ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Raoul said:
Saddam didn't need much coaxing to invade Iran. Blaming his actions on the US is quite off the mark therefore. The only mistake the US made was not going to Baghdad and finishng the job in 91, which would've spared us all the sanctions of the 90s (hint hint Roy Keane19) and the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

You could have helped us overthrow him in our uprising after the war, instead of giving him back his airspace and allowing him to butcher his way back into ascension. Just saying.

What we got however were sanctions which killed half a million Iraqi kids and a war in 2003 which has led to a further million Iraqis dying and the country being permanently destabilised.
 
Kaos said:
You could have helped us overthrow him in our uprising after the war, instead of giving him back his airspace and allowing him to butcher his way back into ascension. Just saying.
Click to expand...

What did I have to do with this ?

I understand the logic of not going to Baghdad in 91, as there was a broad UN sanctioned coalition whose mandate was to kick him out of Kuwait and nothing more. But in the long run, it was a costly mistake as the overhead of having to contain him through sanctions in the 90s and ultimately depose him through a decade long conflict starting in 03, was far more costly than the price of unilaterally deposing him at the end of Gulf War 1. Back then, it was pre-Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the chances of governance reforms were much better than post 2003, by which point his dictatorship had an additional 12 years to entrench itself, which made post Saddam national unity much more difficult.
 
Raoul said:
What did I have to do with this ?

I understand the logic of not going to Baghdad in 91, as there was a broad UN sanctioned coalition whose mandate was to kick him out of Kuwait and nothing more. But in the long run, it was a costly mistake as the overhead of having to contain him through sanctions in the 90s and ultimately depose him through a decade long conflict starting in 03, was far more costly than the price of unilaterally deposing him at the end of Gulf War 1. Back then, it was pre-Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the chances of governance reforms were much better than post 2003, by which point his dictatorship had an additional 12 years to entrench itself, which made post Saddam national unity much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Yet you were amongst those most vehemently in support of going in back in 2003.
 
Well its good of you to swallow your pride and admit so.

Shame you can't realise why forcefully attempting to dispose Assad will likely have even more devastating consequences in an Al Qaeda and ISIL-infested Syria, and the entire region for that matter.
 
Kaos said:
Well its good of you to swallow your pride and admit so.

Shame you can't realise why forcefully attempting to dispose Assad will likely have even more devastating consequences in an Al Qaeda and ISIL-infested Syria, and the entire region for that matter.
Click to expand...

Assad's time is done. He isn't staying power, so its not difficult to take the position that Syria needs improved post-Assad governance. I know you love him because he's a quasi-Shi'a dictator and you have Shi'a roots, but he's clearly passed the point of no return and the only reason he continues to languish by a thread is because the US didn't invade last year after the WMD incident.
 
roykeane19 said:
Funny how the whole thing was started by the US once more, they sure love killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly

First they give weapons to the rebels to topple Assad, and now they are on "assads" side in a way..........

If they really care so much about the rebels, why dont they go help the Ukraine rebels, but obviously the US knows its easier to use the scaremongering of "Islamic extremists" who want to take over the world which will never happen, just gives a great excuse to keep public happy into why they are still in the middle east, and arms and weapons manufacturers are making billions from this never ending cycle of war in the ME, all self perpetuated by the US

When the only people actually dying are civilians in the ME, for example, since the US invasion , 1.6 million civilians have died in Iraq alone, that is an astronomical number of innocent people, but no one even cares
Click to expand...

roykeane19 said:
Very true video, sadly one many people wont watch

Even funnier is the same media and presidents who blatantly lied about something as big as saying Iraq had WMD as a pretense to invade another country, killed almost 2 million people

If people remember the media were publishing many similar claims of which they did before they invaded in 2001, ie hes killing minorities, ruthless, wants to nuke the west etc, and all where total fabrications

And Im pretty sure most of the claims about ISIS apart from the beheadings are total lies

Another thing I found other day, Obama is the 4th consecutive US president to do Air strikes in Iraq

Lastly, the US have absolutely destroyed Iraq from the sanctions in the 80`s which led to the death of 500,000 children to due starvation, malnourishment and lack of medical supplies, to the ongoing, bombardment, and pitting of divide and conquer tactics

The US since world war 2 has the blood of millions of people on its hands, and thats not a random statement its a fact and reality, but for some reason people turn a blind eye to all this
Click to expand...

Ignorance doesn't stop you from spouting nonsense I see. Good on you. Don't let them keep you down.
 
Raoul said:
Assad's time is done. He isn't staying power, so its not difficult to take the position that Syria needs improved post-Assad governance. I know you love him because he's a quasi-Shi'a dictator and you have Shi'a roots, but he's clearly passed the point of no return and the only reason he continues to languish by a thread is because the US didn't invade last year after the WMD incident.
Click to expand...

Actually I'd argue the reason he's still in power is because he enjoys the support of much of his people and the army, and this is despite every jihadist from Chechnya to Timbuktu flocking there, along with the billions of Gulf Arab money used to fund their violent expedition. Like him or hate him, disposing him forcefully has terrifying implications for the regions - not least the Syrian minorities who'd probably be subject to a horrific genocide (if they haven't already).

Obama's call to arm these 'moderates' again is a classic faux pas that could have devastating implications. The US in its blind and desperate attempts to antagonise Iran by arming these 'moderates' will only further empower ISIS.
 
Kaos said:
Actually I'd argue the reason he's still in power is because he enjoys the support of much of his people and the army, and this is despite every jihadist from Chechnya to Timbuktu flocking there, along with the billions of Gulf Arab money used to fund their violent expedition. Like him or hate him, disposing him forcefully has terrifying implications for the regions - not least the Syrian minorities who'd probably be subject to a horrific genocide (if they haven't already).

Obama's call to arm these 'moderates' again is a classic faux pas that could have devastating implications. The US in its blind and desperate attempts to antagonise Iran by arming these 'moderates' will only further empower ISIS.
Click to expand...

If he enjoyed the support of "much of the people", there would be no conflict in Syria at all, since this all started with peaceful protesters in Dara'a which he promptly squashed after seeing what had happened to Mubarak. Since he's a minority dictator, he only enjoys support among his minority sect and various other groups that see him as the lesser of two evils compared with ISIS. That however, doesn't make him sustainable given that he's lost all credibility to govern a country where he only controls a small sliver of the land. So the question then becomes what are the viable prospects for improved governance in a post Assad/post ISIS Syria that are democratic, heterogeneous, and inclusive to all groups. That's where the emphasis should be.
 
ISIS have taken villages where civilians were evacuated in Kobane. Fighting ongoing. YPG are heavily outnumbered and outgunned.
 
Raoul said:
If he enjoyed the support of "much of the people", there would be no conflict in Syria at all, since this all started with peaceful protesters in Dara'a which he promptly squashed after seeing what had happened to Mubarak. Since he's a minority dictator, he only enjoys support among his minority sect and various other groups that see him as the lesser of two evils compared with ISIS. That however, doesn't make him sustainable given that he's lost all credibility to govern a country where he only controls a small sliver of the land. So the question then becomes what are the viable prospects for improved governance in a post Assad/post ISIS Syria that are democratic, heterogeneous, and inclusive to all groups. That's where the emphasis should be.
Click to expand...

What baseless conjecture. Unfortunately, a small minority can elicit substantial violence, especially if they receive considerable external backing - just see ISIS in Iraq to testament that scary reality. Comparing Assad to Mubarak is tenuous at best.

This idea of an inclusive government is a pipe dream at best considering that one side refuses to live in harmony with the other, and contains elements that demand a sectarian, Islamic caliphate as being the mode of governance. Say what you want about Assad's regime, he's still one of the few remaining secular leaders in the region who protects the Christian, Druze and Alawite minority groups in Syria. The alternative is a Libya-style failed Islamist state, with massacres of minorities likely to ensue left, right and centre.
 
Raoul said:
Saddam didn't need much coaxing to invade Iran. Blaming his actions on the US is quite off the mark therefore. The only mistake the US made was not going to Baghdad and finishng the job in 91, which would've spared us all the sanctions of the 90s (hint hint Roy Keane19) and the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

OK my bad but still how can that deter from my main point the sanctions which led to the death of 500,000 children, and that figure obviously doesn't include men, and women who are not children

I dont understand why those numbers are taken so lightly , I mean imagine if those same numbers applied to a western country , it would be remembered every year, and action would've been taken on the country that did sanctions etc

Does no one find it odd, how the US and its allies force democracy in the ME, isnt that a form of dictatorship, going to countries, and enforcing your ideas on a country while killing hundreds of thousands in the process, all in the name that your idea of government is superior to others, and mus to be enforced at all costs?

And the people in power throughout Afghanistan,Iraq etc, are all same dictators, but some don't tow the US line fully, so the US dethrones them, and puts another in their place, despite all the killings all in the name of democracy-or liberation, there still is no democracy in those countries
 
Kaos said:
What baseless conjecture. Unfortunately, a small minority can elicit substantial violence, especially if they receive considerable external backing - just see ISIS in Iraq to testament that scary reality. Comparing Assad to Mubarak is tenuous at best.

This idea of an inclusive government is a pipe dream at best considering that one side refuses to live in harmony with the other, and contains elements that demand a sectarian, Islamic caliphate as being the mode of governance. Say what you want about Assad's regime, he's still one of the few remaining secular leaders in the region who protects the Christian, Druze and Alawite minority groups in Syria. The alternative is a Libya-style failed Islamist state, with massacres of minorities likely to ensue left, right and centre.
Click to expand...

As i've previously said, the option between dictatorship and failed Al-Qaeda state is a false option. There has to be a legitimate democratic government that is inclusive as an additional (third) option.
 
Guy with an ISIS shirt using public transport in Turkey.



Turkey are really getting on my nerves.
 
To be fair if a bloke was wearing an ISIS t shirt on the London underground, no one would say or do anything either I'd wager.

But yeah Turkey have pretty much been dicks in all this. Heck their foreign policy has been pretty crap for about 700 years now.
 
In an unrelated incident, AT and T's NFC Payment app ISIS Wallet has been renamed to 'Soft Card'.

The West and the international countries are damned if they do and damned if they don't? What other alternatives are there to fight ISIS? Surely, the world just can't watch idiotic neanderthals using the name of a religion to kill and maim innocent people. Crying about the past mistakes of US at this point is stupid.
 
fishfingers15 said:
The West and the international countries are damned if they do and damned if they don't? What other alternatives are there to fight ISIS? Surely, the world just can't watch idiotic neanderthals using the name of a religion to kill and maim innocent people. Crying about the past mistakes of US at this point is stupid.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea - Don't arm and fund the so-called 'moderate' rebels in Syria who have historically allied themselves with ISIS, given them weapons as well as 'selling' them hostages, including Stephen Sotloff who was recently beheaded.

Now beyond that, stick to offering non-military aid to refugees as well as offering air support and weapons for Kurdish and Iraqi forces (NOT for the ISIS-affiliated rebels in Syria). Swallow your pride and work alongside Iran and the Syrian government in cleansing the region of the ISIS pestilence.

That would be an excellent start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Livvie
Raoul said:
Saddam didn't need much coaxing to invade Iran. Blaming his actions on the US is quite off the mark therefore. The only mistake the US made was not going to Baghdad and finishng the job in 91, which would've spared us all the sanctions of the 90s (hint hint Roy Keane19) and the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

Sort of ignores the large amount of support he received from a certain nation to the north also. Saddam was very, very good at playing the two super powers off of each other to get what he wanted. Should also be pointed out that a certain nation to the north of Iraq also lent support to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. Neither super power had much interest in either side winning that war.
 
Airstrike near ISIS training camp in Mosul, Iraq destroyed two armed vehicles, two buildings and a large ground unit. That's from U.S. Central Command. ISIS sources are saying 200 dead.

:)
 
Has anyone watched their recent vid with the british hostage? Does he usually talk like that by pronouncing every word accurately? It sounds a bit robotic.
 
Looking at his previous interviews it doesn't seem to be his way of talking at all. He was told to make every single word clear, I wonder what else he was told off camera and what his fate will be.
 
the french are always happy to bomb something. Most people dont know that they are fairly active with their military in north/west africa . Soon they´ll run out of ammo so and ask the usa for resupplies. :angel:
 
PedroMendez said:
the french are always happy to bomb something. Most people dont know that they are fairly active with their military in north/west africa . Soon they´ll run out of ammo so and ask the usa for resupplies. :angel:
Click to expand...

An important point that goes under the radar. People just assume french stereotypes of them always surrendering and backing down at any sign of a fight but they're just as belligerent if not more than most of their European counterparts. Their colonialst ventures if Africa haven't even died down yet.

Not surprised to see them involed here at all.
 
Kaos said:
An important point that goes under the radar. People just assume french stereotypes of them always surrendering and backing down at any sign of a fight but they're just as belligerent if not more than most of their European counterparts. Their colonialst ventures if Africa haven't even died down yet.

Not surprised to see them involed here at all.
Click to expand...
Include me in that group. I had no idea. Not so much the surrender part (I do joke about that) but I thought they were a bit more pacifist nowadays.
 
senorgregster said:
Include me in that group. I had no idea. Not so much the surrender part (I do joke about that) but I thought they were a bit more pacifist nowadays.
Click to expand...

France was involved in bombing Mali just last year, borrowing the convenient "war on terror" guise as a means of sabotaging a political solution between the Northern seperatists and the French-backed regime in Bamako.
 
Kaos said:
Here's an idea - Don't arm and fund the so-called 'moderate' rebels in Syria who have historically allied themselves with ISIS, given them weapons as well as 'selling' them hostages, including Stephen Sotloff who was recently beheaded.

Now beyond that, stick to offering non-military aid to refugees as well as offering air support and weapons for Kurdish and Iraqi forces (NOT for the ISIS-affiliated rebels in Syria). Swallow your pride and work alongside Iran and the Syrian government in cleansing the region of the ISIS pestilence.

That would be an excellent start.
Click to expand...

And you are perfectly fine with the Syrian government who effectively committed a genocide themselves? That's a bit hypocriticial isn't it?
 
Peshmerga have authorised special forces to be sent to Kobane to aid YPG. Good stuff.
 
.Rossi said:
Why the hell does it have to be like this?! Genuinely, why?!?!

My mates, who are part of architectural companies in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Spain and America, all agree that them buildings on 9/11 could not have falling like that....It's accepted as fact among them.

Now, in 2014, we have innocent people being beheaded and declarations of war etc....

I'm sorry but, I just don't get this.....It's too hard to even comprehend.

Life is about living and spreading happiness to others. Not this crap!!
Why does everything have to be about war?
Click to expand...

Get better mates Rossi
 
fishfingers15 said:
And you are perfectly fine with the Syrian government who effectively committed a genocide themselves? That's a bit hypocriticial isn't it?
Click to expand...

Genocide towards whom exactly? The Sunnis who make up the majority of the army? The Christian and Druze minorities who are essentially protected by the army?

Given a choice between the heart-eating, church-burning, child-beheading sectarian rebels who'd murder anyone that doesn't abide to their extremist dogma or the secular Syrian government, I think I'd opt for the latter winning this war.
 
Kaos said:
Genocide towards whom exactly? The Sunnis who make up the majority of the army? The Christian and Druze minorities who are essentially protected by the army?

Given a choice between the heart-eating, church-burning, child-beheading sectarian rebels who'd murder anyone that doesn't abide to their extremist dogma or the secular Syrian government, I think I'd opt for the latter winning this war.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Kaos said:
France was involved in bombing Mali just last year, borrowing the convenient "war on terror" guise as a means of sabotaging a political solution between the Northern seperatists and the French-backed regime in Bamako.
Click to expand...

Since 2000 they were active with their military in the Republic of congo, somalia, ivory coast (2x), chad, central african republic, senegal and mali. I am sure that there are 2-3 more. At the moment they have around 10.000 men in this part of the world ensuring their influence in their former colonies. Its starting to die down a bit and is not as bad as in the 70s, 80s where they were far more active. Still in many of these countries they are still very influential.
Mali is just too messy. The situation is a bit more complicated than you describe, which makes it even worse. Both sides are committing war crimes and the french army happily participates.
 
.Rossi said:
Why the hell does it have to be like this?! Ge
nuinely, why?!?!

My mates, who are part of architectural companies in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Spain and America, all agree that them buildings on 9/11 could not have falling like that....It's accepted as fact among them.

Now, in 2014, we have innocent people being beheaded and declarations of war etc....

I'm sorry but, I just don't get this.....It's too hard to even comprehend.

Life is about living and spreading happiness to others. Not this crap!!
Why does everything have to be about war?
Click to expand...

Your friends are surely on a wind up? If not I hope they are not building anything :annoyed:

Have them read this and follow up with the NIST report. Would love to hear a reasoned critique of the report.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/cause-world-trade-center-collapse.htm
 
President Barzani issues statement requesting international support for Kobane.

800 elite Peshmerga seem to be on their way to Kobane with heavy weaponry. The citizens are cornered from all 4 sides.
 
PKK have also sent special forces to Kobane, they have arrived. No idea how they managed to get past the Turkish troops on the border, especially as they're in such high numbers.
 
senorgregster said:
The Turkish hostages have been rescued. 49 had been taken from their embassy in Iraq.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/2...freed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0&referrer=
Click to expand...
They weren't rescued, they were released.

ISIS randomly decided to release the hostages lol. This is such bullshit. Turkey transported arms and ISIS members from the Turkish border into Kobane, this has been documented by many people. In return their hostages were freed.

Erdogan said he will not join the coalition against ISIS because of the hostages at danger. Now that they are released I would like I know what excuse he will give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.