ISIS in Iraq and Syria

I thought they adjourned without choosing a PM today. Where did you hear it will be decided in 15 min ?
 
Raoul said:
I thought they adjourned without choosing a PM today. Where did you hear it will be decided in 15 min ?
Click to expand...
I heard it a few hours ago, I'm being serious.
 
He claims the President has violated the constitution or something. I don't really understand Arabic.
 
Suli said:
He claims the President has violated the constitution or something. I don't really understand Arabic.
Click to expand...

Maliki claims that President Massoum violated the Iraqi constitution by not allocating the President last Thursday (which was the initial date the announcement was to be made), and now apparently he's dithered again. Maliki claims that under default prerogatives, the leader of the biggest party in the Iraqi government (the State of Law Coalition) should be by default selected Prime Minister (i.e. himself). Maliki is hence insinuating that the President has ulterior motives for delaying Maliki's allegedly impending announcement.
 
Kaos said:
Who? Massoum or Al Maliki? :p
Click to expand...
You know I met Fuad on Edgware road last month. I said Biji Kurdistan, shook his hand then we went our seperate ways.
 
Suli said:
You know I met Fuad on Edgware road last month. I said Biji Kurdistan, shook his hand then we went our seperate ways.
Click to expand...

Edgware Road? :lol:

I've noticed that he bears a striking resemblance to Furby:

_76485722_76485721.jpg


furby-2012.jpg
 
Raoul said:
Its not accurate to say the US funded ISIS. Even if they gave weapons to moderate anti-Assad factions in Syria, which then ended up with less moderate factions due to the chaos on the ground, that's not the same as deliberately as a policy choice giving weapons to them. Just the same as giving weapons to the late 70s Mujahideen in Afghanistan is not the same as funding or arming Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...
The US knew very well those weapons/money... will end up in ISIS' (terrorists) hands (hell everybody knew) and they still did it. It's not like they were "tricked" into doing it.. Just the same as they did in Afghanistan, but even worse.
 
Danny1982 said:
The US knew very well those weapons/money... will end up in ISIS' (terrorists) hands (hell everybody knew) and they still did it. It's not like they were "tricked" into doing it.. Just the same as they did in Afghanistan, but even worse.
Click to expand...

Of course they didn't. The Iraqi military were the beneficiaries of the weapons and no one at the time thought that a group like ISIS spring up rout the Iraqi military. In 2011, Al-Qaeda in Iraq were decimated courtesy of US operations and the Iraqi military were in a good position to keep security. It was the political mess in Baghdad that undercut the military and its ability to deal with the cross border insurgency from Syria.
 
Baghdad is a mess at the moment. Coup?
 
Raoul said:
Of course they didn't. The Iraqi military were the beneficiaries of the weapons and no one at the time thought that a group like ISIS spring up rout the Iraqi military. In 2011, Al-Qaeda in Iraq were decimated courtesy of US operations and the Iraqi military were in a good position to keep security. It was the political mess in Baghdad that undercut the military and its ability to deal with the cross border insurgency from Syria.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the weapons the US gave to the Iraqi army, clearly they're not to blame for those weapons. I'm talking here about the weapons/assistance they provided to the Syrian rebels which put ISIS (among other terrorist branches) in the position to control large swathes of territory in Syria, and now in Iraq.

I disagree about the political situation being the reason behind terrorism now in Iraq. There is not a single democratic country in the world where there are no political differences. In my opinion trying to blame this on anybody other than ISIS and the sectarian nature of Iraq is merely an attempt (deliberate or not) to give ISIS the political cover they need. The Kurds have always dreamt of independence, no matter what. The Baathists have always dreamt of undermining the political process and regaining power. Al-Qaeda's branches have always aimed to control as much territory as they can, regardless of any political situation.

The fact that the political differences led to the semi-collapse of a country is not a sign of a bad leader, but a sign of a weak and unstable country. There will always be differences, and if every time those differences lead to ISIS/terrorism knocking on the door of the country, or taking parts of it, then there is no country and there is no democracy.

You don't like Bush, and the Republicans hate Obama, but no one of you will put the whole country in danger just because you have some "political differences" with the current president of the country.

Having said that, I do think Maliki is incompetent in the military aspects, partly imo because he compromised too much with people who have no interest in the political process, and they only entered it to destroy it.
 
Danny1982 said:
I'm not talking about the weapons the US gave to the Iraqi army, clearly they're not to blame for those weapons. I'm talking here about the weapons/assistance they provided to the Syrian rebels which put ISIS (among other terrorist branches) in the position to control large swathes of territory in Syria, and now in Iraq.

I disagree about the political situation being the reason behind terrorism now in Iraq. There is not a single democratic country in the world where there are no political differences. In my opinion trying to blame this on anybody other than ISIS and the sectarian nature of Iraq is merely an attempt (deliberate or not) to give ISIS the political cover they need. The Kurds have always dreamt of independence, no matter what. The Baathists have always dreamt of undermining the political process and regaining power. Al-Qaeda's branches have always aimed to control as much territory as they can, regardless of any political situation.

The fact that the political differences led to the semi-collapse of a country is not a sign of a bad leader, but a sign of a weak and unstable country. There will always be differences, and if every time those differences lead to ISIS/terrorism knocking on the door of the country, or taking parts of it, then there is no country and there is no democracy.

You don't like Bush, and the Republicans hate Obama, but no one of you will put the whole country in danger just because you have some "political differences" with the current president of the country.

Having said that, I do think Maliki is incompetent in the military aspects, partly imo because he compromised too much with people who have no interest in the political process, and they only entered it to destroy it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that as well. The weapons were meant for moderate factions fighting against Assad. Obviously if those moderates get routed by more radical factions akin to ISIS, there's nothing that can be done about that. That's the nature of war.

The political situation in Iraq is widely held to be a driver of the disenfranchisement among Sunnis in large parts of the country, which has fed right into the hands of militants seeking to recruit fighters. The open border with Syria however, is still the biggest problem, which is why there can be no solution to the ISIS problem without solutions in both Baghdad and Damascus.

The best the US and a handful of allies can do, is strike ISIS targets from the air and let the Pesh and Iraqi military take care of them on the ground. That will get rid of most of them from Iraq. What Assad and other factions do across the border, is another story.
 
Raoul said:
I disagree with that as well. The weapons were meant for moderate factions fighting against Assad. Obviously if those moderates get routed by more radical factions akin to ISIS, there's nothing that can be done about that. That's the nature of war.

The political situation in Iraq is widely held to be a driver of the disenfranchisement among Sunnis in large parts of the country, which has fed right into the hands of militants seeking to recruit fighters. The open border with Syria however, is still the biggest problem, which is why there can be no solution to the ISIS problem without solutions in both Baghdad and Damascus.
Click to expand...
But that's not the main way these weapons "reached" ISIS. Many of those fractions are actually working with the terrorist branches ("under cover") and some even switched publicly to fight with ISIS (and Al-Nusra).

And even after the fall of Mosul, the US gave $500m (more) to the "moderate Syrian rebels"...
 
Danny1982 said:
But that's not the main way these weapons "reached" ISIS. Many of those fractions are actually working with the terrorist branches ("under cover") and some even switched publicly to fight with ISIS (and Al-Nusra).

And even after the fall of Mosul, the US gave $500m (more) to the "moderate Syrian rebels"...
Click to expand...

The two policies aren't related to one another. Its possible to be anti-Assad and fund moderate factions who are fighting him, whilst simultaneously being anti-ISIS and send jets in to destroy their positions in northern Iraq. The US obviously wants a middle ground of both Assad and Takfiri groups out of the equation in both countries.
 
Raoul said:
The two policies aren't related to one another. Its possible to be anti-Assad and fund moderate factions who are fighting him, whilst simultaneously being anti-ISIS and send jets in to destroy their positions in northern Iraq. The US obviously wants a middle ground of both Assad and Takfiri groups out of the equation in both countries.
Click to expand...
The problem is, those are the only two sides fighting in Syria, which is why toppling Assad through pumping money and weapons insides Syria was always a bad idea.
 
Danny1982 said:
The problem is, those are the only two sides fighting in Syria, which is why toppling Assad through pumping money and weapons insides Syria was always a bad idea.
Click to expand...
YPG don't come under either of those sides.
 
Danny1982 said:
The problem is, those are the only two sides fighting in Syria, which is why toppling Assad through pumping money and weapons insides Syria was always a bad idea.
Click to expand...

There have been quite a few different sides fighting in Syria since the civil war began. I do agree that its probably not a good idea to funnel weapons there now as none of the so called moderate factions are able to muster sufficient support to topple Assad, whilst simultaneously not getting overrun themselves by an ISIS like faction.
 
America is now directly providing weapons to the Peshmerga.
 
Boris Johnson article:

It would be an utter tragedy if we did not defend the Kurds
Kurdistan, an oasis of stability and tolerance in the Middle East, now faces Islamist slaughter

Like all the rest of us I have been looking with sickened disbelief at the changes in the map of northern Iraq, and the Ebola-like spread of the fanatics. It seems incredible that the disintegration should happen so fast.

It was only in May this year that we welcomed a dynamic and forward-looking young politician to City Hall in London. His name is Nechirvan Barzani, and he is the prime minister of the fledgling state of Kurdistan. He brought his finance guy, his transport minister, his tourism minister – the whole lot.

For about an hour we talked about the great Kurdish boom, and their plans to build ski resorts, hotels: how to put the place firmly on the map for the British tourist. We talked about how to beat traffic congestion and how London could help advise with transforming Erbil into the natural banking centre of the Middle East.

We ended pledging deeper cooperation, and the prime minister presented London with a lovely embroidered carpet and some scenes of Kurdistan (all duly registered), and I presented him with a copy of one of my books and some engraved whisky glasses, though I am not sure how much whisky they drink out there. I promised to come as soon as possible to inaugurate the ski slopes.

Now look at poor Kurdistan. Barely 20 miles from their prosperous capital the Kurds face one of the most horrible and brutal armies since the Middle Ages. The troops of the Islamic State are already in possession of the dam at the key Kurdish city of Mosul, with all the power that gives them over lives downstream on the Tigris.


They are killing, raping, beheading and burying alive. They are offering people the choice of converting to Islam or facing instant execution. They have so terrified the population of northern Iraq – with its patchwork of ethnic groups and faiths – that the minorities have fled for their lives. As of today, there are still tens of thousands camped out on bare hillsides, their children dying of thirst, in scenes of biblical horror.

We are watching a catastrophe unfold, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right in his instinct – that Britain must act, and that Britain must help. I know how people feel these days about getting involved in overseas conflicts. There is a deep weariness and cynicism that has entered the bones of the nation – a sense that we were all bamboozled by Blair over Iraq, and that we won’t be fooled again.

People will look at the tragedy of the Yazidi and the Christians, and they will reasonably ask why we are choosing to try to help here, when we decided in the end there was nothing we could do for the Syrians who were being massacred in Aleppo. People will ask, reasonably, why us, when we are only a medium-sized European power with an overstretched Army and a budget deficit of our own.

Public hesitations are entirely understandable; and yet I am certain that it is time to get involved, and to support the American-led operation. We have to act because this is a humanitarian crisis.

I have heard some people suggest that there is some kind of extra imperative here, because many of these persecuted folk are Christians, and therefore our official co-religionists. That strikes me as paradoxical, since the central message of Christ was surely that we should treat everyone as our neighbours – and that applies surely to the Yazidi, who believe in the Peacock Angel, as much as it does to Christians.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or Jew or a Muslim or a Yazidi. If you are facing the kind of genocide that seems to be underway in northern Iraq, you surely deserve whatever relief and protection we can provide.

Then we should help because we have a moral duty to that part of the world. It was the British who took the decision in the early Twenties to ignore the obvious ethnic divisions, and not to create a Kurdistan. (Indeed, on one notorious occasion the British actually used gas to suppress a Kurdish revolt.)

And it was a British decision to join in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and in the removal of Saddam Hussein; and pace Tony Blair, it is obvious to most sane and rational people (a category that seems not to include Blair) that one of the results of the end of Saddam and the Ba’athist tyranny has been the power vacuum in Iraq, and the incompetence that has allowed Isis to expand with such horrifying speed. The final reason why we should come to the aid of the Kurds and others is that it is in our interest to do so.

My old friend the Kurdish journalist Hazhir Teimourian used to tell me sorrowfully: “There is an old proverb – a Kurd has no friends.” I am not sure that is true any more. In the aftermath of the first Gulf war in 1991 the Kurds were driven into the mountains by the vengeful troops of Saddam. The people of Britain were appalled by their misery. John Major was so moved that he set up the no-fly zones that were the precursor to the modern state.

In the last few years the links between Britain and Kurdistan have been developing fast, with the first ministerial delegation from London arriving there two years ago. Standard Chartered Bank has established there, as well as many other firms. They are going not simply because Kurdistan has theoretically the sixth largest oil deposits in the world, but because the place is an oasis of stability and tolerance. They have a democratic system; they are pushing forward with women’s rights; they insist on complete mutual respect of all religions.

It would be an utter tragedy if we did not do everything in our power to give succour and relief to those who are now facing massacre and persecution, and to help repel the maniacs from one of the few bright spots in the Middle East.

Yes, we have got it wrong before; and yes, we cannot do everything. But that doesn’t mean we should collapse into passivity and quietism in the face of manifest evil. These people need our help.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-tragedy-if-we-did-not-defend-the-Kurds.html
 
Why does it take the supreme court to decide shoe bloc is the largest in the Iraqi Parliament?
 
Great news about getting 20,000 people off the mountain, ISIS seem to be suffering heavy enough losses too, the more I see in this thread about Kurdistan the more I like.
 
Kaos said:
None of the ISIS dogs in that video look or sound Iraqi. We're facing a different kind of occupation now.
Click to expand...
Don't forgot that the video is taken in Raqqa.
 
I have no idea what an Iraqi/Syrian sounds like compared to other Arabs, but the main guy in that video definitely didn't look like one. Neither did Dappy from the other video.
 
Suli post: 16226837 said:
I have no idea what an Iraqi/Syrian sounds like compared to other Arabs, but the main guy in that video definitely didn't look like one. Neither did Dappy from the other video.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't look Saudi or speak with a Libyan accent for starters.
 
Come on Kaos, you know I have no idea what a Libyan accent sounds like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.