Post: #26

Quote:ah, i don't know. The events of the iranian revolution and iran/iraq war also fall in line with that prediction and the world didn't collapse

If this doesn't lead to WW3 I will stand corrected.

It seems odd they'd only send 250 soldiers to Iraq. Just enough to get slaughtered and cause an outrage?

There are huge agendas that are nearing their tipping point right now, with giant grassroots counter-agendas everywhere gaining steam.

For the elites it's go-time for the big one. What are their other options? Massive free speech crackdowns? They can't win that. They need to deflect or they will lose.

Post: #27

Post: #28

Post: #29

The US fucked up so much in Iraq. I remember at the time of the invasion, more than ten years ago, everyone and their mother was telling the Americans not to do it and that exactly what's happening now would happen. Now look what's happening.

I think the US should abstain from intervening in other countries in the first place but in this case I don't know what the best course of action would be honestly. McCain is an old crazy gung ho fool and whatever he says, doing the opposite is usually the best approach but now I don't know if the US really shouldn't send more troops. I understand the US is obviously not interested in doing that and in reality you can't stay there forever and it has been quite a long time for the Iraquis to sort things out themselves but the fact is that this is the Americans doing and responsibility, you can't fuck up a country like this and then just say, oh well now, you're on your own, have fun.

Just one think though, I have to read more about this to understand what's going on, but maybe someone who knows more about it than me could explain, so Sunnis and Shiites are mortal enemies, Saddam was a Sunni who fought Al-Quaida who are backed by the Saudis who are Shiites, and this ISIS group is of Sunni origin, but they're an offshoot of Al-Quaida who are Shiites? I Don't get it.

On a different note, Bush and all his ilk should be facing trial for crimes against humanity.

Post: #30

(06-17-2014 10:24 PM)Ingocnito Wrote:  My bro in law is Lebanese and travels around the middle east frequently. His take - as a right-wing supporter mind you - is that the the U.S. has been pupeteering Iran and Iraq since the late 70's.. and there were WMDs containing materials with US AND Russian markings in Iraq that would have been discovered had the UN officials been allowed to get in to investigate right away.. thus the month or so delay and UN officials find nothing.

He also said most people in the middle east in the know would support that statement, AND that in fact, Al Quida's strength was in Iraq and not so much Afghanistan or Pakistan. << Not sure if I believe all that, but just his perspective.

Bullshit. Not you, your brother in law.

Post: #31

I was wondering when this thread would get created


can you guys believe ISIS was too radical for Al Qaeda's taste?

Al Qaeda never had strength in Iraq due to Saddam. People also had much more freedom including women. These guys (ISIS) are executing people over music ETC. Dudes are insane!

Post: #32

Iran isnt going to allow an extremist sunni group to take power next door. the iraqi govt cant seem to fight, so it will have to be the iranian army puttig down the sunnis. End result of our decade long involvement will be an iranian puppet state in iraq.

Post: #33

(06-18-2014 12:12 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 10:24 PM)Ingocnito Wrote:  My bro in law is Lebanese and travels around the middle east frequently. His take - as a right-wing supporter mind you - is that the the U.S. has been pupeteering Iran and Iraq since the late 70's.. and there were WMDs containing materials with US AND Russian markings in Iraq that would have been discovered had the UN officials been allowed to get in to investigate right away.. thus the month or so delay and UN officials find nothing.

He also said most people in the middle east in the know would support that statement, AND that in fact, Al Quida's strength was in Iraq and not so much Afghanistan or Pakistan. << Not sure if I believe all that, but just his perspective.

Bullshit. Not you, your brother in law.

Lol like you said, you need to read more books.

What Iraqis told me from their own mouths shocked me at first.

An interpreter told me in 2009 that he predicted a civil war shortly after a withdrawal. This goes deep

Post: #34

The ironic thing is that outright colonialism (the kind the liberals were screeching about) might have benefited Iraq much more than the clusterfuck right now. Forget about Hussein for a minute and just consider what a proper colonial system would have done through setting up schools, infrastructure, and a regime that would enforce the law. Colonial "administrators" could be appointed to make sure the dirt farmers would play by the rules until the country resembled something civilized. Then once enough oil has been processed to fulfill their debt obligations and the people are suitably educated with a secular institution Iraq could eventually be handed over to the people.

Post: #35

(06-18-2014 12:18 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  I was wondering when this thread would get created


can you guys believe ISIS was too radical for Al Qaeda's taste?

Al Qaeda never had strength in Iraq due to Saddam. People also had much more freedom including women. These guys (ISIS) are executing people over music ETC. Dudes are insane!

I don't have proof, but I think the separation had more to do with goals than level of brutality between AQI and ISIL. There was always an element of Syrian and Iraqi Al Qaeda members that wanted unified Sunni state. The military knew before it became a trend to report in the news that Syrian were one of the major reinforcements of the insurgency before the Syrian civil war.

Al Qaeda are Waha'abists. They follow a strict and brutal translation of the Qur'an which opposes music in entirety, women in public alone and being uncovered, divorce, modern medicines such as analgesics during birth, any drug use, movies, and so on.

ISIL simply can't be 'too extreme' when the Taliban and AL Qaeda already act as extreme as physically possible.


My prediction is that they'll take Baghdad. Iraq may send out a final request of a wild card nature, but a civil war is almost certain at this point without stronger interventions and national alliances happening.

Post: #36

(06-18-2014 12:47 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 12:18 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  I was wondering when this thread would get created


can you guys believe ISIS was too radical for Al Qaeda's taste?

Al Qaeda never had strength in Iraq due to Saddam. People also had much more freedom including women. These guys (ISIS) are executing people over music ETC. Dudes are insane!

I don't have proof, but I think the separation had more to do with goals than level of brutality between AQI and ISIL. There was always an element of Syrian and Iraqi Al Qaeda members that wanted unified Sunni state. The military knew before it became a trend to report in the news that Syrian were one of the major reinforcements of the insurgency before the Syrian civil war.

Al Qaeda are Waha'abists. They follow a strict and brutal translation of the Qur'an which opposes music in entirety, women in public alone and being uncovered, divorce, modern medicines such as analgesics during birth, any drug use, movies, and so on.

ISIL simply can't be 'too extreme' when the Taliban and AL Qaeda already act as extreme as physically possible.


My prediction is that they'll take Baghdad. Iraq may send out a final request of a wild card nature, but a civil war is almost certain at this point without stronger interventions and national alliances happening.

Al Queda has stated that ISIS is too extreme. ISIS's leader whom America had fucking captured in 09, had an outing with Al Queda when tey were apparently told to "tone it down." Most of ISIS is made up of Jordanians. Although, many former generals from Iraq during Saddam's side have joined. Anyone know what military strategy they are using? They are out numbered and are straight up destroying Iraq's forces. I'm going to guess they are using Blitzkrieg?

Post: #37

Yea it makes sense that Jordanians would be present. Look at the entire recruitment pool for jihadis.

That's a good assertion McCoy, but I presented my angle as opinion because I don't have a lot of support for it and I don't believe the medias take when it comes to unfolding Mideast conflicts. So, I was saying it to pretty much say it.

Tactically I wouldn't know, but I would bet that they are better armed and have more powerful ordnance available to them. Most Iraqi Army are actually in the poor shape that pop media paints it as.

Post: #38

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney knew this would happen but was one of the main architects of the case for invasion in 2003.

Post: #39

It's funny when you go countries like Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and the local regular joes keep telling you :

"What is Al-Queda?"
" What is a Taliban?"

Post: #40

Gary Brecher, a.k.a., The War Nerd, wrote the best article on ISIS I have read so far:

Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S. (June 16, 2014)

An excerpt:

Quote:As the Scriptures remind us, “Do not believe the hype.” The hype of the moment is ISIS, the Sunni militia that just drove the so-called Iraqi Army out of Mosul, Tikrit, and other Iraqi cities.

This is one of those dramatic military reverses that mean a lot less than meets the eye. The “Iraqi Army” routed by ISIS wasn’t really a national army, and ISIS isn’t really a dominant military force. It was able to occupy those cities because they were vacuums, abandoned by a weak, sectarian force. Moving into vacuums like this is what ISIS is good at. And that’s the only thing ISIS is good at.

ISIS is a sectarian Sunni militia—that’s all. A big one, as militias go, with something like 10,000 fighters. Most of them are Iraqi, a few are Syrian, and a few hundred are those famous “European jihadis” who draw press attention out of all relation to their negligible combat value. The real strength of ISIS comes from its Chechen fighters, up to a thousand of them. A thousand Chechens is a serious force, and a terrifying one if they’re bearing down on your neighborhood. Chechens are the scariest fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.

But we’re still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That’s a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala.

Post: #41

(06-18-2014 02:39 AM)Icarus Wrote:  Gary Brecher, a.k.a., The War Nerd, wrote the best article on ISIS I have read so far:

Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S. (June 16, 2014)

An excerpt:

Quote:As the Scriptures remind us, “Do not believe the hype.” The hype of the moment is ISIS, the Sunni militia that just drove the so-called Iraqi Army out of Mosul, Tikrit, and other Iraqi cities.

This is one of those dramatic military reverses that mean a lot less than meets the eye. The “Iraqi Army” routed by ISIS wasn’t really a national army, and ISIS isn’t really a dominant military force. It was able to occupy those cities because they were vacuums, abandoned by a weak, sectarian force. Moving into vacuums like this is what ISIS is good at. And that’s the only thing ISIS is good at.

ISIS is a sectarian Sunni militia—that’s all. A big one, as militias go, with something like 10,000 fighters. Most of them are Iraqi, a few are Syrian, and a few hundred are those famous “European jihadis” who draw press attention out of all relation to their negligible combat value. The real strength of ISIS comes from its Chechen fighters, up to a thousand of them. A thousand Chechens is a serious force, and a terrifying one if they’re bearing down on your neighborhood. Chechens are the scariest fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.

But we’re still talking about a conventional military force smaller than a division. That’s a real but very limited amount of combat power. What this means is that, no matter how many scare headlines you read, ISIS will never take Baghdad, let alone Shia cities to the south like Karbala.

Thats what I was wondering...how does a force of 10,000 take and hold multiple cities? The more ground they gain the more thinly they are spread

Post: #42

They can just spread terror and destabilize. Still that's nothing to sneeze at. Just watch that drive by video. That utter disregard for human life child's you to the bone.

Post: #43

Any type of successful insurgency depends on lots of local people secretly rooting for the "away" team. That's one of the fundamental rules of guerilla warfare that the U.S. policy makers still haven't figured out or refuse to come to terms with.

Post: #44

(06-17-2014 08:11 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Shit that is literally hell on earth. R.I.P


They say that hundreds of these foreign fighters will be returning back to Britain soon.

Post: #45

Whatever Obama decides on the matter (or anyone else in Washington) it's probably going to be something brilliant, long-term, in the best interest of Iraqi people.

Post: #46

Not just ISIS. There are also the indigenous Sunni / Ba'athist tribal guys fighting. The same ones the Americans were fighting 2003 - 2011. Maybe even some of the Sahwa who fought alongside Americans in 2007-08.

They are fed up with being shut out of power.

Post: #47

(06-18-2014 05:46 AM)Orion Wrote:  in the best interest of Iraqi people.

The whole problem is that there is no Iraqi people. Iraq is a country with 3 nations: Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds. I suspect that partition is the only solution. Unfortunately, the oil fields are either in the Kurdish north, or the Shia south.

Post: #48

Looks like the Kurds are putting up a good fight.

Link to sky news video -

http://news.sky.com/story/1284446/kurds-...-militants

Post: #49

(06-18-2014 06:02 AM)Icarus Wrote:  The whole problem is that there is no Iraqi people.=

Yes, there is Iraqi people and they are called Arabs. Kurds are minority, Shia and Sunni are denominations of one same religion.

So, yes, when i said "in the best interest of Iraqi people" i mean "best interest of America", and by that i mean divided Arab population in Iraq, just as they did in Syria (tho in Syria there are many Sunni supporting Assad)

Post: #50

(06-18-2014 06:58 AM)Orion Wrote:  So, yes, when i said "in the best interest of Iraqi people" i mean "best interest of America", and by that i mean divided Arab population in Iraq, just as they did in Syria

Honest question: why is it in the best interest of the U.S. to keep Arabs divided in Iraq and Syria? It's only benefiting Iran.

One hypothesis is that as long as Iraq and Syria are engaged in civil wars, a gas pipeline from Iran to Syria through Iraq will not be built. This means that Iran cannot easily export its natural gas. Let us recall that Iran is the world's 3rd largest natural gas producer.

Assuming that this hypothesis is correct, it is possible that the annexation of Crimea has changed the U.S. interests in the region. If Iraq and Syria are stabilized and the gas pipeline is built, then Europe's natural gas markets could be supplied with Iranian gas, which would reduce Russia's power and influence, and weaken the Russian economy, of course.

Russia can always build a gas pipeline in the Caspian Sea and import Iranian gas at a low price, then export it to Europe at a higher price. Iran would become a Russian puppet and the U.S. sanctions on Iran would become a farce. Does that benefit the U.S.? I don't think so. This Russia-Iran alliance is natural and was proposed by Aleksandr Dugin back in the 1990s.