676 PAK (Kurdistan freedom party in Iran) have been sent to help the Peshmerga on the frontline. They join the YPG from Syria and will soon be joined by the PKK. All four corners fighting as one, good to see!
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
@Relevated Remember the loopy Nottingham Kurd that I mentioned I had arguments with over twitter, who had gone to Syria to fight for ISIS?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ventry-believed-fighting-ISIS-Iraq-Syria.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ventry-believed-fighting-ISIS-Iraq-Syria.html
Yeah, its him alright. He shouldn't be allowed back to this country imo.An Iraqi Kurd joining ISIS?
http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2014/...e-for-self-determination/?sr=sharebar_twitter
Barzani had an interview with CNN about the Iraqi issue, a few strong quote from it that show we are gearing for independence very soon.
Someone could probably copy and paste the article or video here if it's easier for others to see. I'm on my phone so I can't do it atm.
Barzani had an interview with CNN about the Iraqi issue, a few strong quote from it that show we are gearing for independence very soon.
Someone could probably copy and paste the article or video here if it's easier for others to see. I'm on my phone so I can't do it atm.
His son has joined the volunteer group that is heading to Samara to defend the Shrine...
@Relevated Remember the loopy Nottingham Kurd that I mentioned I had arguments with over twitter, who had gone to Syria to fight for ISIS?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ventry-believed-fighting-ISIS-Iraq-Syria.html
What an idiot. Can't imagine what the poor parents must be going through
Sounds like this has gone cross border - Bashar's Air Force striking inside Iraq. Iraq's military hitting targets inside Syria....and just days after Israel struck inside Syria.
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-sends-warplanes-iraq-killing-dozens-targeted-isis-134145404.html
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-sends-warplanes-iraq-killing-dozens-targeted-isis-134145404.html
That's going to confuse Washington.
Are they going to continue supporting the 'good terrorists' fighting Assad while continuing to denounce the "bed terrorists" in Iraq?
Though at least the Saudis are consistent with support for all Al Qaeda elements.
I suppose salafist nutters would currently take precedence over authoritarian dictators.
That is starting to fade away though.
The West and the Western media are gradually trying to picture what's happening in Iraq as a semi-revolution, or a "revolution" indeed, which is frankly, in Iraq, the most democratic and inclusive country in term of minorities in probably the whole world, too absurd to be discussed.
They're clearly turning a blind eye now on all the disgusting massacres ISIS is committing in many cities and towns in Iraq, and prefer spreading rumours instead about ISIS (sorry, the "Sunni rebels") being on the brink of toppling the government and occupying Baghdad, and of course not forgetting to blame Maliki for all of this (not ISIS, or the countries that support and fund ISIS, like the paradise of democracy known as Saudi Arabia).
Remember when I said the BBC is inaccurate in their reporting? Scratch that. They're turning into a flat-out propaganda machine for ISIS now (and most of the Western media are right now).
Maliki is partly to blame imo because he was too democratic, and tried to prove that he's a good guy, to the point where he lost control over big parts of the army and the country. He trusted people he shouldn't have trusted, and didn't deal with the threats of the terrorists strongly enough.
Nobody saw anything wrong with what Sisi did in Egypt. A coup to topple a democratically elected government, executing opposition leaders, putting thousands of people in jail, banning a party from the political life, restricting all kinds of political freedoms in Egypt ... all is good. Why? Too reasons, first, because he has a good grip over the army, and still possesses the power to force order. And second, and more importantly, because...
That's what this is all about.
The IAF struck targets across the border in retaliation to a missile attack on an Israeli vehicle, killing a young Israeli boy.
I'm expecting a lot of clashes tomorrow in Nineveh, the truce between ISIS and Peshmerga was broken when ISIS tried to make a move forward but were pushed back.
An interesting article from three days ago...
How US and Britain were warned of Isis advance in Iraq but 'turned a deaf ear'
Exclusive: Kurdish intelligence chief says information was passed on to CIA and MI6 about grand plan to take Baghdad
Five months ago, a Kurdish intelligence "asset" walked into a base and said he had information to hand over. The capture by jihadists the month before of two Sunni cities in western Iraq was just the beginning, he said.
There would soon be a major onslaught on Sunni territories.
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis), a renegade offshoot of al-Qaeda, was about to take its well-known cooperation with leftovers of the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his former deputy Izzat al-Douri, to a new level.
His handlers knew their source of old, and he had always proved reliable, officials told The Telegraph. So they listened carefully as he said a formal alliance was about to be signed that would lead to the takeover of Mosul, the biggest city north of Baghdad, home to two million people.
Parts of the city were already a no-go zone due to the terrorist presence. Westerners were advised not to enter the city due to the risk of attack or kidnap. Isis was partly funded by extorting a tax from local businesses.
But the group was too small to carry out its plans on its own. These involved an ambitious sweep through northern Iraq, to take on Baghdad itself.
For the ex-Baathists, it was a chance to get revenge on the country's new, Shia-led leadership, much of which had spent years in exile during the Saddam years. The Baathists are also Sunni – though previously not seen as religious – and resented their loss of power to the Shia majority.
"We had this information then, and we passed it on to your (British) government and the US government," Rooz Bahjat, a senior lieutenant to Lahur Talabani, head of Kurdish intelligence, said. "We used our official liaisons.
"We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners. It fell on deaf ears."
The extremist insurgency has been growing ever since Britain and the United States pulled out its troops, the last Americans leaving in December 2011. In December last year Isis took over Fallujah and Ramadi, two cities in the largely Sunni Anbar province which was a hotbed of the al-Qaeda-led uprising against the western occupation of Iraq.
The insurgency has been fostered partly by resentment among Sunni Arabs at the Shia-led government of Nouri al-Maliki, which they say discriminates against them and whose armed forces and militias they accuse of harassment and in some cases torture and murder.
It has also been fed by recruits to Isis's other war, in Syria where it holds large parts of the east of the country.
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...is-advance-in-Iraq-but-turned-a-deaf-ear.html
Probably the most interesting part of this (for me), how the hell did Maliki not know anything about it?!
How US and Britain were warned of Isis advance in Iraq but 'turned a deaf ear'
Exclusive: Kurdish intelligence chief says information was passed on to CIA and MI6 about grand plan to take Baghdad
Five months ago, a Kurdish intelligence "asset" walked into a base and said he had information to hand over. The capture by jihadists the month before of two Sunni cities in western Iraq was just the beginning, he said.
There would soon be a major onslaught on Sunni territories.
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis), a renegade offshoot of al-Qaeda, was about to take its well-known cooperation with leftovers of the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his former deputy Izzat al-Douri, to a new level.
His handlers knew their source of old, and he had always proved reliable, officials told The Telegraph. So they listened carefully as he said a formal alliance was about to be signed that would lead to the takeover of Mosul, the biggest city north of Baghdad, home to two million people.
Parts of the city were already a no-go zone due to the terrorist presence. Westerners were advised not to enter the city due to the risk of attack or kidnap. Isis was partly funded by extorting a tax from local businesses.
But the group was too small to carry out its plans on its own. These involved an ambitious sweep through northern Iraq, to take on Baghdad itself.
For the ex-Baathists, it was a chance to get revenge on the country's new, Shia-led leadership, much of which had spent years in exile during the Saddam years. The Baathists are also Sunni – though previously not seen as religious – and resented their loss of power to the Shia majority.
"We had this information then, and we passed it on to your (British) government and the US government," Rooz Bahjat, a senior lieutenant to Lahur Talabani, head of Kurdish intelligence, said. "We used our official liaisons.
"We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners. It fell on deaf ears."
The extremist insurgency has been growing ever since Britain and the United States pulled out its troops, the last Americans leaving in December 2011. In December last year Isis took over Fallujah and Ramadi, two cities in the largely Sunni Anbar province which was a hotbed of the al-Qaeda-led uprising against the western occupation of Iraq.
The insurgency has been fostered partly by resentment among Sunni Arabs at the Shia-led government of Nouri al-Maliki, which they say discriminates against them and whose armed forces and militias they accuse of harassment and in some cases torture and murder.
It has also been fed by recruits to Isis's other war, in Syria where it holds large parts of the east of the country.
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...is-advance-in-Iraq-but-turned-a-deaf-ear.html
Probably the most interesting part of this (for me), how the hell did Maliki not know anything about it?!
Well they're not taking Baghdad, so those warnings may have been a bit unfounded. Its always easy to claim someone was forewarned when its actually impossible to predict the future.
True, but the plan was to take Baghdad, it just didn't succeed. And without the urgent and quick deployment of some special forces in addition to the new volunteers to protect Baghdad (and Samara), I think they had a good chance of reaching Baghdad.
By the way, the US did acknowledge that they had some information about ISIS increasing their presence and probably having some plans in Iraq. He didn't specify what kind of information they had though.
However, I'm not blaming the US or Britain for not taking action here, they probably should have passed the information to Maliki if they had them, but in the end it was Maliki's responsibility to get that information, and deal with it accordingly. He's definitely the one to blame here (for simply being incompetent).
Well ISIS couldn't have don't what they are doing with Maliki's sectarian negligence that estranged much of the Sunni areas of the country and facilitated ISIS and AQI to gain more leverage in Anbar, Ninewa, Salahedin, and one or two other provinces. ISIS are also being aided by old school Baathists and elements of Sunni tribes who have soured on Maliki, without which their gains wouldn't have been possible.
I have said enough probably about my opinion on this. Can you specify how Maliki mistreated/marginalised/persecuted the Sunnis (specifically) as a sect?
EDIT:
By the way, let's also not forget that the ISIS grew (much) stronger in the region primarily because they seized control over large areas in Syria, and because of many backers (for them and their ideology) around the world.
If we use Twitter to formulate a rough idea about the situation:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27912569
I don't think the Sunnis are marginalised in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait... I think the problem is much bigger than those "marginalisation" claims.
Last edited:
He hasn't really mistreated them. He has however not done an adequate job in being sufficiently inclusive with Sunni groups, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise given that he is a Da'wa party guy with fairly good Iran links.
It wouldn't have mattered.
Hardline Iraqi Sunnis from the North haven't come to terms with a Shia government, its been a bitter pill for them to swallow after being the nation's ruling minority for over a century. It woudn't matter if Maliki personally showered all of them with a lifetime of riches, they'd still play the victim card. It also doesn't help that there's been posturing by neighouring gulf states, trying to convince the Sunni population of Iraq that this is some heinous Iranian conspiracy to strangle the nation.
And the US's request that Maliki creates an inclusive government is stupid and plain antithetical to the 'new Iraq'. Considering that the vast majority of Iraqis are Shia, its only expected that a Shia government will surface from an election - that's just the way the cookie crumbles. I can also guarantee you that the Sunnis wouldn't be placated even if Maliki succumbs to this request.
Who here thinks all the "terrorists" around the world are actually doing it for the reasons given in the media?
Thank you President Assad, keep em coming! 
If you mean by those 'Sunni groups' the high ranked ex-Baathists then I agree (I don't agree though that they should be given sensitive positions in the government). If you mean any other 'Sunni group' then I disagree and would like to hear which Sunni groups specifically are we talking about here, who are not being included in the government.
Well yeah, and other things like not paying the Sahwa and going after Tareq al-Hashimi. That sort of thing doesn't go over well with Sunnis, especially when he (Maliki) is already starting off with a sectarian trust deficit.
No doubt.
Flashbacks from 2006...
Sunnis Reaffirm Opposition to Jaafari
Al-Jaafari to give up office
Out of interest, do you think Maliki should also pay big sums to local Shia militias and arm them?
As for Tareq Al-Hashimi, he was facing terrorism charges supported by a lot of evidences, including the testimony of his own personal bodyguards. He refused to attend the trial and fled Iraq, and then called the trial unfair because he wasn't there. What is the government supposed to do when they get strong evidences showing his involvement in 150 terrorist attacks? Refrain from trying him because he's a Sunni, and only try the Shia criminals?
I don't really blame Hashimi for making a mad dash for Sulaymaniyah, then Istanbul. He probably reckoned he had no chance of a fair evaluation by a government and judiciary that is rampantly partisan. Its just one of many issues that paint Maliki as Sectarian, which is one of the main things that undercuts his legitimacy, including among prominent Shi'a politicians.
As for arming Shi'a militias, I don't know how much funding they would require as many of them are still armed from the Sadrist insurgency, as well as Sadrist offshoot groups like Asa'ib al-Haq and others. It would also be a bit strange for Shi'a militias to fight Isis in places like Anbar and Ninewa, as they probably wouldn't accepted by the locals.
Official Iraqi population stats (2009):
Shia: 60 - 65%
Sunni: 32 - 37%
That hardly puts the Shia in the 'vast majority'.
Regardless of how the cookie crumbles, a country like Iraq, divided along sectarian lines, cannot be successfully governed on a 'winner takes it all' basis. A power-sharing arrangement is essential. Ask the people of Northern Ireland.
If you take the Kurds out (who are almost all Sunni Muslim) then its a more substantial majority. Its not a winner takes all basis either, the people of Iraq voted for a Shia-dominated government - do you suggest they ignore that for the sake of placating some angry Sunnis? And even if Maliki was to incorporate Sunni elements in his government do you think they'd be satisfied?
This isn't Ba'athi Iraq anymore.
Yes, I do.
(if they want to keep their country together)
I expect you know more than I do about whether any such concession would satisfy some Sunni elements. But without giving the Sunnis a real say in the governance of the country, there won't be any country.
Yeah, we heard that too when it tried Saddam. Clearly Saddam didn't commit enough crimes to deserve a trial, and he wasn't tried "fairly" in the end.
And yes Maliki is sectarian. He's quite clearly favoring the Sunnis. Because while he crushed the Shia militias in the South and put thousands of them in prison, the biggest thing he's accused of is "limiting the payments made to the local Sunni militias in Anbar".
The Shia militias will return now (to protect their own areas), despite Maliki's attempts to form a true national government, where only the army (nearly half of which is Sunni by the way, including the leaders) holds the weapons. The Shia militias will not fight in Sunni areas without help from the people there though.
Maliki also has realized now that he will be called "sectarian" no matter what he does. Any Sunni he tries will be seen as having an "unfair" trial. Any Sunni would be allowed to be a terrorist, just because he's a minority. Any political difference will only be seen from a sectarian point of view. No matter what he does. So what's the point?
Well he will be called Sectarian because he works for the Da'wa party and has not been particularly accommodating to creating true national unity since the US left in 2011. He's simply not cut out for the Prime Minister's job, which is now being echoed by Shi'a politicians including his former cabinet members.
They already have. The government couldn't even declare a state of emergency to face ISIS because the Sunnis and the Kurds didn't back the proposal. In addition to the countless sensitive positions they hold in the government, which meant Maliki had no real control over the army.
Out of curiosity, do you have the same position about the conflict in Eastern Ukraine?
Clearly in Iraq you think the fears of the minority is well justified, that Saudi Arabia has little to do with what's going on, and that it's all the central government's fault for not satisfying all the demands of the minority, and you think short of giving them their demands, one should accept the fact that they will form their own state. Is that the same position you have about the conflict in Eastern Ukraine?
The problem is, the Sunnis ask for ridiculous concessions. For example they were willing to reluctantly accept a Shia-dominated government so long as they had the defense portfolio - a ridiculous request considering a) The systematic torture, executions and imprisonment of Shias under Saddam and b) the fact they can just stage a coup. If these same people actively tried to get involved in rebuilding Iraq instead of throwing their toys out and embracing ISIS and Al Qaeda then I'd wager there'd be more efforts to incorporate them into the national political domain.
Didn't the Sunnis have the defense portfolios for years under Maliki ? Abdul Qader al-Obeidi ran the MoD and Babaker Zebari was the military chief of staff (Kurdish I know). How many coups were attempted during that period ?
Reuters: Israel told the United States on Thursday Kurdish independence in northern Iraq was a "foregone conclusion" and Israeli experts predicted the Jewish state would be quick to recognise a Kurdish state, should it emerge.
First of all, when they say Sunnis they really mean high ranked ex-Baathists. Their demands is to have hand-picked high ranked ex-Baathists in those sensitive positions, not just Sunnis. May be you can use the fact you just stated to ask those with the "marginalization" claims, how come they call the army "Al-Maliki army" and the "Safavid army" if the leaders were actually Sunnis?
Second, this was a semi-coup. The army forces in Mosul were 75% (or more) Sunnis. They got orders to withdraw and we saw what happened next. They used the same strategy to take Tikrit.
They would not be able to execute a full coup because the soldiers don't have much loyalty to their leaders, but what they can do is leave the army (or parts of the army) neutral and allow any other militia/force to invade areas in Iraq, by giving the necessary orders to the army that will mean the terrorists/militants will have a free way into the cities.
The whole plan was set earlier when they demanded that Al-Maliki crush the Shia militias (a few years ago), and he complied to reassure them. Of course their primary aim was to deny him the support of the militias when the army collapses. However, it looks like they fell just short, as he still managed to scramble enough forces to defend Baghdad, and regain relative control over the battle.
A few updates:
- 50 soldiers from the Iraqi army execute a successful commando operation (flown in by helicopters) to seize control over the University of Tikrit (north of Tikrit).
- The Iraqi army also entered Al-Alam town South of Tikrit.
- And by the way, the Baiji refinery (despite being "seized by ISIS" at least 10 times in the last week according to the BBC) is still until full control of the Iraqi security forces.
- Iraq has bought some used Sokhoi fighters from Russia and Belarus, and will be ready to use in coming days.
- 50 soldiers from the Iraqi army execute a successful commando operation (flown in by helicopters) to seize control over the University of Tikrit (north of Tikrit).
- The Iraqi army also entered Al-Alam town South of Tikrit.
- And by the way, the Baiji refinery (despite being "seized by ISIS" at least 10 times in the last week according to the BBC) is still until full control of the Iraqi security forces.
- Iraq has bought some used Sokhoi fighters from Russia and Belarus, and will be ready to use in coming days.
lol
That's hardly having the defense portfolio. And to echo Danny's point - a lot of these recent problems have occured due to senior Ba'athist officers in the military defecting and offering support to the ISIS, imagine the catastrophic consequences if this happened with them having control of the entire defence infrastructure.