I imagine that to be their current stance - 'Iraqi Kurdistan' to simply materialise into a sovereign 'Kurdistan' as their immediate starting point. They're a couple of years away from it at worst I'd wager.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
I imagine that to be their current stance - 'Iraqi Kurdistan' to simply materialise into a sovereign 'Kurdistan' as their immediate starting point. They're a couple of years away from it at worst I'd wager.
Iraq and Syria will be quite simple. Turkey and Iran will be incredibly difficult, especially if we don't go down the path of war.
Iran had is own wave of protests against the regime in recent years. Things could change fast in this country and the kurds might get their opportunity; getting any kind independence from Turkey will be impossible. Going down "the path of war" against them would be suicide. They will protect their territorial integrity with army and secret service.
Any half reasonable spots for military air bases in "Iraqi Kurdistan"?
It would be an absolute mess. Both would be the allies of America and the Kurds are likely to also have international support whilst Turkey are in NATO. What a mess.
The USA and any other NATO partner would hang the kurds out to dry. Countries like Brazil/SA might protest but couldnt do anything. Would be a very nasty and one sided fight. The Turkish government would crack down on any rebelling kurd with everything they have. Any kind of autonomy in turkey has to be the result of negotiations. The kurds have to establish a stable state in Iraq/Syria/Lebanon; that will give them some leverage and would allow them to rally official support behind this idea. Currently its completely out of reach.
No land in Lebanon, you mean Iran. Yeah I sort of agree with you, we don't currently have the military firepower to even sent Turkey properly.
Hopefully the current ceasefire with the PKK will lead to proper negotiations such as the release of Ocalan.
Hopefully the current ceasefire with the PKK will lead to proper negotiations such as the release of Ocalan.
Incidentally, today is the 30th anniversary of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. Biji PKK!
Absolutely shocking that this is being allowed in Britain. Thos 3 people are dangerous and imagine how many of such there must be in Britain. They should deport the 3 as soon as possible.
I thought that there are kurds in the north of Lebanon as well, but they are okay with it?
Iran is just about the right timing. Forcing anything before the regime is distracted by protests would be reckless. The next shock in foot prices/oil prices will challenge their current system.
Would be a good move to release Ocalan, because he seems to be a calming voice during the last 10 years, but I cant see it happening.
Iran is just about the right timing. Forcing anything before the regime is distracted by protests would be reckless. The next shock in foot prices/oil prices will challenge their current system.
Would be a good move to release Ocalan, because he seems to be a calming voice during the last 10 years, but I cant see it happening.
Kurds don't claim any territory in Lebanon. There are probably Kurds there but they're immigrants. The only connection to Lebanon is training camps for PKK soldiers a few decades ago.
Never ran into any Kurds there, but saw a good number of Armenians.
I guess my information is just wrong. "Spiegel" (=german version of "time" magazine) mentioned in an article about the Syrian war, that the Kurdish community in Lebanon has strong ties to the PYD and the PKK. They said, that they help them to get arms/ammunition.
Thats the problem, the government would rather put them in jails and monitor them. they should feck these guys off.
Any British national that goes off on some jihadist adventure should have their passports nullified tbh. Hopefully though they're all taken care of before they even get the chance to go home and spread their filth.
There's an age-old tradition of private citizens from the West fighting in foreign conflicts. For instance, the large contingents of men from Europe, Britain and America who fought on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, killing a lot of people in the process. It's not legal justification for revocation of citizenship or deportation.
I'm pretty sure US citizens who go abroad to fight for Al-Qaeda or similar groups will be arrested if they attempt to return to the states.
Since 9/11 the Americans are not playing by the normal rules. I'm not saying it's impossible to arrest people for committing criminal acts abroad - obviously that's not the case - but you can't pull people off the street and kick them out of the country because you don't like their politics.
its the same in europe. In 2002 and 2008 the European council passed two framework decision (2002/475/JI + 2008/919/JI) about terrorism. Specifically about people who travel abroad to get any kind of training that enables them to be a terrorist. Going abroad to fight is illegal anyway.
All european countries had to change their law according to this framework and most countries actually passed stricter laws. These laws dont get too much public attention, because only very few people get actually prosecuted with this laws, but they are highly controversial. Almost the complete juristic literature criticises these laws, because they "bend the constitution". They enable the police/prosecution to do things that usually shouldnt be allowed in a "Rechtsstaat".
e.g. if the police is investigating anyone on the basis of these laws, they are allowed to any kind of surveillance without any concrete evidence, that you actually did something wrong.
Al-Maliki has formally stepped down as the Iraqi PM and announced (in a press conference) his support for the nomination of Al-Ibadi for the PM position because of the delicate situation the country is going through. He also withdrew the appeal from the federal court (which is now pointless with him supporting Al-Ibadi).
Four Lions springs to mind.....
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/...-bomber-moner-mohammad-abusalha-in-syria.html
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/...-bomber-moner-mohammad-abusalha-in-syria.html
More US 'advisors', Cameron suggesting British and US troops here to stay, US weapon transfers doing a full circle.
This whole things turning very foul quickly. A couple of years after the US were told to withdraw from Iraq by Maliki, suddenly they're back in, Maliki has been forced from power, and the country looks to be fragmenting.
This whole things turning very foul quickly. A couple of years after the US were told to withdraw from Iraq by Maliki, suddenly they're back in, Maliki has been forced from power, and the country looks to be fragmenting.
It was obviously a mistake to ask the US to leave, as ISIS would never have swept into Iraq from Syria during the intervening years. Maliki was under extreme pressure from Iran and the Sadrists at the time, so its understandable he acted as he did, but in the end it came at a great cost to the stability of the nation he governed.
Very true.
All Iraqis were dancing in the streets with Maliki in power and IS overrunning the country. The arrival of American 'advisers' has spoiled everything.
Wajid?
ISIS another religious inspired death cult.
If the government has any testicles at all, they will monitor those who sympathise with these mass murderers and deport or imprison them. Obviously, the ones who are out shouldn't be let back in and they should be labeled traitors of the British values. IS stands for everything exactly opposite of what a free Western nation stands for.
If the government has any testicles at all, they will monitor those who sympathise with these mass murderers and deport or imprison them. Obviously, the ones who are out shouldn't be let back in and they should be labeled traitors of the British values. IS stands for everything exactly opposite of what a free Western nation stands for.
does it?
Traitors of the British values. Wow.
What are British values ?
If one pledges loyalty to the Islamic State, one pledges loyalty to a nation (Ummah) governed by the Quran and Sharia law.
ISIS fighters have openly and without blinkering said many times that they do not recognise the values for which Britain and other Western countries stand for. They despise our values.
ISIS does not recognise universal human rights, they only recognise what the Quran tells them.
They do not treat anyone who is non-muslim equally. As a Christian you need to either pay a tax (Jizya) or convert. If you don't do either, you will be executed. This is per Sharia law, and this is applied in the current Islamic Caliphate. Atheists, they don't even get a choice, you can guess what happens to them.
They hate non-muslims, yet they love coming to our countries to take advantage of our good health care system, our benefits and - ironically - our freedom.
I'm not British, but I'm sure that the Dutch share a lot of common values with you guys. And I can assure you that Islam here causes the exact same problems it causes elsewhere in the free West.
The Netherlands is 50+% agnostic / atheist. I'm an Atheist. And I'm sick and tired of these religious cretins demanding a lot and giving back nothing.
If you think that these fanatics share anything alike British values, then I'm sorry to say, you're terribly pc and deluded.
So you don't want Muslims to be muslims
Listen, they can be whoever they want to be. That's the beauty of Freedom.
However, they clearly don't want us to be who we are. And they will strive until the end of their existence to do something about it. That's called Jihad. IS openly says they want their borders to expand until the whole World is ruled under Sharia law and the Quran.
So we have a problem here, don't we?
I think western countries have a major problem in the future if nothing is done to tackle isis now. Right now they're seen as animals, thugs etc but if they get more land and create a stable region then in 5/10 years time they will be regarded as a somewhat legitimate state imo and that's when western countries really have a problem.
The region was fine, until Western incompetence (or perhaps wilfully so) destablised the entire area by trying to topple dictatorships. 80% of the rebels in Syria are not Syrian anymore. They are foreign mercenaries, or in Islamic terms "Muhajideen" fighting to create an Islamic Caliphate.
Libya was relatively fine, now it is just another hot mess of extremism causing mayhem and anarchy. Syria the same, it was one of the safest places for religious minorities under the Assad regime. Now entire ancient Christian villages have been cleansed by Sunni Muslim militants. Ahmadi and Shiite muslims are also routinely slaughtered by ISIS / Sunni Muslims and the whole area is a mess.
Even in The Netherlands we hear about the radical, fanatical Sunni Muslim clerics in the United Kingdom who incite hatred and anger against anyone not being Sunni Muslim.
I agree with you. IS needs to be dealt with now. The question is, though, if our political correct governments can sever the shackles of this PC disease and actually do something about it before it's too late.
No way will an organisation as brutal as ISIS manage to establish a semi-stable state in such an oil rich part of the world. Even getting to the point where they're as 'stable' as Al-Shabab would be incredible.
80% of Mosul Dam is in peshmerga control! ISIS are retreating from their positions.
It would be nice if the US would put as much emphasise on fighting ISIS elsewhere as they do when it concerns their oil and contractors.
They let the "Caliph" Baghdadi flee into ISIS controlled lands in Syria and Obama openly said he wouldn't bomb them there. Even though ISIS massacres minorities over there too (ISIS massacred 700 tribes members.)
Oil and contractors has nothing to do with it. The US has Embassies and Consulates in Iraq, which after Benghazi, means there's a sensitivity of something similar happening again. Also, it just finished an 8 year war and doesn't want to see the effort and investment unravel because of ISIS.
Baghdadi is apparently in Mosul (or at least he was), but has probably since scampered back across the border into Syria, safely out of range of US fighter jets. The US is more than likely not going to bomb Syria because of the geo-political implications and the opposition to the Assad regime.
Not just that, but the rise of extremism in some Western European countries is an equally worrying problem. British jihadists ffs!
Nah son. It has most certainly to do with it as well as the embassies and the consulates. I'm sorry, but you're not going to fool me that oil in Iraq Kurdistan has nothing to do with it.
Anything the US really does in the Middle East has to do with securing Oil interest and creating puppet regimes as well as keeping the Military Industrial Complex gaining revenue through perpetual war.
It's not like the US hasn't tried to influence politics anywhere else in the world with covert operations and in some cases overt. Just a few that pop to my mind: Afghanistan, arming the then Muhadjeen lead by Osama bin Laden - trained and armed by the CIA - to fight off the Soviets. But also, Iraq (twice), Vietnam, Chile (toppling of left-wing Allende and installing fascist Pinochet), well in fact, according to one source: America has invaded 70 countries since its 4th of July Independence Day in 1776.
Interesting they claim to be fighting these savages but only localised and they don't care that these same savages massacre minorities in Syria.