ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Yes it has been on the news here in the US
@Danny1982 what is the Turkish army up to in Iraq right now?
Russian Navy Finds Victims of Terrorist Groups Floating in Syrian Waters.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950720000375
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950720000375
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950720000356
According to the sources, the terrorists feel frightened after people hoisted Syrian flags in al-Halak Fauqani region in a show of support for the Damascus army and after the army approached western regions from the East and from Bostan Pasha region and started extensive detentions in the area.
Concurrent with the Syrian army's advance against the terrorist groups in the city of Aleppo, women of the Eastern districts of the city held protest rallies against the terrorist groups with the Syrian flags in their hands.
Local sources reported from Eastern Aleppo that women in al-Salehin, al-Marja, al-Ferdos and Bab al-Nayyer staged rallies to protest at the terrorists after the latter blocked the path of the civilian population who intended to escape to the army-controlled areas in Western and Eastern Aleppo through safe corridors.
The Syrian Army General Command announced on Wednesday that it will reduce airstrikes and shelling attacks on Eastern Aleppo to allow civilians to leave the city's besieged areas still controlled by militants groups.
"The command of the army made a decision to reduce the number of aerial and artillery strikes against terrorists' positions to help the civilians trapped in the city to leave for safer regions," the Syrian Army's statement said.
Aleppo has seen intense fighting over the past few months, with the Syrian army and popular forces managing to encircle large groups of militants in the Eastern districts of the city.
The Syrian army also said in order to prevent bloodshed and avoid more destruction, it gives militants in Aleppo’s Eastern neighborhoods an additional opportunity to benefit from amnesty decree and settle their status, or hand over their weapons and leave with their families.
The General command added in the statement that “We call on all gunmen in the Eastern neighborhoods not to wait for any assistance from any one as all supplying routes became cut off and there is no chance for them, but handing over their weapons.”
According to the sources, the terrorists feel frightened after people hoisted Syrian flags in al-Halak Fauqani region in a show of support for the Damascus army and after the army approached western regions from the East and from Bostan Pasha region and started extensive detentions in the area.
Concurrent with the Syrian army's advance against the terrorist groups in the city of Aleppo, women of the Eastern districts of the city held protest rallies against the terrorist groups with the Syrian flags in their hands.
Local sources reported from Eastern Aleppo that women in al-Salehin, al-Marja, al-Ferdos and Bab al-Nayyer staged rallies to protest at the terrorists after the latter blocked the path of the civilian population who intended to escape to the army-controlled areas in Western and Eastern Aleppo through safe corridors.
The Syrian Army General Command announced on Wednesday that it will reduce airstrikes and shelling attacks on Eastern Aleppo to allow civilians to leave the city's besieged areas still controlled by militants groups.
"The command of the army made a decision to reduce the number of aerial and artillery strikes against terrorists' positions to help the civilians trapped in the city to leave for safer regions," the Syrian Army's statement said.
Aleppo has seen intense fighting over the past few months, with the Syrian army and popular forces managing to encircle large groups of militants in the Eastern districts of the city.
The Syrian army also said in order to prevent bloodshed and avoid more destruction, it gives militants in Aleppo’s Eastern neighborhoods an additional opportunity to benefit from amnesty decree and settle their status, or hand over their weapons and leave with their families.
The General command added in the statement that “We call on all gunmen in the Eastern neighborhoods not to wait for any assistance from any one as all supplying routes became cut off and there is no chance for them, but handing over their weapons.”
Syrian government controls the entire coast, how are these bodies making their way into the Med?
No idea. Do you think it's SAA killing them and dumping bodies in the water?
Since it's Farsnews I'd question whether such bodies exist at all.
A British journalist reveals the gigantic media disinformation on Aleppo:
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
The US might as well serve as ISIS' air support at this point ffs.US helps ISIS in another "accidental" air strike in Iraq.
http://anonhq.com/us-helps-isis-another-accidental-air-strike-20-anti-isis-fighters-killed-iraq/
This, along with Turkey slowing everything down in Mosul makes you question if this coalition wants ISIS defeated.
I wonder if this guy ever gets tired of his own bullshit.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...tted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/
In Secret Goldman Sachs Speech, Hillary Clinton Admitted No-Fly Zone Would “Kill a Lot of Syrians”
Also:
So, she knows. But then why is she continuing to push for a no-fly zone to "save Allepo's babies?"
In Secret Goldman Sachs Speech, Hillary Clinton Admitted No-Fly Zone Would “Kill a Lot of Syrians”
Also:
So, she knows. But then why is she continuing to push for a no-fly zone to "save Allepo's babies?"
I don't see her pushing for a no fly zone by the time she's in the Oval Office.
Here are things they don't show on BBC and CNN.
This seems like the type of rhetoric (and militia) that the operation for Mosul could do without:
Well that's nice. We're all responsible for Hussein's death because, just because.
Can't handle that. I've got a 5 year old, breaks my heart to think what people have to go through and nothing is achieved from it.
Which part are you exactly talking about? What rhetoric?
Why you? Are you an ISIS idiot who murdered and displaced every single minority in Mosul?
I don't understand the connection to be honest between what's said and what you're trying to say.
They're trying to pretend they fought ISIS, and try to control who replaces them, as they realised that their ISIS card has failed and they're destined to be defeated in Mosul. Nothing surprising there.
Did you listen to the sermon? The cleric referred to Sunnis as a whole when describing the killers of Hussain, he wants to kill Sunnis as vengeance for what happened hundreds of years ago.
The speech (or the selected parts shown here) is framed around the defining event in Shi'i sectarian history, which happened in 680. No ISIS or Wahhabis around back then. Framing the coming battle as vengeance against a dynasty, the Umayyads, who Sunni Muslims regard as acceptably legitimate, and furthermore describing them as the enemies of humanity, is obviously unhelpful given the dynamics of the current state of play in Iraq.
There is nothing said about "Sunnis" in the video. There are a lot of other videos where the Shia militia leaders talk about Sunnis (in a very different way). If I say "These are the people who did 9/11!", would I also mean than you did 9/11? No I'd mean the 'ISIS' we're fighting in Mosul have the same ideology and mentality as the ones who did 9/11.
This is a really poor attempt, especially considering he was clearly talking specifically about ISIS and the fighters that follow their ideology. There was nothing said about "Sunnis".
The connection with the history wasn't started by anybody other than the Wahhabis. Here is an examples for you.
Listen to the what Zahran Alloush is saying. He is saying it himself.
And by the way, here, unlike your video, he's threatening and talking explicitly about all the Shia, while in your video, he was only talking about people like Alloush.
EDIT: I removed the second video because you could argue these are not "leaders".
Last edited:
He claimed that during the battle for Mosul they'll be fighting the descendants of the enemies of Hussein.
What has the Battle of Karbala got to do with Mosul? Who were the enemies of Hussein?
The Wahhabis have been around for 250 years, the mutual sectarian polemics predate them by centuries. Agreed they have been probably the most vicious sectarians since their emergence, but they feed upon a long tradition of sectarian rhetoric.
And Jaysh al-Islam and all the other Sunni groups who evoke clearly sectarian imagery and rhetoric are part of the problem as well.
That is exactly what Alloush said. We will kill the Shia like Banu Umayyah destroyed their heads. That's what they're publicly saying.
The ones whom Alloush want to destroy the Shia heads like they did.
Are you trying to argue that the people who lived 1000 years ago are dead now? Yeah we know. Those who plotted and executed 9/11 are also dead, but I can also say these are the ones who did 9/11, as they carry the same intentions and ideology. In this case there is nothing that he made up, they themselves say that they're the sons of Banu Amayyah and want to destroy the heads of the Shia like they did in the past. I don't understand where you're going with this. Are you trying to pretend that he said "Sunnis" or talked generally (like Alloush said), which didn't happen, so you keep orbiting about something that wasn't said and try to give the impression that it was actually said?
It depends on what you mean by sectarian. True there are a lot of fights in the history, but if somebody is limiting them to the parties involved in the conflicts, then that's history. If you're talking generally about Shia and Sunnis, then you're sectarian.
These are not Sunni groups. There are a lot of Sunnis who can live with other religions/sects and don't want to destroy the Shia heads.
If you're talking about the Wahhabi groups, then they're the root of the problem, not just part of it. We can sit all day long talk about the reactions to their actions, what happened after 9/11, the French laws against Muslims, the new Xenophobia in Europe and the US, the reactions of all the minorities to the "Syrian rebels", ... but is these are not the root of the problem. Nobody said Wahhabism is the only problem in the world, and that we shouldn't solve other problems, but putting those problems on par with the root of all these problems is very inaccurate.
Why do you keep bringing alloush up? I'm pretty sure neither 2cent nor myself have ever been backers of his rhetoric from the start of the conflict.
Are you suggesting that the "enemies of Hussein" "carry the same intentions and ideology" as the Wahhabis?
You know Muhammad ibn 'abd al-Wahab died in 1792 right?
I honestly don't know what to make of the rest of your post, beyond the fact that you seem incapable of understanding how this kind of rhetoric is perceived among certain communities.
His whole post is mind boggling, don't understand why he can't just accept the sectarian nature of the comments.
This whole Wahabi rhetoric is getting tiresome too, modern day so called 'Wahabis' (they don't call themselves this) are very apolitical you just have to read modern fatwas by their scholars on political issues and this also conveniently suits the Saudi monarchy as otherwise there would be armed rebellions constantly in the country. It just goes to show how much people know little about modern jihadi groups where everything is the fault of the 'Wahabis'. The modern extreme Islamic groups are Salafi-Takfiri groups who really originated from Sayyid Qutb's ideas, who wasn't a Wahabi. As Saudi Arabia is seen as the home of 'Wahabis' it is strange how this strand of Islam can be in cahoots with the current militant groups who say the Saudi Wahabi scholars are munafiqs and 'scholars for dollars'.
My position is this - modern-day Salafi-Jihadis represent the coming together of Wahhabi social conservatism, shariah-mindedness, and sectarian bigotry with Muslim Brotherhood-style political action, with its obsession with capturing state power, pan-Islamic sentiments, and the caliphate. The two came together in the 1960s when Brotherhood members fleeing Nasser's repression in Egypt found refuge in Saudi Arabia (inc. Sayyid Qutb's brother Muhammad who is said to have lectured to bin Laden among others). The Wahhabi element has never provided the political program for these groups, but it explains the obsession with implementing the Shari'a and with sectarian enemies. The Brotherhood and its South Asian counterpart the JI were originally non-sectarian and didn't emphasize immediate implementation of the shari'a - and they were partly inspired by European fascist movements of the 1930s. In any case focusing on 'Wahhabism' over all else obscures the fact that similar reformist movements have appeared at various times in various places throughout history that had no relation to 18th Najd.
Can't say I disagree with much of what you wrote, as you said it's fusion of different ideas which has brought about the current day Salafi Jihadists, and this is the point I was trying to make just to blame Saudi Wahabis is an ignorant position to take. You put it across a lot better than me in your post.
Last edited:
Because he's one of the people he was referring to in the video. Me referring to him has nothing to do your positions about him, it's just to show you that the people he was referring to in the video actually not only admit, but publicly declare what he's saying (literally). He didn't make anything up, he didn't generalise, and he didn't accuse anybody of something he didn't publicly declare himself.
In this respect (the extermination of Shia) yes. That's exactly what Alloush is saying.
What rhetoric? There is a group of people who are saying: "Let's go and destroy the Shia heads like Banu Umayyah did", and then you have somebody saying: "Let's fight those who want to kill us like Banu Umayyah did". Where is the rhetoric? (By the way, Banu Umayyah is a political regime, not a religious one, just like Assad for example.)
I think you're trying too hard to reach a point that you simply can't reach with this video. Let me help you out. If you're looking for a Shia saying things comparable with what the Wahhabis say then these two names are what you're looking for: Yasser Alhabib and Hasan Allahyari. However, both are pretty much unknowns that nobody cares about, and both were expelled from their countries and aren't allowed any activity in them, and one of them is living in the UK now and the other in the US. And this actually shows you the difference. When nobody is supporting you and funding you with endless money, then you can't go far with your sectarian rhetoric.
Nobody has said that the extremist ideology didn't exist before the 18th century. We're talking about the form it has taken in our age. The Wahhabis didn't "invent" extremism. However, they're the ones adopting it in our age.
How does Wahhabism allow the fabulous wealth and opulence of the House of Saud?
There's nothing in the religion that says you can't be wealthy. Plus ultimately imo the house have more authority and the final say than the religious advisors.
Why are you talking like this guy is responding directly to Zahran Alloush? The only one going on about Alloush here is you.
ISIS have vowed to exterminate everyone, including any Sunnis, who disagree with or oppose them, so how is that comparable with, as Sunnis see it, a 7th century political dispute over the caliphate? Unless you're unable to see beyond a particularly Shi'i worldview?
He describes the Umayyads (without directly referencing them) as the enemies of humanity. For Sunnis this will be perceived entirely differently. For Sunnis comparing the Umayyads to ISIS is so out of whack that it can only be taken to refer to Sunnis themselves. Sunnis don't really care about the Battle of Karbala beyond a respectful mourning for the Ahl al-bayt, for them it was an unfortunate political dispute over the caliphate that they soon moved on from. As imperfect as the Umayyad dynasty was, for most Sunnis their achievements - especially their consolidation and expansion of the early caliphate - are still a source of pride. So for someone to claim them as the forefathers of ISIS is an obvious dig at one of the sources of Sunni pride and even identity.
There are many other episodes or groups one might refer to in advance of a battle against ISIS - the Kharijis (the killers of 'Ali), the Mongols, etc. - which carry no sectarian connotations. Why invoke the Umayyads and Karbala if not to appeal to a distinctly Shi'i mindset?
I'm not (although I believe I've previously posted a video of one of those guys you mention in a different thread). Sectarian discourse comes in many guises, the explicit Wahhabi-style rhetoric is just one form it can take. In other cases the references are more subtle, much is implicitly understood, and often the sectarianism will be in the eye of the beholder, especially since few people can admit their own sectarianism. Sunnis are very aware of the significance of Karbala for the Shi'a.
A Shi'i militia invoking the Battle of Karbala and the descendants of Yazid during the time of Ashura in advance of a battle to take a largely Sunni city in the midst of major sectarian problems across the region is so obviously part of this discourse that I find it difficult to understand how you don't see it. The fact that three members of this forum understood it in that way immediately should say enough. Safe to say that many Sunnis waiting in Mosul will probably see it similarly.
Consider the final paragraph of this article I posted a while back - http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/26/the-once-and-future-mosul/:
"..Mosul’s Sunnis will not embrace the rituals of Ashura, and Shi‘a from Karbala will not accept “Ta-ra-weeh” prayers during Ramadan. Mosul does not await the Hidden Imam, and Najaf does not consider “Mu‘awiyah” a reverent companion of the prophet. These communal convictions will not change, and need not change. Until Iraqis realize that such differences are manageable, it would be wise not to raise banners that tout Al-Hussein’s vengeance in the center of Mosul. “Liberation” might then be confused for “subjugation.” Instead of injecting sectarian triumphalism into a dynamic situation, it would be much better to keep the focus on the Islamic State’s failure to win over Moslawis, and so let “the Caliphate” be Mosul’s final “Never Again.”"
Yet you've been going on about them as the 'root' of extremism.
Shi'i worldview? You heard Alloush himself describe what the Ummayyads did as "massacring the Shia". What Shi'i worldview?
The Umayyads are a political regime, and there many Sunnis who are actually against them, and many who just accept them. It has nothing to do with religion. Do some love them? Yes, and I know some also love Saddam, and some love Assad, so? You shouldn't talk about them too? When Alloush says the Umayyads massacred the Shia it's ok (for those who get mad), but when somebody else say the same thing it's not ok? Why choose another example, they themselves compare themselves to the Umayyads, and consider massacring the Shia as one of their great achievements.
To be honest I don't know where exactly you stand in this one: Do you deny as a historical fact that the Umayyads massacred the Shia? Or do you acknowledge that fact but you think some will get mad if they hear it (regardless of who says it)? Or do you acknowledge it and you think that some will find it ok if people like Alloush says it but not ok if the Shia say it? Where exactly is the problem?
And by the way, Alloush is just an example, but he doesn't only represent himself. He represents the whole Wahhabi line of our days, regardless of the name it uses.
I agree that they need to give the sense of sectarian unity, but they're already doing that. You can check the official videos and publications of the PMU, they always stress on sectarian unity. Why do you selectively post a video that you're trying to interpret the way you want to, but not tens of other videos where they openly and without any interpretations needed talk about the Sunnis and about sectarian unity?
In fact, it amazes me how Iraq is still holding it together after what Al-Qaeda and ISIS has been doing in the last 13 years. Compare that to a couple of incidents that happened in Europe and the US and look what kind of reaction it drew. People in Iraq deserve unbelievable credit for keeping the country together (so far) despite this:
But instead of giving them credit, you try to pick up selective videos and interpret them the way you want just to 'balance distributing the blame' in a conflict where it's very clear who the aggressor is.
... in our days.
Danny1982 said:
I've never said they had something to do with religion for Sunnis - I've said most Sunnis regard their reign as imperfect, but many take pride in certain aspects of that period. And I've said that they see Karbala as a political not religious conflict. The problem is....
The Shi'i view, or at least the view of this guy in the video, is the opposite - that the Umayyads were the 'enemies of humanity', and that Karbala represents the ultimate clash of good and evil. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a particular Shi'i reading and understanding of Islamic history.
Sunnis know this. They might not have heard of Zahran Alloush or give a shite about any of the other dozens of Sunni sectarian groups. But in Iraq at least they'll know exactly what Karbala means to the Shi'a and when they hear this guy talking about taking vengeance on the enemies of Hussein at Mosul they'll be wondering, quite naturally, what the feck that has to do with ISIS. ISIS themselves will have an explanation ready at hand.
'Interpret the way I want' - we all do that (what else can we do?), you're doing it yourself. But I'm clearly not alone, as two others here immediately interpreted it similarly, or try this guy - http://angryarab.blogspot.ie/2016/10/the-sectarian-shiites-militias-of-iraq.html?m=1
"The video of Qays Al-Khaz`ali, of `Asa'ib Ahl-Haqq, says it all. He spoke in blatant sectarian terms about the battle of Mosul and talked about the enemy as "descendants of Yezid", and talk about avenging Husayn. Those grotesque sectarian militias (of Sunnis and Shi`ites) were all midwived by the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Or this guy:
As for why would I post it? Because I fear this is exactly the kind of thing that threatens to undermine the type of unity needed. I want to see Mosul liberated, and like you I think it might happen quite quickly once we get underway. But I worry about the aftermath and the capacity of the forces involved to ensure that ISIS don't return.
You're basically saying we should only post positive things about any aspect of the fight against ISIS, and you seem to see any kind of concerns expressed about anyone fighting them as an attempt to draw an equivalence with them. All I've actually done is describe this kind of rhetoric as 'unhelpful'. That's hardly saying it's the same as anti-Shi'i genocidal statements (and by the way, I've previously written on this forum that I find much of the anti-Shi'i rhetoric currently prevalent across the Sunni world to border on genocidal).
But I don't see all this in such stark black and white terms as you. I can accept that the militias making up the PMU are nowhere near as bad as ISIS while acknowledging that sectarian rhetoric like this plays into a particular Sunni narrative of victimhood and dispossession currently resonating across the region (I happen to think this narrative is objectively false, but that hardly matters).
Rebel shelling? Surely not. Thought the US backed 'moderates' were the good guys here.
Just a piece of gossip but I distinctly remember reading about it a few years ago.