Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

[GaryTaylor]

Thus, when and if we aid Iran against ISIS, Iran will tell those whom it influences that we were responsible for the jihadis all along, even though those jihadis would kill every American on the planet, wherever found.

But Iran will have an argument that people will believe. After all, we did aid the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the jihadis in Libya, and we pay money to Fatah and Hamas.

The U.S. foreign policy could not possibly be in greater confusion and disarray than this administration and its supporters have made it.

Irans help could be used by the Iran-Iraq border. But I don’t believe for a moment anyone on those ships is counting on them. Thats a possiblity as with tribal talks, but the above article gives a clear indication of the mans mindset.

In all likely hood they are ready to seize an airport. Thats my hunch.

 

[josie_L]

The U.S. no longer has anything to say about what happens there. We once held the center in the Middle East, and had influence. But Obama wanted to fulfill his campaign pledge, so now it’s between ISIS (and its Sunni supporters) and Iran.

Iran has its advisors and some Quds force peoeple in Baghdad, probably more than we know. It has told its puppet, Hezbollah to increase pressure in ISIS’ rear. ISIS won’t take Baghdad, but Sunni Islamists in Baghdad will certainly create as much chaos as they can, drawing cruel Iranian responses about which we’ll not likely hear very much.

One needs to remember that sometimes people will opt for a force they think is friendlier to them than the alternative, even though there are negative aspects to it. To the Sunnis, it was once the U.S. Now it’s ISIS. To the Shia, it was once the U.S., now it’s Iran.

I don’t know about how much Sunni support ISIS has, but I do know that ISIS has been rounding Iraqi civilians en masse for supporting democracy and the U.S., i.e., I do not doubt they will be executed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ridgerunner

During and after the Gulf War (phase 1 and 2) there were plenty of people in the M.E. who did not hate the U.S. or western nations, either one.

This was short-lived and as they began to see that Bin Ladden’s warning to the Saudi government that if they allowed the US into Saudi Arabia and other parts of the ME, we would never leave, was true.

Their xenophobia only dampened for a shot time until we got rid of their monster. Once the job was done, they wanted us out so they could seek revenge without our interference.

Jim

 

[Coatimundi]

I think convoys of trucks carrying civilian goods are not uncommon, when they have to pass through the Iraq countryside. So was the ambush the result of informants, or do the insurgents not want any supplies, even of refrigerated goods, to arrive in Samarra?

Sunni rebel extremists ambushed and killed more than two dozen Shiite volunteer militiamen late Sunday just outside the holy city of Samarra, the first such killings since Iraq’s government started mobilizing thousands of untrained Shiites to stop the insurgent advance threatening the country.
…
The volunteers had just left the northern town of Ishaqi and were heading south to reinforce Samarra, which is still held by the Iraqi Army but is under pressure from ISIS, which has threatened to destroy its historic Shiite shrine. An attack on that shrine in 2006 provoked bloody sectarian warfare nationwide.

The volunteers had hidden themselves inside a small convoy of refrigerator trucks for the perilous journey through territory where ISIS is active. According to a Shiite militia leader, Abu Mujahid, the convoy was struck by a roadside bomb, and “at the same time the militants came from nowhere and started shooting from everywhere and killed 28 volunteers.”
nytimes.com/2014/06/17/world/middleeast/iraq.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner

This was short-lived and as they began to see that Bin Ladden’s warning to the Saudi government that if they allowed the US into Saudi Arabia and other parts of the ME, we would never leave, was true.

Their xenophobia only dampened for a shot time until we got rid of their monster. Once the job was done, they wanted us out so they could seek revenge without our interference.

Jim

Think what you want, but this is a terrible judgment of the Iraqi people. I think most Iraqis had other life objectives than exacting revenge on other Iraqis.

But I guess it’s necessary to think things like this in order to defend the current administration of the U.S. Always somebody else’s fault, never theirs.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Think what you want, but this is a terrible judgment of the Iraqi people. I think most Iraqis had other life objectives than exacting revenge on other Iraqis.

But I guess it’s necessary to think things like this in order to defend the current administration of the U.S. Always somebody else’s fault, never theirs.

This has nothing to do with defending the administration which some how you assume I was doing.

It has to do with the culture of the people of Iraq and the general Middle East, along with our ignorance of it.

When we bomb people and kill their children, they’ll come to hate us despite our supposedly good intentions to free them.

Jim

 

[Mickey_Finn]

No surprise at all. It was easily predictable when Obama announced that we were leaving Iraq.

It is now one of the battlegrounds between jihadi Sunni “Caliphatists” and Iranian imperialists for control of the Middle East. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia in Iraq itself wanted to be dominated by either force.

But Obama had dubbed Iraq “Bush’s War” and, even though virtually all parties wanted us to stay to keep peace, he cut and ran.

It didn’t have to be.

Our invasion of Iraq is what started the ISIS. We were advised by everyone in the area to leave well-enough alone. So, if there is any blame to be placed, it must rest on G.W.'s shoulders.

In the end we either kill all of the Jihadists, or we let them have their way.

ATB

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Our invasion of Iraq is what started the ISIS. We were advised by everyone in the area to leave well-enough alone. So, if there is any blame to be placed, it must rest on G.W.'s shoulders.

In the end we either kill all of the Jihadists, or we let them have their way.

ATB

Right and in order to kill all the Jihadists, we’ll have to kill the innocent who they dwell among.

Jim

 

[zab]

truthrevolt.org//news/judge-jeanine-no-matter-where-you-live-america-you-need-be-afraid
Judge Jeanine: No matter where you live in America, you need to be Afraid

 

[Tomdstone]

And what of Iran?

Iran is another example of the disastrous results of American (and British) intervention. Everything went downhill after the USA (and Britain) engineered the downfall of the democratically elected Mossadegh.
American misadventure in the Mideast has led to one fiasco after another. All these wars, including Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanstan, have brought only more loss of human life and taxpayer money.

 

[Brendan_64]

truthrevolt.org//news/judge-jeanine-no-matter-where-you-live-america-you-need-be-afraid
Judge Jeanine: No matter where you live in America, you need to be Afraid

I think this lady forgets who took us into Iraq, and who dismantled the Iraqi military infrastructure after the war. This is just another example of using what is happening to score domestic political point. That lady just sounded like someone with an axe to grind, sounding off and trying to score points. Yes, we in the West ought to be worried, but arguing petty political point scoring is foolish and pointless. The terrorists do not care about our petty political squabbling and in-fighting, to them this is just another sign of our weakness.

 

[Tomdstone]

The bottom line is, there are only bad choices in the Middle East for the West.

IMHO there is a good choice for the USA - stay out of the conflict entirely.

 

[Tomdstone]

When we bomb people and kill their children, they’ll come to hate us despite our supposedly good intentions to free them.

Are the intentions of the USA good or are they based on the American thirst for oil? Isn’t that why the USA (and Britain) engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadegh?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Are the intentions of the USA good or are they based on the American thirst for oil? Isn’t that why the USA (and Britain) engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadegh?

Well, the intentions of the majority of Americans to support what George Bush and Dick Cheney sold to them, was good, i.e. take down the brutal dictator Saddam and bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

However, it was blind patriotism that was at work here.

The administration was serving big oil, I have no doubt about it. Even the 1st Gulf War under H.W. Bush, served big oil, nothing more.

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner]

Our invasion of Iraq is what started the ISIS. We were advised by everyone in the area to leave well-enough alone. So, if there is any blame to be placed, it must rest on G.W.'s shoulders.

In the end we either kill all of the Jihadists, or we let them have their way.

ATB

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quada which, as one may remember, killed some 3,000 people in New York City well before "Bush’s War (actually Phase II of the Gulf War). There were plenty of foreign jihadis who poured into Iraq during Phase II of that war, and Bin Ladin issued a call to foreign fighters to do just that. We didn’t create them. Bin Ladin was a Saudi. Zawahiri is an Egyptian. When we went into Iraq, our troops encountered Islamists from all over. Libyans, as I recall, were the largest single contingent, though i could be mistaken about that.

And the Sunni “Awakening Council” provided some 90,000 men to work with U.S troops. Not too resentful.

And the Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed Al Quaeda as well as other related groups, far predated the Gulf War, actually starting during the reign of Nasser in Egypt.

It’s just silly to say “we” caused any of those groups. This is an amusing argument, though. It assumes people in the Islamic world are incapable of coming up with their own objectives and movements, and based on their own ideologies. I’m not saying that’s “racist”, but it reminds one of it.

And “well enough” wasn’t all that “well enough”. Saddam Hussein had invaded two countries previously and tried to assassinate Bush I. Now ISIS is invading Iraq. People there are entirely capable of having their own wars and their own reasons for them.

The problem is not that all people in the Middle East hate the U.S. The U.S., for a time, frustrated the would-be empire builders there; the “Caliphatists” and Iran. Now we’re gone, and the Middle East is one continuous battleground from the Mediterranean to the Iranian border.

 

[seekerz]

In the end we either kill all of the Jihadists, or we let them have their way.

ATB

We have already proved (though have not all learned, it seems) that the former is impossible. But there’s no reason we cannot protect ourselves from them. Protection, not pre-emptive destruction, used to be the reason ‘good guys’ went to war…

 

[seekerz]

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quada which, as one may remember, killed some 3,000 people in New York City well before "Bush’s War (actually Phase II of the Gulf War). There were plenty of foreign jihadis who poured into Iraq during Phase II of that war, and Bin Ladin issued a call to foreign fighters to do just that. We didn’t create them. Bin Ladin was a Saudi. Zawahiri is an Egyptian. When we went into Iraq, our troops encountered Islamists from all over. Libyans, as I recall, were the largest single contingent, though i could be mistaken about that.

And the Sunni “Awakening Council” provided some 90,000 men to work with U.S troops. Not too resentful.

And the Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed Al Quaeda as well as other related groups, far predated the Gulf War, actually starting during the reign of Nasser in Egypt.

It’s just silly to say “we” caused any of those groups. This is an amusing argument, though. It assumes people in the Islamic world are incapable of coming up with their own objectives and movements, and based on their own ideologies. I’m not saying that’s “racist”, but it reminds one of it.

And “well enough” wasn’t all that “well enough”. Saddam Hussein had invaded two countries previously and tried to assassinate Bush I. Now ISIS is invading Iraq. People there are entirely capable of having their own wars and their own reasons for them.

The problem is not that all people in the Middle East hate the U.S. The U.S., for a time, frustrated the would-be empire builders there; the “Caliphatists” and Iran. Now we’re gone, and the Middle East is one continuous battleground from the Mediterranean to the Iranian border.

And you seriously think we had no part at all in birthing any of those groups? They hate us because for reasons we know only too well, we have been constantly in their part of the world interfering in their petty rivalries and taking sides with or against dictators/oppressive regimes. Not all our actions have been bad, but to pretend like we haven’t had our hands in the cookie jar when crumbs are all over our faces?

 

[gilliam]

This is an interesting article and should be read through to the end. This all reminds me of some of the early conflicts inside Islam.

Under an ISIS Flag, the Sons of Mosul Are Rallying
Though ISIS is known for its brutal rule in Syria, many residents of the Iraqi city it just captured are so hostile to the Shia-led government in Baghdad, they have welcomed the group.

As life returns to an uneasy version of normal in Mosul, the response from local residents to the city’s capture by ISIS, a radical Islamist group, has been surprisingly positive. Multiple Sunni residents inside Mosul who spoke with The Daily Beast by phone reported being glad to be rid of the predominantly Shia government security forces, and so far pleased with life under the ISIS occupation. That may change soon if ISIS begins to rule with the brutality they have displayed in Syria, but by keeping the residents of Mosul happy for now ISIS is buying time to increase its power and local support, which will make things even harder for the Baghdad government if it tries to take the city back.

In response to the recent news from Mosul, an Iraqi citizen recalled the story of a friend from Diyala Province. “He told me, ‘It was the same for us in 2007. We were very happy when ISIS took over the area and drove the Iraq Army out and at first they behaved very well. It was only after a month that they started killing us.’”

One sign of local support for ISIS in Mosul is that many Sunni families who fled the initial fighting are streaming back into the city and, according to sources there, are happy to see the Iraqi Army gone.

The city is quiet for now and no fighting is heard anywhere, sources inside Mosul tell The Daily Beast. ISIS fighters have dismantled the checkpoints and dividing walls that had become symbols of Baghdad’s oppression to the residents, while ISIS fighters were conspicuously avoiding the abuse of civilians that has become their hallmark inside Syria. This may be due to the fact that most of the rank and file of the ISIS forces inside Mosul, by the reports of numerous sources, are natives—young Sunni Arab residents of the city. Sources inside Mosul believe the ISIS forces are native based on their accents and the fact that the fighters cover their faces to conceal their identities. The local character of so many ISIS units may help account for both their current popularity with residents and the ease with which they navigated Mosul’s neighborhoods to rout Iraqi security forces.

While the past week has been a nightmare for the rest of Iraq, many Mosul residents, who have felt oppressed by the government in Baghdad, felt it was a long awaited reprieve. Constant fighting and harsh security measures under a mostly Shia security presence since the American withdrawal made Mosul feel like an occupied city for many Sunni Arabs residents. Many Moslawis, as Mosul residents are known, compared the current relaxed atmosphere in the city to what life was like before the U.S. invasion in 2003, when Saddam’s government ruled and Sunnis still held political power in Iraq.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/under-an-isis-flag-the-sons-of-mosul-are-rallying.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Iran is another example of the disastrous results of American (and British) intervention. Everything went downhill after the USA (and Britain) engineered the downfall of the democratically elected Mossadegh.
American misadventure in the Mideast has led to one fiasco after another. All these wars, including Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanstan, have brought only more loss of human life and taxpayer money.

The Mossadegh situation is a lot more complicated than that, whether the U.S. and Britain made any misjudgments in it or not.

First of all Mossadegh was elected by a minority, and was opposed by the iranian clergy who are now in power. Under the Iranian constitution as it was then, he was always subject to being removed by the Shah. He was believed by the U.S. and Britain of being a communist sympathizer and an agent of the Soviets (the Cold War was going on then). He was losing power before the Shah dismissed him, and nobody knows who would have taken power if the Shah had not acted when he did.

 

[seekerz]

There was a power vacuum that was created when the U.S. pulled it’s troops out, i.e., they needed to stay longer in order for the area to stabilize.

Longer as in forever? This is not post-world war Europe. You can’t bomb people into breaking 1000 year feuds and you can only bribe them (to not fight - like we supposedly achieved ‘success’ doing) until the coffers are empty.