Good, let some troops in to deal with this mess before it escalates into other countries.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
How much firepower do ISIS have and where have they got weapons from to have open huge multiple fronts both in Iraq and Syria at the same time ?
I know they have overran some bases in Syria and Iraq but surely they wouldn't have got this much ammunition.
I know they have overran some bases in Syria and Iraq but surely they wouldn't have got this much ammunition.
They have apparently picked up quite a bit of weapons and ammo by having routed Iraqi forces in the north and raided various Iraqi Army bases. The troubling thing is they have sleeper cells inside Baghdad, which are causing a lot of havoc with car bombs and other attacks.
Suli was talking about Germany...
I think Turkey (the government) has made the wrong choice with Kobane. Erdugan should have looked further and realized the real dangers facing the region, and Turkey in the long term. ISIS will never be a reliable partner, and I don't think Turkey have enough compensation or enough excuses for choosing to upset the Kurds like that.
I really hope the Turks don't get engulfed in the sectarian wave that's invading the region right now, and act before all for the benefit of Turkey.
This is going to be quite a fecked up situation if reports that they are near Baghdad are true.
in the long run, they´ll take over all territory with a sunni majority. Baghdad is sadly right in the middle and a melting pot. Pre invasion the majority of Baghdad´s citizen were sunni (65-35). In 2007/08 only 20% were left. I wouldnt be surprised if many sunnis still hold a grudge for being dislocated. I doubt that any side could control bagdad entirely, so violence might would get even worse.
Its hard to identify a realistic lasting solution, that doesnt involve a civil war or suppression.
I don't see them being a partner at all. If you don't submit to the caliphate or apply shariah law then you are their enemy, and I dont see erdogan doing either. You can understand why Turkey are not choosing to allow arms through to the Kurds in Kobane since there is a huge rivalry but i dont really see any solution to any of this tbh
Don't be surprised to learn that Erdogan struck a deal with ISIS to not interfere in Kobane in exchange for the safe return of their hostages.
Interesting - the number of hostages was quite high wasn't it?
Is that what happened? Thats pretty interesting. What are the chances we'll see erdogan-isis vs the coalition for a while? It could be like a wwe main event
No chance of Erdogan publicly aligning himself with ISIS, the domestic backlash he'd receive would be enormous. Turkey has been a vehemently secular country since the days of Kemal Ataturk, if it got out their President/Prime Minister/Sultan or whatever he is these days was in bed with ISIS, he wouldn't last a week and the army would probaby stage a coup.
But I very much expect him to be dealing with them covertly.
46 or so. Erdogan was quite unwilling to explain how he managed to get them back safely in light of the fact that other hostages have been getting killed.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...ges-seized-iraq-freed-201492035248486996.html
I wouldn't really call it sectarianism. What we're looking at is simply an extension of the perpetual problem between the Turkish government and the PKK (I don't want to say 'Turks', because they haven't all endorsed their government's stance down the years). To reiterate what I said days ago in this thread, I completely understand why Recep won't intervene, although that doesn't mean that I agree with it. Like you, I think they're making a big mistake, and he's going to have to do some serious damage limitation if the AKP is to retain power in the next general election, particularly when he can't mass promote himself like he's done in the last decade.
Pretty much what did happen, yes. We'd be fools to believe otherwise.
Just thinking, what's stopping Erdogan from agreeing to the deal only to reneg on it after the hostages are free, and tell ISIS to get fecked as he sends the cavalry in anyway. I mean what are ISIS going to do? Take Erdogan to the International Court of Justice?
Unless ISIS are still holding some hostages for collateral to ensure Erdogan keeps his side of the deal.
Turkey sucks imo.
The main problem is that he simply doesn't want to help the Kurds. Turkey has a long, brutal history with the PKK, and, in their eyes, intervening would essentially mean cooperating with the PKK, which is unthinkable to them.
Also, I think you may be overestimating Recep's desire to intervene. As heinous as we think ISIS is, you'd be surprised at his attitude towards them.
He's probably concerned about them attacking him inside Turkey, which is a can of worms he may not want to open.
Instead he's opened a can of worms which has led to curfew in 6 cities, 40 Kurds dead and thousands rioting every night with weapons.
When you read about all of this shit and the problems they have to face you wonder why anyone would bother running the country in the first place. You can never win.
Probably still better than guerilla warfare with ISIS.
It'll never come to that, Turks and ISIS already share borders. ISIS would get wiped out instantly.
A professional army would absolutely roll over ISIS. They've got this far thanks in part to fear and intimidation.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to underestimate the power of fear. Its crazy.
Definitely. My wife was telling me about one battle where ISIS came up against a trained, well equipped army (I don't recall the specifics) and routed them. By the sound of things, that wasn't a one-off.
Even considering that street warfare can slow down an advancing force and it can be turned into a war of attrition, I still think that the Kurdish forces, who are poorly equipped but have the resolve and experience, have shown what can happen when the inclination isn't to turn and run. I said it elsewhere that the Kurds don't scare easily, and they've done absolutely nothing so far to suggest that I'm wrong. I knew ISIS' advance would slow as soon as the Kurds became involved. They absolutely deserve to be equipped and to be given a fair shot.
Anyone who reads the news and puts 1 and 1 together will know he's already in bed with them and that too for quite some time.
Yanks did a pretty shit job at training the iraqi army. Saddam would be tearing out the nails of baghdadi by now.
With regards to the military, it's probably worth pointing out that Recep completely emasculated the armed forces of a strong leadership in the last 10 years. Only recently have key generals been released from prison after years of being inside, all with no explanation other than an alleged conspiracy to carry out a coup.
If you knew half of the shit that he's done...
If you knew half of the shit that he's done...
ISIS release a video of them fighting in Kobane.
This is all rather depressing.
This is all rather depressing.
They also released pictures
The Turkish military recently called him in for a meeting and attempted to straighten him out with regards to who is actually the power in Turkey. Something they hadn't done since the 90s. The military certainly won't want to allow Kurdish autonomy within Turkey. As we've seen, Erdogan is quite happy with authoritarianism as long as he stays in power. Both have decided that ISIS is less of a threat to them than the PKK or that they can allow ISIS to kill the PKK for them before sweeping in and attacking ISIS.
Don't think ISIS would struck a deal that benefits them "in the future" . They wouldn't have played the hostages card that early.
I reiterate , Iraq is finished as a one united nation.
Shia and Sunnis won't tolerate each other , not in the near future at least. Yazidis hate Sunnis now. ISIS and consequently any sectarian clique like the Shia militias won't go anywhere soon. Saudi Arabia will try to stop it, Egypt will try to stop it, many Arab countries will try to stop it , but sadly it seems inevitable , ......well unless somehow Arabs learn to tolerate each other.
Shia and Sunnis won't tolerate each other , not in the near future at least. Yazidis hate Sunnis now. ISIS and consequently any sectarian clique like the Shia militias won't go anywhere soon. Saudi Arabia will try to stop it, Egypt will try to stop it, many Arab countries will try to stop it , but sadly it seems inevitable , ......well unless somehow Arabs learn to tolerate each other.
He had no option but to allow the military back into the fray, as he's playing with fire and needs a contingency. He's been trying to maintain a facade of control since Gezi, but it's increasingly evident that his allure has faded somewhat and the AKP's future in the balance. As for the Kurdish thing, autonomy simply won't happen in Turkey, and I don't think it's ever really been considered a realistic option, weakened military or not. Then again, he doesn't need any more confrontations with them because their votes are still crucial. He's treading a very delicate line and getting it quite wrong.
I agree with this to some extent. (I disagree with 're-directing wealth to their areas', the Shia areas are still poor and in a bad situation. They are corrupt, but they actually re-direct the money to their own bank accounts, and some of them to their own parties).
I also agree that a split could be the most feasible solution, and probably is the best for all sides. Baghdad (and to less extent Diyala and Kirkuk too) could prove to be a problem though.
This is just simply false though. It's not even logical. You're talking about ~45% change of a population in excess of 7 millions. That's 3-3.5 million people. There is no way that is happening that easily without it being very clear for everybody to see. If we're talking 4-5% difference then it's still big but may be, but 45%?!
Besides, such a change would have been reflected on the results of the elections, which have been pretty much consistent since 2005. And just to prove it for you in numbers, here are the results of the vote on the first Iraqi constitution, held in 2005 (before even the sectarian conflict in Baghdad).
Of course the Sunnis opposed the constitution at the time, and you can clearly see that without me having to tell you.
This should give you a good idea about the demographics of Baghdad even prior to the sectarian conflict in 2006-2007.
All the following maps are from the Gulf/2000 Project from the Columbia University in NewYork. Its a fantastic project from their school of international/public affairs, which provides several maps, that illustrate specific issues in the gulf region.
The maps should be easy to understand.
green = shia;
red = sunni
orange = mixed
2003:
2006:
2007, early:
2007, late:
2009:
2006:
2007, early:
2007, late:
2009:
Last edited:
Not sure what your point is. After the sectarian violence in 2006-2007 Baghdad's neighborhoods became more polarized, but the demographics of Baghdad as a province didn't change much. You can see clearly many orange areas turning red as well.All the following maps are from the Gulf/2000 Project from the Columbia University in NewYork. Its a fantastic project from their school of international/public affairs, which provides several maps, that illustrate specific issues in the gulf region.
The maps itself should be easy to understand.
green = shia;
red = sunni
orange = mixed
2003:
2006:
2007, early:
2007, late:
2009:
And by the way, the colored areas isn't a good representative of people density or even percentages for that matter. That green square on the top right corner (Saddam/Al-Thawra/Al-Sadr city) is very heavily inhabited (some 40% of the population of all Baghdad live in that square alone).
The numbers of the referendum are much more accurate and to the point.
Baghdad is mostly Shi'a imo. Just Sadr City itself has about 2m Shi'a living in it and that's not including other areas like Kadhimyah and others.