Muslin country
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
Those damn yanks and their hunger for oil.
*sigh*
Who are they dropping them for? The Kurds? Yezidis? Iraqis? ISIS?
God...I've just looked at some of the pictures/videos emerging from IS held territory...
This is what the world should be talking about/intervening in. I know the west is war weary, and middle east-weary, but surely there is more we could be doing. At the very least we should provide air/logistics/training support to the forces opposing IS.
This is what the world should be talking about/intervening in. I know the west is war weary, and middle east-weary, but surely there is more we could be doing. At the very least we should provide air/logistics/training support to the forces opposing IS.
Last edited:
The Kurdish Yezidis stuck on the mountains.
Two more F16s flew over Gwer and conducted air strikes on ISIS. Nobody seems to be taking responsibility.
So US can offer air support and drop humanitarian aid in Iraq but not in Syria where thousands of civilians are under siege and getting butchered by Assad's thugs and IS.
This is one of those damned if you do situations isn't it?
1) America have staff in Erbil
2) Russia won't allow anything in Syria
3) Easier to help allies in Kurdistan than to drop aid in Syria where nobody is an actual ally of America.
4) America are directly involved in Iraq due to the 2003 war, no similarities with Syria.
If its F16s its either the Turks or the Yanks.....or the Israelis.
Or Saudi
Our approach to Iraq beggars belief: When the Iraqis wanted us to go in 1994 we didn't go. Then when they didn't want us to go in 2003 we went. Now they are asking for help again and we're like 'umm...maybe...err...'
Our approach to Iraq beggars belief: When the Iraqis wanted us to go in 1994 we didn't go. Then when they didn't want us to go in 2003 we went. Now they are asking for help again and we're like 'umm...maybe...err...'
Situational of course. Had they come to Iraq's aid in 1994 a Shia government would have likely surfaced which would undeniably be pro-Iran, can't be having that. In 2003, Bush, Cheney and their mafia had decided they'd channel the post 9/11 hysteria to start profitable wars in the Middle East, after giving Saddam chemical weapons to go to war with Iran 15 years earlier.
It has to suit the US' foreign policy for intervention to be feasible. What the civilians actually want is immaterial.
C'mon ! Israel (and their allies) would be all for ISIS to justify their presence even more in the region as the only democracy against those bloodthirsty muslims and colonize more and more.
Its a sad reality. US has nothing to gain from Syria so have decided to stay out it of while civilians are getting murdered in hundreds with each passing day, while in Iraq their Maliki lead government in Iraq is coming under increasing pressure from IS and their recent advances so they've decided to act.
What exactly are many Syrians civilians who are under siege and in middle of humanitarian crisis supposed to think when they see the air support mobilised for Iraq by the US and Turkey so quickly and not for them...
I haven't had chance to read up on Isis or whatever they're calling themselves now. Are they yet another offshoot of the thugs that spread from the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
The Syrian rebels are receiving millions of dollars worth of weapons and high grade munitions from the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Thats arms supply that Syrian rebels are getting it.
What about thousands of Syrian civilians who are under siege by Assad's regime (using starvation as a weapon of war) and require urgent humanitarian aid, where many childrens have already died due to lack of malnutrition ?
Western regimes don't care for civilians, only for the end game political ramifications.
Why are attesting all civilian suffering to Assad? What about the thousands of Christians, Alawaites and secularists murdered by the rebels? Or many more caught up in FSA terrorist attacks?
Why would they bomb the people they're funding
According to VidaRed Israel is also on the ISIS side.
Werent some people saying that CIA, Saudi, Mossad and whatever else was funding/training ISIS? Wuts guin on then
BBC: RAF to drop aid in the coming days, America have also confirmed that they launched strikes on ISIS.
Why would they bomb the people they're funding
If we find a replacement for oil then no more worries about Islamic terrorists since no oil no money and no money no guns, I believe the Saudis are behind this new group like they were with al Qaida and for some reason I have more sympathy for the Iranians people than the Saudis and if they were able to keep their religion inside the mosques only then they would be a valid and strong presence in the region. The hatred for Israel I really don't understand why because they use history to try to claim their lost empire.
barros 16211022 said:
Agreed. The Iranians are a beacon of secularity compared to the Saudi wahabi pestilence.
Where have I attested all civilian suffering to Assad ? If you read my post in reply to Raoul you'd see I mentioned both the Syrian regime as well as IS. War crimes have been committed by both the sides, but majority of them has been by Assad and his thugs.
French fighter jets have taken off from their Jordanian air base and are heading to Iraq.
Is it basically like a Baghdadi and friends vs Obama and friends now?
Good post. The damage in Syria is clearly down to both sides.
So some christians get stuck on a hill and now the USA decides to get involved?
Are the Yazidis Christians ?
More to do with the fact that they are Kurds, who are a very secular, modern and US friendly people.
But people will find fault with this humanitarian intervention as well of course, simply because it's the US.
Mind blowing isn't it. Don't do anything, get criticized. Do something, get criticized.
Yes, I've heard many people these past few weeks who are usually extremely critical of the US sarcastically say things to the tune of "so where are the US now?" regarding the ISIS situation. And when the US does intervene they try their best to find other underlying motives. Annoying and tiresome.
There is no other motive to this intervention than that America wants to help and rescue their friends and allies from ISIS (and even if there was, that wouldn't make it wrong, just somewhat less admirable). Give credit when it's due, or you lose all credibility in my view.
I think it has to do with the domestic perception that Obama has been "leading from behind". There's a lot of pressure for him to be pro-active after having not done much militarily with the likes of Syria and Libya, as well as having received criticism in the states for not negotiating an extension in Iraq (which was out of his hands, as it was down to internal politics in Iraq). Obviously, the quick emergence of ISIS is a red line as it would allow for vast swath of land within Iraq and Syria to plot terrorist acts abroad, as well as result on genocidal behavior in Iraq, Syria, and who knows elsewhere.
Hundred of ISIS fighters killed by air strikes in the past few hours.