Not verified yet.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
It's abhorrent whatever the reason or whoever the victim. It's despairing that there will be people viewing such material as inspiring rather than extremely disturbing.
True
Air strikes in Syria coming from Turkey. Possible US-Turkish operation.
Apparently they have a British hostage as well, called David Haines. Don't think he will have much chance of living, unfortunately.
His mother had one last attempt to save him last week. I had hoped it would work but by looks of it, it has not.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/world/meast/isis-sotloff-mother-plea/
If they didn't have air strikes to blame, there would be something else. 
The semantics of war is so interesting, I think the British were the best at using the word terrorism as a disarming phrase for the IRA in the late 1970s. It has become a buzzword for dismissing guerrilla warfare. Not making this point in relation to ISIL btw, more because I saw the Peshmerga labelled terrorists in that reddit thread.
Look at this graph of the evolution of the word:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=terrorism&year_start=1800&year_end=2024&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,terrorism;,c0
Propganda and language games at their finest.
Look at this graph of the evolution of the word:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=terrorism&year_start=1800&year_end=2024&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,terrorism;,c0
Propganda and language games at their finest.
Would someone care to explain briefly what has gone down here and what started this etc. I've been trying to follow whats going on but keep getting lost really.
I keep seeing 'Missing Libyan Jetliners Raise Fears of Suicide Airliner Attacks on 9/11' on twitter.
Anyone think anything will happen?
Anyone think anything will happen?
Just been reading about that, the timing is certainly interesting...
Steve Sotfloff has been beheaded by ISIS. Video released
The US dropped leaflets earlier telling citizens to stay away from IS bases and stuff.
What a nice world we live in...
It makes me sick that my daughter will have to grow up hearing shit like this on the news every day.
It makes me sick that my daughter will have to grow up hearing shit like this on the news every day.
I'd suggest recommending she avoid the news.
Sadly it would'nt surprise me if they've killed all the hostages weeks ago and are now just slowly releasing the footage.
I hope Turks stay out of this. Any intervention from them and there is a possibility that IS initiate revenge attacks on their soil. Last thing we need is another country engulf in shitty situation in already destabilize region.
Would have thought US airspace will be under heavy guard, especially around that time. I'd be surprised if they managed to do it without being intercepted first.
The balls in the US's court, swallow their pride and start fighting alongside the Iraqi army and Assad.
Well of course like much of history the situation here is complex and has a long and textured point of origin, I will give you a summary as best I can:
The middle east is a region which was, like all of the world outside of Europe, colonised by European forces. The borders of the Middle East are essentially makeshift, and Iraq was a state founded by the Sykes-Picot agreement by France and Britian. This artificial drawing of boarders means that in many middle eastern regions there is a mixture of different race, religions and creeds. Iraq sits at the forefront of such nations, with a minority Sunni, Majority Shi'ite Muslim demographic. Not to mention Kurds, Yazidis etc.
This scenario is something which has caused civil wars all over the post-colonial world. What makes the Middle East more prominent is the level of interference it has received in its post-colonial era. It has been subject to constant disruption, puppetry and occupation by Western Nations and many postulate the reasons as to why. Some would say that Oil makes the region geo-politically relevant, others that places like America have a perceived duty to Israel and will therefore destablise the region as much as possible.
Over the years there have been many oppressive, regressive Islamic regimes that have sprung up in the region and which have been supported by the Americans (at least in their preliminary stages) such as the Shah of Iran. These were regimes which stood against values of individual rights, and were puritanical and despotic in their views of leadership. Yet they were allowed to thrive and were supported for reasons we can only speculate on, though one would assume it was for some sort of financial or political gain.
Anyway lets skip to Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a Sunni and by virtue of the fact that Iraq was majority Sh'ite he ruled with an iron fist to keep power. An inevitability in an artificial state. Unfortunately the will to power in a state which is not self-determined and is made up of many sects is through use of oppression. Under Saddam, and with oil, the nation of Iraq thrived. Saddam now harbored expansionist aims. Typically the Americans supported him (armed him) as he went into invade Iran (no longer friends with the US). This was in spite of the fact that Saddam was clearly no saint. Eventually this American foreign policy changed when Saddam entered Kuwait with his expansionist aims and the first Gulf War kicked off.
Obviously the Americans left Saddam in charge, much against the wishes I am sure of many senior Americans due to international opinions on the conflict. So what did they do instead? They imposed economic sanctions so severe on Iraq that the country went into severe economic decline which resulted in the preventable deaths of over 1 million innocent Iraqis. This is relevant because this pro-Israeli imperialist aggression from the USA, allowed a form of hatred to rise so much in the region it has essentially spawned Al-Qaeda and Isis and the like.
So now we have a scenario in the late 90's early 2000's were America are squeezing the life out of some of the Middle East. Not only that but they decide to get into bed with some fairly backward (at least by American ideologies) states like Saudi Arabia. So essentially you have the more secular states like Syria and Iraq on the Americans list of hated countries, and complicit Islamic states like Saudi Arabia as their best friends. In my opinion this is because America wants nothing more than 'yes' men and instability in the region. Of course in these countries, which are traditionalist Muslim, America is still not liked by the masses even if they are in bed with the ruling elite, Al-Qaeda is essentially a Saudi entity, and these are individuals who due to the actions of America/Israel in their backyard have formed Jihadist tendencies and strike out with viscous acts of violence (9/11). Of course America can't invade Saudi Arabia, where the violence came from. So they use this as an opportunity to go after Saddam, who had absolutely nothing to do with this Jihadists movement. Sure enough they occupy Iraq and depose him. Then they continue to occupy, meanwhile giving more proverbial ammunition to Jihadis by being an occupier in their region again. These states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have rich individuals, who are anti-Israel and anti-America and they start pumping money into these Islamo-Fascist institutions like Al-Qaeda.
Eventually the Americans have to leave, and at this same time populist uprisings start happening in the Arab world. Eventually this spreads to Syria and eventually an anti-regime civil war is hijacked by these well funded, well armed Jihadis. Who eventually become the dominant player in Syria, and then move into Iraq which is now not occupied by the USA. So out of these hardcore Islamic groups spawns ISIS. The most war mongering and vengeful of them all. Who are Sunni (salafist/wahabist) groups hellbent on destroying anyone who doesn't believe in their strain of Islam. They are the spawn of years of horrible Western foreign policy/occupation in the region. But I am not excusing their behavior, they are cnuts.
@Kaos @Raoul I'm sure would explain some areas a little better, as would I but there is a lot to type.
Last edited:
That's a helluva post. Nice work.
Thanks. I should have wrote it several pages back when I was in a debate with people who were saying that Islam was the cause of this conflict.
I was trying to say that it is not the dominant factor, just an instrument to distinguish individuals.
Much like Northern Ireland in my opinion. To call it a Catholic/Protestant conflict would be, although an arguable position, essentially an incorrect one.
Hopefully people like @Silva will now understand my point a little better.
Fantastic overview, couldn't have summarised it better myself
Just a few things I'd like to add to all that:
The Sectarian chasm - 'Iraq' has been ruled by Sunnis as far back as the Ottoman Empire. When the Empire fell and Sykes-Picot was put into motion by the Brits and the French, they had decided that the majority Shia population were far too barbaric and difficult to tame, so had opted to place a Sunni monarch in power - King Faisal I, previously ruler of Syria. His descendent Faisal II became the last king from the Hashemite dynasty as he was assassinated during a coup in 1958 led by Sunni communist Abdel Al-Qarim Kasim. What followed was a series of power struggles and subsequent overthrowals at the hands of military generals until the Ba'ath party assumed complete control in 1968 - the rest is history. The Ba'ath party in Iraq had been dominated by Sunnis, and Shias were often persecuted and discriminated, particularly under Saddam Hussein.
Following the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam was in a severely weakened position. The Shias hence sensed an opportunity to start an uprising to finally depose of him and the Ba'athi regime. It was close to succeeding until the Americans had decided they'd feel very apprehensive about Shias assuming power considering the inevitably close links they'd establish with neighbouring Iran, hence the US had granted Saddam his airspace back which he used to butcher the insurrection and re-consolidate his power.
Over a decade later the US and a coalition of allies had launched the second Gulf War in order to quell the alleged threat of Saddam using WMDs (none were of course found, but that's a different debate altogether). The Iraqi army fell, the Ba'athi party was dissolved and Saddam was eventually captured, trialed and hung. Iraq held its first democratic elections in 2005, with the coalition of Shia parties winning the vote unsurprisingly. Since then Iraq has been governed by the Shia.
[My subjective opinion] This has largely come as a culture shock to the Sunnis, who despite being the minority in Iraq, have gotten used to being in power for generations. For many of them it was a bitter pill to swallow since they no longer enjoy the privileges previously bestowed upon them by the Ba'athis and Saddam in particular. As a result many of them reject the legitimacy of the Shia government and have instead thrown their support behind anti-government insurgent forces, many of which are allied to extremist elements linked to Al Qaeda.
When the ISIS swept through the north of Iraq months ago, it was largely because the hardline Sunni populations in cities like Mosul had embraced them as a means to spite the Shia government, it was hence of no surprise that ISIS had able to garner so much support and even volunteers. Needless to say, many Sunnis are now regretting this stance after realising how batshit insane these people are.
Ultimately, it looks like Iraq will be partitioned into three states as a means of alleviating this sectarian strife. Kurdistan was always going to materialise and now its a question of when and not if. The more interesting question is whether Iraq will be further fragmented into Shia and Sunni entities.
Last edited:
Won't segmentation along religious/ethnic lines be the best way to achieve long-term stability?
Reading that great summary by @FortBoyard was the first time I realised how much strife was down to artificial borders as a legacy of colonial rule. If they're done away with that's a good thing, right?
The trouble is, it sets a problematic precedence. Iraq isn't just divided along Sunni-Shia-Kurdish lines. There's a sizable Christian Assyrian population, then there are the Yazidis, Turkmen, Feylis etc - the entire country has been a melting pot for civilisations over millennia. Once Iraq is partitioned to appease various ethnic groups, you'll have another half a dozen ethnic groups demanding the same self-determination.
Raoul had previously made a point I actually agree with in retrospect - dividing Iraq will only polarise the region more since Sunni Iraq will sway towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states whereas Shia Iraq will be inclined to Iran, creating a deeper sectarian stand off in the region. If Iraq is kept together by some federalist, unity governance, then it can at least act as a buffer between the two nations.
Ezidis are Kurdish.
Our world is and was always violent the difference is the news but if the governments decide to prohibit the media to publicize the terrorists then I can see less people interested in joining these monsters. They use our freedom to try to terrorize the people even knowing they will be crushed soon or later.......damn virgins (I wonder if the virgins waiting for them are women or men)
Great post @FortBoyard
Turks are too strong for a bunch of terrorists, they would be crushed if they try to do the same thing they did in Syria or Iraq.
So are Feylis, but like Feylis they're more affixed to their religious/spritiual denomination than they are to their ethnicity.
It just testaments the complexity of the sectarian issue in Iraq.
I don't understand this either. The media are essentially doing ISIS's journalistic work by spreading their fearful message. No one needed to see another US journalist getting beheaded by these savages.
I know IS aren't capable enough potentially in direct confrontation against Turkish military. But that's not my point.
My point is they are probably capable of unleashing bloodshed on streets of Istanbul with suicide bombings and such considering Turkey has borders with both Syria and Iraq.
FortBoyard, great post.
Unfortunately the answer to that is simple.
Media is mainly for profit, a beheading sells more media
When the Kurdistan get independence were are the borders?
Pretty much the area shaded in green.
Areas in Green plus a few more towns that are currently being contested.