There are reports that Shia militia from Iraq approx 20-30k in
Eh, that's what I said too if you had read the first para?
Eh, that's what I said too if you had read the first para?
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Even if it is just soldiers, no "army" can execute PoW. And there are reports that hey are killing civilians too
For e.g. over a 100 Indians contractors working in Mosul are currently being held hostage (or already killed) by the ISIS
The problem is, a couple of airstrikes isn't going to eradicate the ISIS threat, it'll only tantalise and garner more recruits for them.
Its no secret that Iran is attempting to reinforce its grip within Iraq, but as I've said this is as much a preemptive maneuver for them as it is a matter of confiding to regional interests. ISIS is just as much a threat to Iran hence it would be in their interest to help their neighbour quell the threat.
Ideally, Iraq deal with this problem autonomously and independently. Though looking at it pragmatically I'd rather they call on the help of a neighbouring nation who share a common enemy and who are on good terms with 70% of the population, rather than the nation which was mostly responsible for the country's destabilisation and who are resented by most Iraqis in addition to ISIS.
The best thing Maliki did was ask the US troops to leave, it was long overdue and their presence had only cultivated a toxic sentiment amongst Iraqis. It also provided further ammunition to foreign jihadists who flocked over to fight the 'colonialists' and the 'traitorous government' who cooperated with them.
Romney predicted bugger all, it was warmongers like him responsible for engineering the catastrophic mess in Iraq.
I was listening to a bbc radio 4 segment the other day and they were discussing foreign fighters amongst the Isis uprising. A reporter was in Bradford asking young Asians about whether they'd be willing to go and fight in places like Iraq or Syria and sadly, some of them seemed quite keen on the idea of fighting for their fellow Muslims. Unfortunately they didn't seem to grasp the concept that they'd be fighting against Muslims and one of them was going on about Americans as if it was Muslims vs the west. Quite sad and worrying really.
I read somewhere that approximately 400 British Muslims were fighting with ISIS. Many more with the jihadists in Syria.
Its all very harrowing.
I found this interesting article. Make what you will of it.
The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S.
The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S.
I've only sort of started reading up about this issue now (had exams and pretty much dug myself in a hole).
Is the scaremongering by the media about ISIS and its power and funds true? I read in the newspaper today that they have some billions of cash reserve. WTF?
Is the scaremongering by the media about ISIS and its power and funds true? I read in the newspaper today that they have some billions of cash reserve. WTF?
Vice News has released their first two dispatches about the current situation in Irak. As always good on location reports and interviews.
What annoyed me is that they went into Imam Hussain (AS) shrine and their news was about it becoming a sectarian war. I've pretty much boycotted BBC News as they have no intention of saying the truth.
What is the truth then Sheikhy? I've mainly heard BBC coverage so it would be interesting to hear what they're doing wrong.
Well that would make sense if things were nice and calm today, but as we're seeing that's not quite the case.
Watch Press TV...Press TV giving accurate accounts of what is happening in Iraq. Its verified by quite a lot of people in the UK as well. BBC coverage will always hide what they don't want to be heard by the public, at the end of the day why should they when there is a proxy war going on. For example, a main example actually, why call them Sunni extremists when they should simply be called extremist? Its not hard is it? its just removing one word. Yet Sunni's are being labelled with terrorism now. The terrorists are followers of the Wahabi school of thought, not the Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali or hanafi schools of thought (Sunni Islam). If you read up on how Wahabism starting in Saudi, you will see where todays problems came from. Read up on the al-Saud family ties with the man who began this sect, you don't have to go far as it only been around since when the Arabian peninsula changed to "Saudi Arabia".
Western media propaganda are actively causing problems between Sunni's and Shia's.
Things were never going to be nice and calm thanks to Bush and pals wild adventures a decade ago. Most Iraqis didn't want US troops on their soil, it was the right thing to do.
Press TV is Iranian state propaganda, different side of the same coin. Democracy Now and Digital Resistance are probably your best bet.
Not if it is telling you the correct information. Thats what people want to hear. accurate accounts of what is happening. If you think its Iranian state propaganda when what RT which then I will be told is Russian State Propaganda but again truthful accounts of current events are giving. Its up to each individual to decide on what they want to hear.
EDIT: I totally forgot about DR. They are really good. Good point raised.
I won't pretend to understand the differences between the groups you've mentioned. If what you say is true and assuming that the Wahabi school are a subsection of Sunni Islam, is it not possible that the BBC are just reporting them as Sunni's in order to simplify it for non muslim/non religious people like me, rather than actively trying to cause problems as you suggest?
Fair point but they are totally different in what the teachings are. but to be fair there are a lot of people now recognising the difference and it really is the responsibility of news channels to give the right info.
Both RT and Press TV are state propaganda networks. Their purpose is to advance pro-Iran/pro-Russian views. That's why RT, along with the rest of Russian media, framed the Crimean invasion as entirely organic, grassroots resistance until they had complete control of the region. Then Putin admitted that Russian military had been involved.
It is similar to a denomination within Christianity. It falls under the Sunni umbrella the same way Presbyterianism or Puritanism falls under Protestantism.
Well that's true, but things are certainly not calm now, which is a direct result of troops leaving. Its no surprise that it was his decision and subsequent poor governance that has led him to want them back.
Several Senators have suggested that any US involvement be dependent on Maliki resigning and an end to sectarian governance. Obviously Maliki doesn't like this idea.
Iraq would do well with a secularist leader like Allawi. He's ethnically Shi'a, politically secular, and is on good terms with international donors.
The New York Times have uncovered evidence that a distant ancestor of the hated ex-president, Hezekiah Bush, engineered the original Shia-Sunni split in the middle of the seventh century.
Everyone already knows this, catch up Will.
It would be fecking hilarious (well not quite) if the US sends troops back in and another Bush wins the White House in 2016.
Okay. But the Times are working on an even more sensational story, which nobody knows about yet, not even the Cafe.
Due to a translation error from the first Hebrew scriptures, Moses was recorded as taking instruction from a 'burning bush'. But the phrase is more accurately translated as 'angry bush'.
This is believed to be Ezekiel Bush, the original ancestor of all the Bushes, who was thus responsible for the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the Promised Land, and all the terrible things which have happened in the world ever since.
Okay. But the Times are working on an even more sensational story, which nobody knows about yet, not even the Cafe.
Due to a translation error from the first Hebrew scriptures, Moses was recorded as taking instruction from a 'burning bush'. But the phrase is more accurately translated as 'angry bush'.
This is believed to be Ezekiel Bush, the original ancestor of all the Bushes, who was thus responsible for the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the Promised Land, and all the terrible things which have happened in the world ever since.
There are rumors that a certain Adam Bush and Eve Bush are responsible for the fact we all don't live in a holy paradise.
Allawi? Really? The man may be a 'secular shia' but he's also a corrupt crook in the payroll of the Saudis and he also happens to be a Washington crony. He'd be a bigger disaster than Maliki.
There are rumors that a certain Adam Bush and Eve Bush are responsible for the fact we all don't live in a holy paradise.
Okay. That's as far back as we can go, unless God was a Bush.
Nah, he'd be ideal. Iraq is full of tarnished figures who have been involved in dodgy things so its hard to disqualify someone for that. Allawi has broad support across the spectrum. The Iranians obviously don't want him and went out of their way to pressure Sadr to throw his weight behind Maliki to keep him in office. But non-sectarian types generally support him.
Gandolfini only has broad support because of the animosity towards Maliki. Take Maliki out the picture and suddenly he's just the Saudi-funded crook who will no longer garner the protest votes.
He had broad support before the last election as well. The bit about Saudi is just you being sectarian again. You sectarian, Shi'a poster you.
He had broad support before the last election as well. The bit about Saudi is just you being sectarian again. You sectarian, Shi'a poster you.
Really?? We doing this again?
Here's a fun fact for you - in the first Iraqi elections I voted for Allawi.
Really?? We doing this again?
Here's a fun fact for you - in the first Iraqi elections I voted for Allawi.
Well he is technically Shi'a.
Who would you propose ?