Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
Which terrorists? The ones on the government side or the ones fighting the government? Sorry, but when I open my eyes I can see no difference: dead is dead, no matter what your killers are called.
Click to expand...
ISIS’s stated aim is to bring about a caliphate in the Levant (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.) That would also mean they would control over 10% of the world’s oil. They have promised to bring terrorism to places like London, Moscow and the US to achieve their goal. They use terrorism as a weapon of war. So, yea, it is in the US national interest to suppress them. I don’t think anyone inside the administration would say otherwise.
 
I watched CNN for a couple days after this conflict burst on the world stage, and I almost became a conspiracy theorist. Why? Because their repeated showing of unverified (by their own account) images of atrocities seemed calculated to manipulate public sentiment about as much as playing a jury with heartrending images of a plaintiff’s impairment is calculated to make them award huge damages - even in absence of definitive evidence that the defendant is solely/mainly responsible for the impairment.
 
gilliam said:
ISIS’s stated aim is to bring about a caliphate in the Levant (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.) That would also mean they would control over 10% of the world’s oil. They have promised to bring terrorism to places like London, Moscow and the US to achieve their goal. They use terrorism as a weapon of war. So, yea, it is in the US national interest to suppress them. I don’t think anyone inside the administration would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Ah, the much-feared C word. Last time I heard it being repeatedly used there was a ruckus over some mosque being built in NYC. If the people are bent on destruction they’re bent on destruction - caliphate or no caliphate.

The part about oil control is, to me, the salient issue in all this.

They promised to bring terrorism to places that already have experienced terrorism and they will bring more if we enter direct combat with them in their OWN land. It’s theirs and the corporations of the world should learn to not covet. What’s ours is ours, let’s make the best use of it.

Terrorism is used as a weapon of war the world over. Right now as we are sitting at our keyboards: limbs are being cut off as a strategy to cow people into submission, women are being systematically raped, young boys are having guns placed in hands barely able to write their ABCs…this is WAR in the real world - every…single…day.
 
A caliphate is simply a type of state. In and of itself it means a state run by purely by Sharia law which isn’t friendly to Christians and other religions. But the mid East today isn’t friendly to Christians and other religions outside of Islam. However there are secular influences in the region that would be eliminated if a Caliphate was established in Iraq and the Levant. Also Israel would cease to exist.

Also, the second goal of ISIS is to use the Caliphate as a safe haven to attack the US.

Here’s a pretty good analysis by someone in the Obama administration who would know:
cbsnews.com/videos/iranian-partners-u-s-open-to-talks-on-crisis-in-iraq-report-says/

And who controls a large percentage of the world’s oil and what they do with the money they make from it, makes a difference in the world we all live in.
 
seekerz said:
Ah, the much-feared C word. Last time I heard it being repeatedly used there was a ruckus over some mosque being built in NYC. If the people are bent on destruction they’re bent on destruction - caliphate or no caliphate.

The part about oil control is, to me, the salient issue in all this.

They promised to bring terrorism to places that already have experienced terrorism and they will bring more if we enter direct combat with them in their OWN land. It’s theirs and the corporations of the world should learn to not covet. What’s ours is ours, let’s make the best use of it.

Terrorism is used as a weapon of war the world over. Right now as we are sitting at our keyboards: limbs are being cut off as a strategy to cow people into submission, women are being systematically raped, young boys are having guns placed in hands barely able to write their ABCs…this is WAR in the real world - every…single…day.
Click to expand...
Just because people abuse the word (as they do all other words), doesn’t mean that it is not ISIS’s intended goal (they themselves have stated such), so forgive me, but just because you seem to think it isn’t a real threat to global stability, doesn’t me others don’t.
Moreover, what would you have the rest of the world do, i.e., watch while the Middle East goes up in flames before we declare our involvement/intervention, it might very well be too late by then. Terrorist groups are only going to get bolder and stronger if they believe they can continue unabated, we need to put up some resistance to stop the tide of terror.
 
No decision yet: White House says President asked Congressional leaders for their views on Iraq, discussed efforts to urge Iraqis to end “sectarian agendas”
 
Seamus_L said:
Conflicting reports coming in regarding the fighting at the Baiji oil refinery near Baghdad. Everything from it being captured by ISIL to government forces having successfully repelled the attack.
Click to expand...
The BBC claimed (at about 6.30pm) that it had fallen to ISIS.
 
Seamus_L said:
Unbelievable story from the largest English daily in Turkey hurriyetdailynews.com/iraqi-turkmens-warn-kirkuk-may-fall-soon.aspx?pageID=238&nID=67939&NewsCatID=352
Code: 
                                      Sounds like some people are spreading rumors that group is almost super human. 100.000 Peshmerga won't be able to stop them  ? Is this guy for real ?
Click to expand...
Modern day Goliath, huh? Well Iraqis better get busy finding their David.

Otherwise we might establish a tradition where their government feels free to abdicate its responsibility to ALL its citizens because if the tyrannized portion revolts, why there’s always American blood ready and willing to be spilled to secure their fiefdoms. 😦

Personally, I think its a noble thing to serve in the armed forces, safeguarding lives and countries. It is a violation of that sacred trust, to expect that just because a person is drafted, his/her life can be bought for the price of a barrel of oil.

Why? So we can be sure the light always comes on when we flip the switch? Whatever happened to the values of the generation that willingly imposed discomfort on itself to support its military? Oh, I forget, in a consumer economy we can’t afford to allow even war to stop people from constantly using and accumulating stuff!
 
The White House has released a statement describing the president’s meeting with Congressional leaders. Obama reviewed what he sees as options for “increased security assistance” for the country, Reuters reported:

“The president provided an update on the administration’s efforts to respond to the threat from ISIL by urging Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian agendas and to come together with a sense of national unity,” the White House said in a statement after the Oval Office meeting, which lasted more than an hour.

“He also reviewed our efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s security forces to confront the threat from ISIL, including options for increased security assistance,” the White House said, noting Obama sought the views of the leaders and said he would continue to consult Congress.
 
Seamus_L said:
Unbelievable story from the largest English daily in Turkey hurriyetdailynews.com/iraqi-turkmens-warn-kirkuk-may-fall-soon.aspx?pageID=238&nID=67939&NewsCatID=352
Code: 
                                      Sounds like some people are spreading rumors that group is almost super human. 100.000 Peshmerga won't be able to stop them  ? Is this guy for real ?
Click to expand...
Ali Mahdi is the spokesman for the Iraqi Turkmen Front. That group is opposed to Kurdish control of Kirkuk. Here is a news story from yesterday:

Wearing a flak jacket with a pistol on his hip, the president of the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF), Arshad Salihi, announced yesterday the mobilisation of a new Turkmen militia in the city of Kirkuk, saying that if the Kurdish Peshmerga forces “refuse to return Kirkuk [to the Iraqi government] we will fight back”.
…
A Turkmen engineer from Kirkuk who asked to remain anonymous, said: "We don’t trust the Peshmerga because they only look after their own interests. They opened the gates of the army bases and allowed normal people to take what they want. Then they allowed those weapons to be sold on the street.

“This is evidence that they do not care about law and order in Kirkuk. How can we trust them? People are saying that yesterday they looted the army bases, tomorrow they may loot our shops.”
aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/kurdish-turkmen-tension-rise-kirkuk-2014617122142958412.html

I think ethnic tensions in Kirkuk are the reasons behind the Turkish newspaper article.
 
josie_L said:
Just because people abuse the word (as they do all other words), doesn’t mean that it is not ISIS’s intended goal (they themselves have stated such), so forgive me, but just because you seem to think it isn’t a real threat to global stability, doesn’t me others don’t.
Moreover, what would you have the rest of the world do, i.e., watch while the Middle East goes up in flames before we declare our involvement/intervention, it might very well be too late by then. Terrorist groups are only going to get bolder and stronger if they believe they can continue unabated, we need to put up some resistance to stop the tide of terror.
Click to expand...
The sky was falling when Saddam -] had/-] WMDs too. I say, play it by ear. If they show themselves a threat to us, then we deal with it. There are multiple terror groups all over the world and most of them, to my knowledge, keep their terror on their own soil.

Terrorism is such an overused word anyway; for example, if a tyrant like Putin doesn’t like a group, he call it a terror group even while he uses paramilitary forces (in Georgia and seemingly also in Ukraine) which behave in the EXACT way as the people he calls terrorist.

Sometimes I think these puppet-master tyrants just laugh behind their hands like it’s all a great big joke.
 
josie_L said:
Just because people abuse the word (as they do all other words), doesn’t mean that it is not ISIS’s intended goal (they themselves have stated such), so forgive me, but just because you seem to think it isn’t a real threat to global stability, doesn’t me others don’t.
Moreover, what would you have the rest of the world do, i.e., watch while the Middle East goes up in flames before we declare our involvement/intervention, it might very well be too late by then. Terrorist groups are only going to get bolder and stronger if they believe they can continue unabated, we need to put up some resistance to stop the tide of terror.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, Josie, but I don’t see how it can happen, politically. The U.S. had to fight Saddam, and then what really amounted to a “cauldron battle” against Islamic radicals. They kept coming. We kept killing them. Ultimately, it died down and we held the center of the Middle East. Iran blocked on one side and the likes of ISIS blocked on the other, with the support of the Sunni tribal leaders, the Kurds and the tacit support of Sistani.

Our intervention was then abandoned for political reasons; possibly based on ideology, possibly not. Doing so was central to Obama’s 2008 campaign and to his supporters and followers expectations of him and his party. He can only intervene now by making the U.S. a very limited mercenary force for Iran. He isn’t going to do that to any significant extent unless (unlike Libya) he can get congress to take responsibility for it. Congress won’t; some because of ideology, some because of fear of public reaction, and some because they no longer believe we can really exercise power or have allies there anymore.

Probably this whole situation is in the hands of the Awakening Council people and Iran, with ISIS fighters hopefully somewhat controllable by the former. It’s not in our hands anymore. The 2008 election sealed Iraq’s fate, whatever it turns out to be. Everybody in the U.S. should have known that. Elections, as they never tire of saying, have consequences.

One suspects that fate is continued and growing Iranian domination of the Shiite areas, a radical or semi-radical Sunni state in the Sunni areas, an independent but beleagured Kurdish area, Israel with it’s finger on the nuclear trigger, and us wondering which immigrant group is going to set off something horrible in Europe and here.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Maybe so, Josie, but I don’t see how it can happen, politically. The U.S. had to fight Saddam, and then what really amounted to a “cauldron battle” against Islamic radicals. They kept coming. We kept killing them. Ultimately, it died down and we held the center of the Middle East. Iran blocked on one side and the likes of ISIS blocked on the other, with the support of the Sunni tribal leaders, the Kurds and the tacit support of Sistani.
Click to expand...
Why did the US have to fight Saddam? Really interested in knowing…Also, where were the “Islamic radicals” “coming” from?
Our intervention was then abandoned for political reasons; possibly based on ideology, possibly not. Doing so was central to Obama’s 2008 campaign and to his supporters and followers expectations of him and his party. He can only intervene now by making the U.S. a very limited mercenary force for Iran. He isn’t going to do that to any significant extent unless (unlike Libya) he can get congress to take responsibility for it. Congress won’t; some because of ideology, some because of fear of public reaction, and some because they no longer believe we can really exercise power or have allies there anymore.
Click to expand...
I agree with your use of the word “mercenaries”. That is literally what we would be reducing our military too. Also, it just occurred to me that there is a reason the Iraqi military might choose to flee than to fight; it’s not necessarily cowardice - it could be the kind of pragmatism we seem STILL to have not acquired despite a decade of war there. Fighting radicalism is only a military matter as a LAST resort; and it’s a very poor last resort too. Maybe the soldiers who ran away quite rightly realize that only inclusive government and (Iraqi) statesmanship can win the day.
Probably this whole situation is in the hands of the Awakening Council people and Iran, with ISIS fighters hopefully somewhat controllable by the former. It’s not in our hands anymore. The 2008 election sealed Iraq’s fate, whatever it turns out to be.
Click to expand...
Iraq is not America’s stepchild - it is the responsibility of Iraqis to determine their own fate. The 2008 election has nothing to do with it.
One suspects that fate is continued and growing Iranian domination of the Shiite areas, a radical or semi-radical Sunni state in the Sunni areas, an independent but beleagured Kurdish area, Israel with it’s finger on the nuclear trigger, and us wondering which immigrant group is going to set off something horrible in Europe and here.
Click to expand...
The breakup of Iraq was predicted 10 or more years ago by some opponents of BW II. Listening to them might have saved thousands (make that hundreds of thousands) of lives. The proponents of war (who are busy now pushing for more war) claimed that Iraq had no history of sectarian violence and that such fears were unjustified. Apologies - - - - not forthcoming. The mayor of London had a word of advice for Tony Blair when he unapologetically spoke his piece on the current state of affairs in Iraq: he advised Blair to “put a sock in it” and opined that for Blair, this is now “paper bag over the head time”. US experts should listen to the mayor.

As for “something horrible going off in Europe”…are they free of that fear today?
 
gilliam said:
Having 1,000 prisoners of war dig their own graves and then shooting them is no laughing matter. Blowing up a school to discourage girls attending is no laughing matter. Crucifying Christians is no laughing matter.

ISIS is the group that tormented the Christian Syrian city of Raqqa.
Click to expand...
Who’s laughing? The tyrants who use these acts (directly or indirectly) to manipulate public opinion and consolidate power.
 
Petraeus: U.S. Must Not Become the Shia Militia’s Air Force
LONDON, England — David Petraeus, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, has issued a stark warning to those advocating U.S. military intervention against ISIS militias bearing down on Baghdad.

The architect of the successful “surge” strategy that helped to quell the last great outbreak of sectarian violence in Iraq almost a decade ago said there was a great risk that the U.S. would be seen as picking sides in a religious battle that has been waged for generations.

The former head of the CIA and one of the most highly respected generals in modern U.S. warfare said it was only wise to offer military support if the political conditions were exactly right in Iraq, a scenario that is virtually impossible to imagine in the near-future. “This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight,” he said.

Petraeus said the only way the U.S. could intervene without further destabilizing Iraq would be if the Shia-led government in Baghdad was seen as fair and representative throughout Iraq.

“If America is to support then it would be in support of a government against extremists rather than one side of what could be a sectarian civil war,” he said at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty in London. “It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists, who happen to be Sunni Arabs, but extremists that are wreaking havoc on a country."

…

“The surge in Iraq, the surge that mattered most was not the surge in forces it was the surge of ideas that changed our strategy,” he said. “You cannot have 18 to 20 percent of the population feeling disenfranchised; feeling that it has no stake in the success of the country, in fact it has a stake in the failure of Iraq. Of course we reached out to the Sunni Arabs.”

He said there was a chance in the post-surge environment for Iraq to avoid this kind of bitter sectarian warfare but it was allowed to slip away. “[Iraq] really had an enormous opportunity back in 2011, it has made progress in certain areas but has not capitalized on that opportunity in the way that we had all hoped that they would,” he said.

The United States helped to set up a series of initiatives designed to co-opt the Sunni community, but many of them were allowed to wither under Maliki. “Unfortunately those agreements have been undermined by sectarian actions, going after Sunni Arab political figures and so forth, and the failure to continue to pay salaries to certain individuals and the quite harsh treatment of demonstrators in the wake of some of the actions that led to protest so there has to be a huge idea here.

…

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/petraeus-u-s-must-not-become-the-shia-militia-s-air-force.html

He is like the 3rd or 4th prominent person who I have heard say something similar. I wonder if Obama is tying to build some kind of Sunni coalition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top