What was the basis for the formation of Iraq? I know wiki says that there had been a region referred to as al-Irak in that area for a long time, but it was never really an independent nation of its own, was it? Why wasn't it split into a Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan in the 20s already, for want of better names?
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
There is a few tweets going around that Tal Afar is clear of ISIS.
Neither do I, I hope it doesn't anyway.
It is almost completely controlled by army now. I saw video footage today from inside Tal Afar. Those news from two days ago about ISIS having complete control, about the army fleeing, and about the leader of the security forces being caught turned out to be no more than the usual Twitter bullsh*t.
Sunni/Shiite divisions have existed for centuries. Someone is igniting this trouble. I still don't get how a few thousand under trained militias can run over a trained military in their own back yard with all their training and sophistication of their weaponry. Something does not sit right with me in this conflict.
You mean with the initial Mosul takeover? It does seem dodgy that Iraqi commanders fled the night before, but I don't know why they would do such a thing/the bigger picture of why Maliki would plan such a thing.
I'm not. You can sense I don't like Twitter.
I'm not. You can sense I don't like Twitter.
LOL i didn't but now i do. I just didn't click haha
Even ISIS' existence in Iraq to me is odd. Surely they can easily be blown up from the air with helicopter gunships, fighter jets, and tanks on the ground. I personally think someone has a bigger picture drawn up and it suits their agenda to have ISIS on the ground.
It's great when some ISIS account starts tweeting rubbish like how they've taken over Kirkuk, especially when you find out they lives in places like Bradford, nowhere near the event.
It's great when some ISIS account starts tweeting rubbish like how they've taken over Kirkuk, especially when you find out they lives in places like Bradford, nowhere near the event.
I can't imagine why anyone would follow an ISIS account. Its obviously all propaganda.
What? Al-Maliki would plan for his army forces to be humiliated like that?! Come on.
It was pre-planned. It took them years. They forced Al-Maliki to appoint certain people in certain positions in the army (most of which are Baathists or Sunnis), and make them in charge in certain areas (all of course in the name of "don't be a dictator, don't be sectarian"). And then when everything was set they left their positions to allow ISIS to take over. They weren't defeated, and they didn't even run away from the fight. There was no fight. It was just a case of pre-planned betrayal.
Al-Maliki issued orders today to excuse those 'traitors' (to use his word) from the army, and try them before a military court.
No idea really.Hmm....I wonder who Sults ?
I'm also confused why after decades of enmity US and UK are now suddenly wanting to be friends with Iran.
Imperialism.
Probably because they are finally realizing that Iran is not an enemy. Probably not the best of friends either, but certainly no enemy; particularly in light of Al-Qaeda and the new cold war with Russia.
By the way, the coverage of the conflict by (some of) the Western media has been far from accurate in this conflict. I don't know where the problem lies exactly (agenda or bad sources on the ground).. I just hope they're not taking their news from Twitter too.
They have been exaggerating ISIS' advances, when in fact they didn't make any advances in the last few days, and actually the army is now making many advances on many fronts. They regained control over many important towns and cities as well. Still some media are reporting "ISIS keep advancing" in their headlines, without even specifying where those advances are.?! Actually if those reports are to be believed wouldn't ISIS be in Baghdad right now?!
I know the media in situations like this would like to blow things out of proportions to draw more public attention, but there is no excuse for them to report (for example) that a certain leader in the army "has been caught by ISIS and will be executed today" and they even said "it's confirmed news and from multiple sources" when in fact it's all bullsh*t.
Here is a video from SKY news Arabia from yesterday...
And here is the leader he was talking about giving an interview about the latest developments in Tal Afar today...
They have been exaggerating ISIS' advances, when in fact they didn't make any advances in the last few days, and actually the army is now making many advances on many fronts. They regained control over many important towns and cities as well. Still some media are reporting "ISIS keep advancing" in their headlines, without even specifying where those advances are.?! Actually if those reports are to be believed wouldn't ISIS be in Baghdad right now?!
I know the media in situations like this would like to blow things out of proportions to draw more public attention, but there is no excuse for them to report (for example) that a certain leader in the army "has been caught by ISIS and will be executed today" and they even said "it's confirmed news and from multiple sources" when in fact it's all bullsh*t.
Here is a video from SKY news Arabia from yesterday...
And here is the leader he was talking about giving an interview about the latest developments in Tal Afar today...
Entertainment purposes
Are the terrorist tactics only being used by ISIS? I heard something today about Shia govt. forces execution of prisoners in the jails before the advancing ISIS arrive because the ISIS immediately empty the jails and recruit the prisoners. Shia tried to claim the prisoners died from bombing but bullet wounds to the head and chest were noted in the dead prisoners.
It does seem like Terrorist is a codeword for 'particular (Muslim) people you should hate the most' rather than a word with any meaning behind it because, as you say, what they're berated for doing are things that their opponents also do to them.
These groups are undoubtedly unpleasant, but it still just seems like a marketing ploy.
I think the terrorist label is to get a reaction from less well-informed Westerners who don't know as much about the subtleties of the region. Call 'em a terrorist and then bomb the shit out of them and be done. Then a few years later a major attack on US soil occurs and everybody wonders why.
A terrorist group, in theory, is pretty much any group, outside of a legitimised authority, which uses violence to effect their own agenda. Only the state has the monopoly on violence.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is famously no universal definition for terrorism. The US government can't decide how to define it, nor can many international governments reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism; basically because its an undefinable pejorative.
You always hear 'terrorism is a tactic'. It's true in this case.
Spot on again.
I don't know any fancy words. All politicians (Muslims/Jews/Hindu etc) are definition off terrorism. It's their policies which causes wars and conflicts. How far can islamic extremist or Hindu extremist or whatever group can go if no one supports them (weapons/equipments/finance)... Its clear as daylight that some powers are behind all these groups which uses them for their own agendas..
The major attack on US soil happened after the US supported them, and before the US bombed them. You got your order mixed up.
And by the way, where are you going at from all this? Are you trying to hint that ISIS are as bad as the Iraqi government?
I wasn't even referring to 9/11.
Do you think the Iraqi government are an innocent victim in all this? They've done nothing to invite this sort of attack?
Do you think the US did nothing to invite 9/11? That's a stupid logic regardless what the Iraqi government did, considering what ISIS did (and by the way the Iraqi government has done nothing imo to justify this, and factually has done far less to deserve any attack than: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Syria, ...etc.).
Back to my question. I really want to know where you're getting at exactly..
Danny, no offence but I'm really not interested in debating with you. I don't care for the way you put yourself about in here so think it would be pointless.
What exactly do you think Iran has done?
You know what, don't answer. I already know where you're getting your facts.
What is happening in Iraq right now regarding ISIS is absolutely predictable. The moment the US invaded Iraq this was virtually an inevitable outcome to the US leaving. Hopefully for the sake of regular Iraqi citizens this gets squashed quickly with minimal bloodshed and any followup "insurgencies" get smashed just as quickly. Iraq has suffered enough at this point and we can only hope any radical groups do Iraq a huge favour by not getting organized and getting themselves killed by the IA as quickly as possible.
What do you mean? Are you referring to me mentioning those countries compared to Iraq?
Iranian president: "If we actually see the US get involved against terrorists in Iraq, maybe we'll think about it".
Exactly this. After decades of playing with fire, the US are actually deciding to put water on the fire.
Sunni militants invade Iraq's biggest oil refinery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27897648
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27897648
The whole idea of Iraq splitting into a "Sunnistan" and "Shiastan" should not be an inevitability. The Kurds have been consistently wanting independence ever since they got screwed over by Britain's aribtrary carving up of the ME, but historically Arab Iraqis could not care which sect they belonged to, many didn't even know whether they were Sunni or Shia. Its only been because of the 2003 war and to some extent the 1979 Iranian revolution which has conjured this sectarian consciousness from nothing.
Donald Trump's riveting input into all this:
Constructive and helpful as ever.
Because the Baathist forces still are a large part of the army, and they fled - actually they handed over arms to the ISIS
What little I have read suggests that the old Saddam loyalists were inducted back into the army bit by bit, and they feel marginalized by the Shia government, and this is their attempt at a coup - except it is not really a coup as they are simply ceding power to the ISIS and I highly doubt that the old Saddam guard will find any place in an ISIS setup. They are a radical militia
I completely agree with you that something in this stinks big time
Who do you think is behind the scenes? The west or the Saud?