact, the FSA fight ISIS

cruasder777

Lockstep wrote: »

Crusader, I strongly suggest you read up on the Syrian conflict before embarrassing yourself further.

ISIS are not funded by the Americans and neither are they part of the (admittedly nebulous) FSA which. In fact, the FSA fight ISIS

Its highly likely ISIS have had US weapons and logical support via a proxy. The Israeli air force has supported them as well, the Americans must have approved this.

Infact, when we look at who the US has previously supported from Bin Laden to Pol Pot, it would be very unusual if they never supported them at some point.

Lockstep

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its highly likely ISIS have had US weapons and logical support via a proxy. The Israeli air force has supported them as well, the Americans must have approved this.

Source?

cruasder777 wrote: »

Infact, when we look at who the US has previously supported from Bin Laden to Pol Pot, it would be very unusual if they never supported them at some point.

Because the US supported X does not mean they would support Y.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its highly likely ISIS have had US weapons and logical support via a proxy. The Israeli air force has supported them as well, the Americans must have approved this.

Infact, when we look at who the US has previously supported from Bin Laden to Pol Pot, it would be very unusual if they never supported them at some point.

Which proxy?

You really think the Israelis look for US approval before doing something they perceive to be in their own interest?

You're right alliances etc form and break all the time. The US actually supported Ho Chi Minh for a while (the feeling was reciprocated) - just because a state supports some other state or faction (or just because a state or faction accepts support) doesn't mean they are forever bound - or that the supported won't turn on the hand that feeds it (also known as blowback). What's your point?

cruasder777

Lockstep wrote: »

Source?



Because the US supported X does not mean they would support Y.

http://scgnews.com/ironic-israel-helps-isis-with-airstrikes-against-the-syrian-government



Israel has a strategic interest in supporting those who are fighting its enemy HAMAS. As does the USA.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Which proxy?

You really think the Israelis look for US approval before doing something they perceive to be in their own interest?

You're right alliances etc form and break all the time. The US actually supported Ho Chi Minh for a while (the feeling was reciprocated) - just because a state supports some other state or faction (or just because a state or faction accepts support) doesn't mean they are forever bound - or that the supported won't turn on the hand that feeds it (also known as blowback). What's your point?

Its highly unlikely the Israelis gave air support in Syria without the Pentagon knowing.

Who said they are forever bound ?

What my point?

The US so called war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, the has been a military and strategic disaster.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

http://scgnews.com/ironic-israel-helps-isis-with-airstrikes-against-the-syrian-government



Israel has a strategic interest in supporting those who are fighting its enemy HAMAS. As does the USA.

Really?

We'll answer me this - why would Israel support this Caliphate that is pledged to liberating Palestine? Not the Palestinians, but Palestine.......

You really are one of the 'special' people......

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its highly unlikely the Israelis gave air support in Syria without the Pentagon knowing.

Who said they are forever bound ?

What my point?

The US so called war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, the has been a military and strategic disaster.

I see you side-stepped answering the question about the mythical proxy......

Azwaldo55

Isis have a globalist outlook.
As they see it they are Islam and their leader the self-proclaimed Caliph demands and deserves the loyalty of every Muslim on Planet Earth.
So if we - the Christian/secularist West, atheist China, Hindu India, Catholic Latin America, Orthodox Russia - wish to disentangle Islamism - violent political Islam - from Islam - the religion of Islam - then Isis who now call themselves the Caliphate must be militarily defeated.
The only hope the Middle East has is a future of democratic secularist governments with Islam on the back burner.
Sunni Islamists across the world will give their allegiance to the Caliphate and they will fight insurgencies on the streets of every city and country they reside in if they are ordered to.
It only requires a few hundred militants and a few thousand extremist sympathizers to operate a viable terrorist network.
We know this from the Troubles.
A terrified Protestant and Catholic population became the sea in which loyalist and republican paramilitaries swim.
A terrified Muslim population who cannot depend on non-Muslims to help them - they are either branded terrorists by the political right or leftists brand anyone who calls Islamism extremism is called an "Islamophobe" - are becoming the sea in which the Islamists swim.
Sunni fighters born outside of the Middle East but returning to Canada, Britain, mainland Europe, South America or Australia after fighting jihad for Isis will bring their terror expertise with them.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If we used force we breed terrorists but if we do nothing we breed terrorists who are emboldened by a weak response.

We have a situation today similar to that of Europe in the early 20th century.
We have a world ruled by powerful imperial blocs - the USA, Russia, the EU, China, India and Saudi Arabia - with festering nationalisms and religious extremism boiling away rattling and ready to lift the lid.

Europe exploded in 1914 after the killing of the Archduke in Sarajevo but the situation had been coming to the boil for decades before.

9/11 kicked off the global war on terror but now we have evolved beyond Al-Qaeda. The conflict has morphed way beyond that and the decades to come could be as disastrous as the 20th century just gone.

Azwaldo55

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its highly unlikely the Israelis gave air support in Syria without the Pentagon knowing.

Who said they are forever bound ?

What my point?

The US so called war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq, the has been a military and strategic disaster.

How long was Saddam going to have remained in power if the invasion in 2003 had never happened? Suppose his health deteriorated and his sons and his goons fought for the scraps? Iraq would probably have collapsed into bloody hell anyway.

If Gore was elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or Hillary Clinton in 2008 I am not so sure American foreign policy would have been much different to be honest.
Domestically left and right would still be at eachothers throat no matter who was in power while the US economy would still have tanked.

There probably would still have been a major American intervention in the Middle East, there probably still would have been an Islamist Spring and weakened dictatorships long past their sell by date would be toppling left right and centre.

I don't subscribe to the great man or woman theory of history. There are forces being unleashed now that could not be stopped. Obama is an irrelevancy. If McCain was in power he would have been unable to arrest what is now happening.

A dam has burst and when the waters calm again we will see what we will see.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Really?

We'll answer me this - why would Israel support this Caliphate that is pledged to liberating Palestine? Not the Palestinians, but Palestine.......

You really are one of the 'special' people......

Special people ? You have making fun of people with learning difficulties, sounds like your level.


ISIS has no interest in Palestine, HAMAS are Shia, ISIS are Sunni and sectarian.

They murder Shias, like they murder Christians.


Hamas fire rockets at Israel, its much better they have gone to Syria and are being tied up there, from Israel's perspective.

Stop watching Fox news littleman.

cruasder777

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

How long was Saddam going to have remained in power if the invasion in 2003 had never happened? Suppose his health deteriorated and his sons and his goons fought for the scraps? Iraq would probably have collapsed into bloody hell anyway.

If Gore was elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or Hillary Clinton in 2008 I am not so sure American foreign policy would have been much different to be honest.
Domestically left and right would still be at eachothers throat no matter who was in power while the US economy would still have tanked.

There probably would still have been a major American intervention in the Middle East, there probably still would have been an Islamist Spring and weakened dictatorships long past their sell by date would be toppling left right and centre.

I don't subscribe to the great man or woman theory of history. There are forces being unleashed now that could not be stopped. Obama is an irrelevancy. If McCain was in power he would have been unable to arrest what is now happening.

A dam has burst and when the waters calm again we will see what we will see.

How long is a piece of string ? You are speculating things that never happened.

The dam has burst because a hornets nest in the M.E has been stirred, just like Saddam predicted what happen.

Iraq is an artificial creation, it will most likely split three ways on sectarian lines.

From a logical position, you have to ask, is the USA right in supporting dictators on its terms when suited and backward theocracies to keep the M.E fragmented ?

It supports them as a Unified pan Arab socialist but peaceful middle east scares the **** out of them.

Lemming

TBH, I think that ISIL have jumped the gun (ahem) in declaring a Caliphate. I imagine that a great deal many surrounding nations in the region may have a thing or several to say about rolling over and allowing their bellies to be tickled just because an ISIL "soldier" puts a single foot inside their borders. Whilst I have no doubt that there'll be many misguided folks that gather under ISILs new Caliphate declaration, they [ISIL] have just gone and put the backs up of a lot of people that weren't already their enemies whom they [ISIL] would want cede and pledge undying allegience.

Realistically the result of this is that I can see ISIL being boxed in and curtailed short term. And if not outright defeated, over the medium to long term as it appears their power isn't growing like the second coming, that they'll lose their hubris and become ineffectual and eventually just fall apart.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Special people ? You have making fun of people with learning difficulties, sounds like your level.

No, but that's not the only thing you're wrong about.

To be clear, I was suggesting you're one of the tinfoil hat brigade.

cruasder777 wrote: »

ISIS has no interest in Palestine, HAMAS are Shia, ISIS are Sunni and sectarian.

They murder Shias, like they murder Christians.


Hamas fire rockets at Israel, its much better they have gone to Syria and are being tied up there, from Israel's perspective.

Stop watching Fox news littleman.

ISIS / ISIL no longer exist. In case you're not up to speed they declared a Caliphate with the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now the supposed Caliph.

To appreciate what establishing a Caliphate means, I suggest reading Tom Holland's "The Sword of Islam"

In the video where al-Baghdadi announces the re-establishment of the Caliphate he also pledges the group to the liberation of Palestine.......of course the video could be fake :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't watch Fox, but yes I am little.

By the way, I'll ask again who is this 'proxy' you mentioned earlier - or is that information only available on a need to know basis, old chap......

Azwaldo55

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, I think that ISIL have jumped the gun (ahem) in declaring a Caliphate. I imagine that a great deal many surrounding nations in the region may have a thing or several to say about rolling over and allowing their bellies to be tickled just because an ISIL "soldier" puts a single foot inside their borders. Whilst I have no doubt that there'll be many misguided folks that gather under ISILs new Caliphate declaration, they [ISIL] have just gone and put the backs up of a lot of people that weren't already their enemies whom they [ISIL] would want cede and pledge undying allegience.

Realistically the result of this is that I can see ISIL being boxed in and curtailed short term. And if not outright defeated, over the medium to long term as it appears their power isn't growing like the second coming, that they'll lose their hubris and become ineffectual and eventually just fall apart.

The Saudis are becoming increasingly concerned as ISIS threatens its border with Iraq and ISIS have declared their ambition to capture Mecca and Medina and to destroy what they believe is the idolatrous Kaaba and Grand Mosque in Mecca itself.

Representatives of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) stated that they will destroy the Kaaba after they capture Saudi Arabia, APA reports quoting Turkish media that ISIS wants to take control of the city of Arar in Saudi Arabia and start operations there.

ISIS member Abu Turab Al Mugaddasi said that they would destroy the Kaaba in Mecca: “If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah.”

http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/57062.html

Lockstep

cruasder777 wrote: »

http://scgnews.com/ironic-israel-helps-isis-with-airstrikes-against-the-syrian-government

That doesn't say Israel is supporting ISIS.
It says that Israel's air strikes against Syria indirectly help the rebels (including ISIS)

cruasder777 wrote: »

Israel has a strategic interest in supporting those who are fighting its enemy HAMAS. As does the USA.

Hamas are of little threat to Israel, particularly since the Muslim Brotherhood no longer control Egypt and completely isolating Hamas.
Israel is a lot more concerned about regional instability, which ISIS is heavily contributing to.

cruasder777 wrote: »

ISIS has no interest in Palestine, HAMAS are Shia, ISIS are Sunni and sectarian.

Actually, ISIS do have an interest in Palestine. They lay claim to greater Syria which traditionally included northern Palestine.
Also, Hamas are not Shi'ite. They're Sunni.

Azwaldo55

Lockstep wrote: »

That doesn't say Israel is supporting ISIS.
It says that Israel's air strikes against Syria indirectly help the rebels (including ISIS)



Hamas are of little threat to Israel, particularly since the Muslim Brotherhood no longer control Egypt and completely isolating Hamas.
Israel is a lot more concerned about regional instability, which ISIS is heavily contributing to.


Actually, ISIS do have an interest in Palestine. They lay claim to greater Syria which traditionally included northern Palestine.
Also, Hamas are not Shi'ite. They're Sunni.

ISIS lay claim to the entire world. They seek a global Islamic empire.

This is an apocalyptic movement - they expect the return of the Mahdi (an Islamic version of the Messiah) and the final battle with Masih ad-Dajjal (a figure comparable to the anti-Christ of Christian mythology).

When the Mahdi is revealed he will march with the Prophet Isa or Jesus from Damascus into battle against the Dajjal who according to Islamic tradition will gather an army from Isfahan (a city in present day Iran) and the Dajjal will be captured at Lod (a city in present day Israel) and killed by Isa before world peace will reign and all will embrace Islam.

Of course Christians believe in the rise of the anti-Christ who will be released to gather up the armies of God and Magog which will gather to surround Jerusalem before fire will come down from heaven and burn them all up. Fundamentalist Christians take this literally - not as a metaphor for a spiritual battle - but as an actually prophesied battle at the end of time. Naturally they see the rise of Isis as confirmation of the Book of Revelation.

realweirdo

The Arab Spring which was undeniably a reaction to your typical Arab dictator, played a huge role in the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Most Arab countries have been dictatorships since their independence.

It was inevitable that much like all dictatorships, the people were going to say at some stage, enough is enough, we are no longer willing to live under autocratic kleptocrats, and rise up.

What happened in Syria under Assad, there was every chance of something similar happening in Iraq under Saddam. A brutal crackdown which led to an uprising of the population, mainly the Shia population.

The current ISIS situation in Iraq came about from a largely unreported Arab Spring like uprising by the Sunni in Iraq who hate Malaki.

If Malaki stepped down, this thing would resolve itself fast. The longer he remains in power, the more traction ISIS gains until eventually they can't be stopped.

In the good old days, the Americans would have organised a coup against Malaki, put in a favourable general and then maybe organise elections later.

Obama has no plan or strategy for the middle east or doesnt know what American interests there are. An extremely weak president from a foreign policy point of view.

realweirdo

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, I think that ISIL have jumped the gun (ahem) in declaring a Caliphate. I imagine that a great deal many surrounding nations in the region may have a thing or several to say about rolling over and allowing their bellies to be tickled just because an ISIL "soldier" puts a single foot inside their borders. Whilst I have no doubt that there'll be many misguided folks that gather under ISILs new Caliphate declaration, they [ISIL] have just gone and put the backs up of a lot of people that weren't already their enemies whom they [ISIL] would want cede and pledge undying allegience.

Realistically the result of this is that I can see ISIL being boxed in and curtailed short term. And if not outright defeated, over the medium to long term as it appears their power isn't growing like the second coming, that they'll lose their hubris and become ineffectual and eventually just fall apart.

Sad as it is, there is only one country on the planet with the resources and stomach to contain ISIL and that's the United States. People may not like the US but at least they have the balls to actually fight, unlike the likes of Merkel who runs away from every fight, and who sees no danger from the likes of ISIL. Not my problem is the prevailing view in Europe. ISIL can be confronted when they are a poorly armed rabble or they can be confronted when they are armed to the teeth and with tens of thousands of fighters. Take your pick. But all the indications are they are getting more powerful, more money and more weapons and fighters by the day. All entirely predictable. And they are not going to suddenly fall apart much like the Taliban regime didn't fall apart until the Americans sent in B-52s.

Lemming

Sorry realwierdo, but your analysis is way off the mark. I'm on a phone in the middle of a wood right now, so I'll have to summarise.

Iraq is not having an Arab spring nor is what's happening remotely comparable. Malaki is not a dictator; a sectarian idiot perhaps but no dictator. The Sunni unrest is the direct result of ISIL forces invading Iraq for their own purposes, namely annexation and conquest.

This is nothing to do with the US nor will it simply end by Malaki standing down from office.

Victor

realweirdo wrote: »

Sad as it is, there is only one country on the planet with the resources and stomach to contain ISIL and that's the United States. People may not like the US but at least they have the balls to actually fight, unlike the likes of Merkel who runs away from every fight, and who sees no danger from the likes of ISIL.

Sometimes, fighting is the wrong reaction. In this case, depriving them of a support base (mostly parts of the Sunni populations) would be the ideal route.

And they are not going to suddenly fall apart much like the Taliban regime didn't fall apart until the Americans sent in B-52s.

Do you mean the Taliban that are still fighting 13 years later?

In asymmetric warfare, B-52s are inappropriate for targeting in urban areas.

Five Lamps

realweirdo wrote: »

Sad as it is, there is only one country on the planet with the resources and stomach to contain ISIL and that's the United States. People may not like the US but at least they have the balls to actually fight, unlike the likes of Merkel who runs away from every fight, and who sees no danger from the likes of ISIL. Not my problem is the prevailing view in Europe. ISIL can be confronted when they are a poorly armed rabble or they can be confronted when they are armed to the teeth and with tens of thousands of fighters. Take your pick. But all the indications are they are getting more powerful, more money and more weapons and fighters by the day. All entirely predictable. And they are not going to suddenly fall apart much like the Taliban regime didn't fall apart until the Americans sent in B-52s.

You could argue that US is willing to enter wars and commit huge military resources but victories are few and far between.

Korea - divided, N. Korea still a menace to the world.
Vietnam - withdrew, South Vietnam eventually defeated.
Iraq - First Gulf war they won, second adventure - well look where we are now.
Afghanistan - going/gone the same way as Iraq.

The above have seen a huge deployment of the US military but also had a massive effect on the psyche of the general population. B-52's only have limited effects as demonstrated in the 60's, 90's and this century.

Jawgap

Victor wrote: »

Sometimes, fighting is the wrong reaction. In this case, depriving them of a support base (mostly parts of the Sunni populations) would be the ideal route.

Do you mean the Taliban that are still fighting 13 years later?

In asymmetric warfare, B-52s are inappropriate for targeting in urban areas.

All warfare is asymmetric.....always has been and always will be.

Five Lamps wrote: »

You could argue that US is willing to enter wars and commit huge military resources but victories are few and far between.

Korea - divided, N. Korea still a menace to the world.
Vietnam - withdrew, South Vietnam eventually defeated.
Iraq - First Gulf war they won, second adventure - well look where we are now.
Afghanistan - going/gone the same way as Iraq.

The above have seen a huge deployment of the US military but also had a massive effect on the psyche of the general population. B-52's only have limited effects as demonstrated in the 60's, 90's and this century.

.....does the victory in the Cold War count? -

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Sun Tzu

Jawgap

Five Lamps wrote: »

You could argue that US is willing to enter wars and commit huge military resources but victories are few and far between.

Korea - divided, N. Korea still a menace to the world.
Vietnam - withdrew, South Vietnam eventually defeated.
Iraq - First Gulf war they won, second adventure - well look where we are now.
Afghanistan - going/gone the same way as Iraq.

The above have seen a huge deployment of the US military but also had a massive effect on the psyche of the general population. B-52's only have limited effects as demonstrated in the 60's, 90's and this century.

Btw - can't really argue about Afghanistan, but in the case of Iraq, Korea, and Viet Nam - the phrase "defeat snatched from the jaws of victory" is entirely appropriate. In each case they found themselves in a position where they pretty much had an open goal and then managed to blast the ball wide!

Five Lamps

Jawgap wrote: »

Btw - can't really argue about Afghanistan, but in the case of Iraq, Korea, and Viet Nam - the phrase "defeat snatched from the jaws of victory" is entirely appropriate. In each case they found themselves in a position where they pretty much had an open goal and then managed to blast the ball wide!

Well if you look at the root of the wars you can see why they are winable or not.

Kuwait, Second World War were wars against invaders.

In Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghhanistan it's a war against ideology. America saw Vietnam as a theatre in the war against Communism same with Korea. Afghanistan is the same - don't like the Talibans way of thinking.

jawgap wrote:

.....does the victory in the Cold War count? -

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Sun Tzu

Certainly does if you are a shareholder in the US Military-Industrial complex.

Jawgap

Five Lamps wrote: »

Well if you look at the root of the wars you can see why they are winable or not.

Kuwait, Second World War were wars against invaders.

In Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghhanistan it's a war against ideology. America saw Vietnam as a theatre in the war against Communism same with Korea. Afghanistan is the same - don't like the Talibans way of thinking.



Certainly does if you are a shareholder in the US Military-Industrial complex.

When Viet Nam was liberated Ho Chi Minh gave the following speech in front of the Imperial Palace in Hanoi.....

'All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator certain unalienable fights; among these are life, liberty, and the of happiness.' This immortal statement appeared in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a sense, it means: All the peoples on earth are equal from birth, all peoples have a right to live and to be happyand free. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, made at the time of the French Revolution, in 1791, also states: 'All men are born free andwith: equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.'

OSS were there helping him along. Giap gave a clenched fist salute at the end of the speech and they played the Star Spangled Banner. At that stage the Vietnamese were fairly close to the US.

It only began to go downhill when they forced Diem on the South and Lansdale and Conein (and the rest of the CIA crew) began to meddle......

In Korea, all MacArthur had to do was pull up short of the Yalu, and it's probable the Chinese would not have felt compelled to intervene.

In Iraq (Gulf War I) political considerations prevented the US going to Baghdad - leaving Hussein to interpret that as a victory for him.

As for the Cold War, if an all pervasive military-industrial complex is the price of peace - then it's worth paying when one considers the alternative.